You likely heard that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down 3 of 4 provisions of the law passed in Arizona in 2010 that addresses illegal immigration. I heard the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, and other Arizona officials proclaiming victory, but I think it is a hollow victory. Yes, the Court will allow police in Arizona to inquire about a person's immigration status when they are stopped for another reason, but that is it. If police find an illegal alien, they cannot arrest or detain the person unless they have a warrant. So, the person just has to be let go unless they have committeed another crime.

How this is a "victory" for Arizona, I don't know. A law with no teeth -- what good is that? Yet, the Obama Administration and ACLU, while pleased that the other 3 provisions were struck down, is unhappy that police are allowed to even ask people about their immigration status and plan additional legal challenges until even that minor provision is also disallowed.

They can call it what they want, but anyone who is pushing for "comprehensive immigration reform" is seeking amnesty for every person in U.S. who has not been convicted of a major felony. Millions of people who have broken the law by entering the U.S. illegally will be rewarded with what they want: Full U.S. citizenship, voting rights, access to all governmental services, free to pursue lawsuits against anyone they feel has slighted them . . . rewarded, for breaking our laws. And, as with every prior amnesty (including the one sponsored by the Reagan Administration), instead of offering a solution to the problem it simply encourages more and more people to enter illegally and kick and scream until they also get rewarded.

The Hispanic community largely ignores the illegality, as it furthers a cause they favor: Increasing their percentage of the American voting population and thus their political clout. Right now, neither major political party dares oppse illegal immigration, for fear of losing the Hispanic vote. It isn't hard to imagine that adding another 10-20 potential Hispanic voters will increase that clout even further.

There are so many ways (we have chronicled here) that U.S. is losing its ability to remain a cohesive and soverign entity: The massive national debt, the dismal public education system, the break-up of families and resulting under-parenting of our children, the rampant drug abuse and criminal activity, the promotion of divisions between various demographic groups. Add to that the inability to enforce our laws and defend our borders against intruders. I ask you, is there any hope for America?

I usually don't decide my voting based upon one issue. I was seriously considering sitting out this Presidential election, because I am not enthused about either candidate. But the actions of this President have made my mind up for me. I will vote Romney, not because he is likely to do anything that great for our country (and may well do harm -- but don't they all?), but because it is the only way that I can resist in even a miniscule way this further tearing down of my country. I fully expect Obama to win, but I refuse to vote for anyone who so clearly wants to further divide and destabilize my country. Our American government is treasonous!

Bob, I'm afraid immigration is a lost cause, because in reality neither party wants to stop it- for completely different reasons. Democrats want the immigrant's votes, and Republicans want to keep their chief donors- businessmen- happy with cheap labor. So Republican's are two-faced- talking about immigration control to please their conservative voters while filling their pockets with big-business contributions for not really doing anything about it.

Yes, big campaign contributions are needed to succeed in elections for major office, but what it comes down to is the vote. Whites remain close to 70% of the U.S. population, but it is a very divided group of voters. Meanwhile, the Hispanic vote can be largely wooed to the Democrats, because they are the party that has been most in favor of what is really amnesty for illegal aliens. And, blacks can be counted on to vote heavily for Obama because: 1) He is half-black, and 2) Anything that upsets "whitey" or damages whities' position in society is something a great many blacks favor. The day cannot come fast enough for the preponderance of the black American voting public when the white population becomes the minority . . so let all those non-white illegals come.

If whites could come together as one to vote for strict enforcement of our immigration laws, you would see the major politicians of both parties do an about-turn in their positions so fast it would make our heads swim. 70% of the vote is a landslide by any estimation, and the pols want more than anything to stay in office and ride that gravy train. But, of course, whites do not all think the same way or vote the same. We are divided up probably more than any other voting block (after all, we aren't a minority yet, we don't have the sensitivities yet toward being slighted or discriminated against, and white females can be as quick as any deomgraphic in wanting to see white males blamed and decimated). Whites could have their way if we stayed together like other groups do . . but we don't . . won't . . . and as whites continue to dwindle in numbers and the other groups grow in numbers and power, we will end up at the bottom of the heap. When that happens, just TRY to convince non-whites to practice "fairness and equality". They will laugh in our faces: "You had your time on top. Now, enjoy being trampled under our feet."

One comment I once heard is so true: "If you want to know the dangers of uncontrolled immigration, ask a Native american." They were too slow to resist the European invasion, and they lost their land. The same will happen to us in this 21st century.

Well I'm so disillusion with politics in general. I think the time politicians cared about the people is long gone- now they only care about those with deep pocket who finance their campaigns so they can stay in office and keep the gravy train rolling. In return those donors get the laws and regulations they want so they get even richer. The donor win, the politician win, the average joe citizen loses. That's the way it works these days.

Just one example- the banking collapse happen because the banking lobby got the regulations that were passed in the 1930s to prevent such a thing repealed. Then they had to get taxpayers money to bail themselves out of the mess they made. Not one person responsible ever went to prison. Not one regulation was changed to prevent it from happening again. Now they are back at the same thing- making millions with the blessings of congressman who get huge donations for bailing them out and looking the other way. We need term limits so bad- but will we ever get them? Not a chance when the crooks make the rules.

I could go on and on but it's bad for my blood pressure even thinking about it.

It seems like it doesn't matter what the voters want or what their constituents want. True, money enters into it when election time rolls around, to be sure. But when it comes time for the congressmen to vote, few dare to vote other then the way they're told to by "the party." That isn't the way it should be but you know it is. The Speaker of the House sometimes seems like the most powerful man in the country, if only in a negative way.

Well you do know that the Speaker of the House is John Boehner, a conservative Republican.
I would say the "Tea Party" members have been telling him what to do.
Everytime he has worked out some compromise with the Democrats they shoot it down.

Both parties do this, Nat. I agree with Blue that there is too much party coercion to vote a certain way by both Democrats and Re4publicans. I think that is part of what people mean when they say there are very few "statesmen" today. Instead of representing what their respective constituencies want, most pols kowtow to their party line. And, yes, groups like "the Tea Party" and abortion opponents and religious organizations apply pressure to pols to advance their agendas. So too do groups such as "Move On" and "Occupy" and ACLU apply their pressure. To only look at one side of this is to deny a big part of the total picture.

I think what looks like compromise is really still traditiionally liberal positions. It is just that some Republicans gave up the centrist-right position years ago to try to stake out a clear difference from Democrats. For example, what is "centrist" about universal health coverage that forces every citizen to participate or face fines? We used to call that "socialized medicine", and a large majority of Americans opposed that. Now, any person that wants to deny anyone govt-sponsored health coverage is deemed a bigot or other shade of hater. Same with illegal immigration: What is centrist about seeking amnesty for millions of people who entered US illegally? Media likes to describe this issue as split down the middle with American voters, but that all depends upon how the question is phrased. I don't think most Americans want to give amnesty and essentially make our borders meaningless -- that is a very liberal position. The problem is that Republicans went so far right that they allowed Dems to first occupy the political middle and then drag their liberal views to the fore and present them as moderate/centrist.

There are other damaging things the Republicans did, I admit that, but I think to look at these alleged compromises as moderate positions is to ignore recent history. I don't believe Americans have really changed so much that they abandon the ideals of individualism, personal initiative and responsibility, standing on your own two feet, making your own way, adherence to customs, traditions and civility.

Remember: Speaking of immigrants, there are still people who come to this country on small boats, are penniless, don't speak English, and certainly do not look like WASP Americans, but within 5 years they own their own businesses and their families are prospering here . . even in these difficult times. Meanwhile, a lot of native-born Americans can only see obstacles to their success. Our "need" for govt assistance/coverage is an illusion of our own making. If foreigners can prosper here with all the disadvantages that we don't have to face, then we should be able to succeed on our own without govt. propping us up. We just have to make better decisions -- take advantage of free education/libraries, develop our personal work ethic, stay away from intoxicating substances, avoid having babies too young, learn how to dress for success and how to sell yourself to others. These are the things Americans always did that brought them success. But today, too many Americans are lazy, make bad decisions and have lousy attitudes, and then expect the rest of us to bail them out (wow, I sound like my accountant friend!)

Well I'm just going by what I read in the news Bob. Politics is the art of compromise. You will never get everybody to agree so you have to be willing to give some to get anything done. There were many reports that several times Boehner and the Republican leadership had worked out deals with Obama and the Democrats concerning the budget- ie- the Democrats agreed to cuts spending for their social programs in exchange for increased taxes on the rich. But the Tea-party group said "Hell NO!- No taxes period!- My way or No way!" and so thats where things have been stalled ever since. Congress has accomplished practically nothing the past two years. This is no way to run a government or get anything done

One, while there are lots of pressures on congressmen and senators, which is also true at the state level, the pressure that causes them to act a certain way on a particular issue may not be as obvious as it seems. Naturally this is true of all elected office holders as well as those who are appointed, too. I would imagine this occurs in all forms of government.

The second thing is about taxes and spending. There have been periods in the past when government spending was especially high, such as during WWII. However, taxes were also very high, especially for high income earners. That didn't change until Eisenhower was elected in the early 1950s. But at the same time, savings were probably higher. When was the last time you heard an advertisement for savings bonds?

Be that as it may be, however, it is a mystery why spending is not reduced. It might be that the whole theory of reduce taxes and it follows that spending will be reduced to match is false. Reagan called that "starving the beast." The beast, of which he was president, thrived. The largest single part of the budget is military spending. Could it be that there are too many vested interests that help pay for congressional reelection campaigns? Maybe we need a special war tax.

Well speaking of wars- as you say in the past when we were in a war taxes were high to pay for it- but what did Bush do? He started two wars- and CUT taxes at the same time! And now we wonder why there is such a huge deficit?

The big mistake Obama made was ever wanting to be president in 2008- I said at the time- anyone who want to be president now is a fool! - It's like wanting to be Captain of the Titanic after it had hit the ice berg and was sinking. A mission doomed to failure.