Patterico's Pontifications


Breaking: Arizona Immigration Law Upheld by Supreme Court

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 8:20 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

But it’s important to not that it is not THE immigration law we are all talking about.  I haven’t read the whole opinion, but even the Ninth Circuit found in Arizona’s favor.  You can read the decision, here.

I am going to circle back and read the decision and give analysis a little later, after I put up two other posts I planned to put up.  I will note that I did read enough to get the feeling that this was not a very difficult case.  The law in question punished businesses in their licenses if they knowingly hired illegal aliens.  The United States Chamber of Commerce (?!) argued that the law was preempted by federal law.  As you might know, states can often legislate in areas that the Federal Government can legislate in, but sometimes federal law pre-empts—that is, invalidates—state law because of the pre-eminence of federal power in a given area.  Immigration is considered to be one of those areas where federal power is strong.

But, well, here’s one of the opening paragraphs from Roberts’ opinion:

Federal immigration law expressly preempts “any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ . . . unauthorized aliens.”  8 U. S. C.  §1324a(h)(2).   A recently enacted Arizona statute—the Legal Arizona Workers Act—provides that the licenses of  state employers that knowingly or  intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be, suspended or revoked.  The law also requires that  all Arizona employers use a federal electronic verification system to confirm that the workers they  employ are legally authorized workers.  The question presented is whether federal immigration law preempts those provisions of Arizona law.  Because we conclude that the State’s licensing provisions fall squarely within the  federal statute’s savings clause and that the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict  with federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not preempted.

In other words, the statute actually seems pretty clearly designed not to contradict what they did.  And it suggests that they believe that unless there is express or implied statutory pre-emption, a state is free to pass these kinds of laws.  That could be an important signal going down the road when we talk about THE immigration law that was so controversial in Arizona right now.

But of course the best evidence that this case was a no-brainer is simply this: the Ninth Circuit upheld the Arizona statute.

Anyway, I will read the case and add to my analysis as appropriate.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

65 Responses to “Breaking: Arizona Immigration Law Upheld by Supreme Court”

  1. United States Chamber of Commerce (?!)

    Although it sounds like an official government thing, it’s essentially a lobbying group for businesses.

    Kman (5576bf)

  2. “…from Robets’ opinion”


    SPQR (26be8b)

  3. de nada. Delete my comment.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  4. ian

    thanks. its in a new post.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  5. Actually, of the two ‘controversial’ Arizona immigration laws, this one seems to me to be the more important. Certainly helping to dry up the use of illegal labor on the part of contractors and the like is a big part of the equation.

    That is not to say the SB1070 is not important — it is because there are no so many illegals in the SW that they have essentially created their own ‘informal’ economy of unlicensed businesses who employ the cousins from back home. Drying that up will require steady deportation efforts which will be helped by SB1070.

    And Aaron, I know you hate this, but Beyer and Ginsburg (and of course Sotomayor, Kagan sat out) were on the Obama regime’s side on this. Not to mention that an Neal Kaytal — an Asian Indian American — argued the case against Arizona.

    Multi-ethnic societies are not pretty, especially for shrinking, formerly ‘privileged’ dominant groups. Just look at ex-Yugoslavia.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  6. Stari – thank you for the StormFront position. And, the joooooooooooooos.

    JD (f07c66)

  7. I think people should be able to hire whoever the hell they want. It’s not business people’s problem that America is too weak cowardly and feckless to defend their own borders.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  8. “I think people should be able to hire whoever the hell they want. ”

    Libertarian idiocy. Maybe if we were back in plantation days, or feudal times, or the era of Latin American latifundia’s. At least those business owners paid for the feeding, clothing, shelter, and education costs of their workers and workers’ families (minimal expenditures, I’ll admit). Since they receive EBT foodstamps, section 8 housing, ‘free’ school lunches and the like, I’m paying for your lawn help.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  9. that’s the point Mr. momak it’s silly that your average business person has to be more mindful of the impact of their actions on the immigrationings than your average US union whore bureaucrat or congressmonkey or local official or even the feckless douche in the white house

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  10. This law always seemed to me a bit like going after bank robbers by prosecuting businesses that bank robbers spend their money in.

    That said if you don’t go after the illegals who use fake ID and false documents how can you blame the people who are taken in by them.

    Here in CT I had one person give me a photocopy of a Social Security card when I was filling out the I-9 form. I told her I needed the original form. The next day she came back with an original SS card. With a different number and name. She expected me to take it and just fill out the paperwork with the new info.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  11. I do have sympathy for businesses who find themselves between a rock and a hard place, wanting to hire legal workers and thus rejecting obviously fake docs, but then opening themselves up to the wrath of the the ‘National Council of La Raza’ or the ACLU for — I kid you not — ‘document discrimination’.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  12. All AZ is doing is ensuring that businesses it licenses comply with the employment provisions of Simpson-Mazolli passed by the Congress, and signed by the President, in 1986 –
    Provisions that the Congress has refused to fund the enforcement of by the relevant Federal Agencies!

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  13. happy, I really have no problem with private sector unions. In the 1970s and 80s, and into the early 90s, the construction sector in SoCal was largely unionized, and mostly anglo. The guys did make good money, and it provided a good living for a dude who wasn’t maybe to book smart, but was good with his hands.

    Then came the results of the 1986 amnesty, collapse in construction wages, de-unionization, and total ethnic (or not even ethnic, but national, as there were plenty of real Mexican-Americans in construction before) transformation of workforce. Thing is, it is not even like the labor wage savings the developers got were passed on to consumers, as mass immigration just increased housing demand and thus prices.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  14. private sector unions are zip skippy in right-to-work states I think

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  15. CA not being a RTW state finds that the only widespread unionization is within the Public Sector. The traditional union, industrialized jobs (with the exception of port and highway-construction) seem to have gone away as aerospace and automotive abandoned CA – you know, we used to have assembly plants for GM (3), Ford (2), and Chrysler (1). They’re all gone, along with USRubber, Goodyear, Firestone, etc, plus the steel companies.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  16. I do admit — fully and totally — that my perceptions of illegal immigration and opinion on its impact on this society, are influenced (more than anything else) by things like the following…, October 2008, Heather Mac Donald:

    The Latino Education Crisis: The Consequences of Failed Social Policies, by Patricia Gandara and Frances Contreras, offers an unflinching portrait of Hispanics’ educational problems and reaches a scary conclusion about those problems’ costs. The book’s analysis is all the more surprising given that its authors are liberals committed to bilingual education, affirmative action, and the usual slate of left-wing social programs.

    Hispanics are underachieving academically at an alarming rate, the authors report. Though second- and third-generation Hispanics make some progress over their first-generation parents, that progress starts from an extremely low base and stalls out at high school completion. High school drop-out rates—around 50 percent—remain steady across generations. Latinos’ grades and test scores are at the bottom of the bell curve. The very low share of college degrees earned by Latinos has not changed for more than two decades. Currently only one in ten Latinos has a college degree.

    One hundred years ago, when the U.S. still required a large industrial and agricultural labor force, Hispanics’ lagging educational performance would not have been such a problem. Our current information-based economy is unforgiving to the less-educated, however.

    When you couple U.S. demographics with the Hispanic education crisis, things look worrisome indeed. By 2025, one in four students nationally will be Latino; in many Southwest cities, Latinos are already about 70 percent of the school population. For the first time in history, the authors observe, the ethnic group with the lowest academic achievement will become the majority in significant parts of the country.

    Some readers may disagree with the book’s policy recommendations — more benefits for illegal immigrants, more spending on social services and schools, more Section-8 housing vouchers, more bilingual education. Such programs have all been tried and have failed miserably. A more common-sensical solution is required.

    ^ Not helping matters, is that a high percentage of Latino America does vote in a way similar to what’s evident in a nation like Mexico: Elections in which politicians and policies of the left are consistently and routinely favored.

    Mark (411533)

  17. “Provisions that the Congress has refused to fund the enforcement of by the relevant Federal Agencies!”

    And thus that is federal policy.

    jvc (57dea8)

  18. Jvc is kind of a nozzle.

    JD (b98cae)

  19. And thus that is federal policy.

    Comment by jvc

    Hmm, so the policy is the opposite of the laws on the books, and legislators refuse to change those laws.

    Sounds pretty damn undemocratic and even hopelessly impossible to decipher honestly.

    I think whatever the law on the books is is the real federal policy, and those who refuse to abide by that law are acting contrary to the law.

    Why isn’t this obvious?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  20. Ah, stari. You’re deep within your bailiwick now, aren’t you?

    Icy Texan (3f01f5)

  21. “Sounds pretty damn undemocratic and even hopelessly impossible to decipher honestly.”

    It doesn’t look like it is that hard to decipher. Not all laws on the books are enforced all the time. Policy is not just passing a law. It also is enforcing that law.

    jvc (2afffb)

  22. It doesn’t look like it is that hard to decipher. Not all laws on the books are enforced all the time. Policy is not just passing a law. It also is enforcing that law.

    Comment by jvc —


    How do you decipher whether someone is abiding by the law, if they can just say ‘my not abiding by the law is the special secret law!’?

    Seems kinda stupid. Sure… you can claim that’s the way it is, but it’s impossible to decipher. It’s completely arbitrary. It’s not really a legal system anymore.

    I’m not making a very complicated point. If legislators want to change the law, they should have the balls to do so publicly and face the consequences in the next election.

    Who does this government serve, anyway?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  23. Big difference between this and normal discretion, which is an everyday aspect of administration.

    And anyone who claims they are the same thing is not being very honest.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  24. I think people should be able to hire whoever the hell they want. It’s not business people’s problem that America is too weak cowardly and feckless to defend their own borders.

    I agree. I want to go back to the days when nobody within America needed papers, when one could hire anyone with no or minimal paperwork, and when law enforcement was the business of those hired to do it, not of the general public. The Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional for the federal gov’t to commandeer the services of state and local officials to enforce federal law; the same principle should apply to individuals, especially since we might not all agree with the law.

    In any event, the illegal immigrant who finds a job and works hard to support his family is precisely the kind of immigrant who should have been allowed in legally; he’s being productive and contributing to our economy and we should welcome him. It’s the other kind, the one who doesn’t work, and lives off the earnings of others, or off criminal activity, whom we need to deport. So this sort of measure is counterproductive.

    That said, I don’t see how it could be unconstitutional, and the Court was obviously right in upholding it.

    Milhouse (4ca83a)

  25. “Big difference between this and normal discretion, which is an everyday aspect of administration.”

    As identified above, here it comes from Congress. That is a big difference.

    jvc (84ca1e)

  26. This is what, like the 89651235th name you have commented under?

    JD (d48c3b)

  27. Should Israel have open borders?

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  28. Israel should not have open borders cause of there would be too much mischief.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  29. Maybe staring and epwj could go count some joooooooooooos together. Actual Joooooooooos. Not the kind that stari just thinks are hoop pools. Epwj can teach him how to properly count those jooooooooos.

    JD (318f81)

  30. Did you see about the bunnies Mr. Milhouse?

    America punishes the industrious anymore.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  31. “The Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional for the federal gov’t to commandeer the services of state and local officials to enforce federal law; the same principle should apply to individuals, especially since we might not all agree with the law.”

    They have? The Feds mandate that emergency medical services must be provided to anyone (including illegal aliens), but don’t fund the costs. Sounds like commandeering services to me.

    And I’d love to be able to follow only the laws I agree with — but it doesn’t work that way.

    Finally, most illegal aliens, no matter how ‘hard working’ don’t pay the freight for their households. CIS just did a study on the amount of direct benefits they receive,

    One highlight, Mexican immigrant headed households with children have an 77% welfare use rate, versus 7% for UK immigrant headed households.

    When you add in the costs of ‘educating’ their children, the loss to taxpayers becomes enormous.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  32. jvc advocates The Rule of Men, in contrast to The Rule of Law.

    Scratch a Leftist, and find a despot.

    Memo to jvc:
    The Constitution of the United States of America provides for a Republic.

    If you don’t like the Constitution, change it.
    Or, like your extreme Leftist compadres, you can try to change it by force; then, we get to shoot back!

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)


    The American people finally have their interests recognized, by the Supreme Court of the land, asserting that Arizona’s federal mandatory E-Verify was upheld. Today it’s a major victory for the American workers and a killing stroke to the US Chamber of Commerce and an attempt by the Department of Justice to protect illegal aliens in the workplace. This will strengthen ATTRITION BY ENFORCEMENT in every business and control penalties with businesses that don’t comply. It gives all states the right to implement and mandate the E-Verify program and open the door to hefty fines, loss of business licenses, assets and the risk of prison.

    Other states will now follow the example of Arizona and those who don’t, will be in the forefront of mass evacuations from these hard policing states to states as the Sanctuary State of California, Nevada and Utah. In a 5-3 victory the justices, repudiated the pro-illegal politicians, Governors, Mayors and lower ranks of leftist and Rino Republicans.


    Nothing will do more, including the fence, to reverse future illegal immigration occupation and accelerate the departure of the current 20 million illegal populations than taking away the job magnet. This is a significant win as other States following Arizona’s lead, could have been crushed if the verdict had gone the alternative route. The American workers now have the impetus, to push the Congress and with the help of the monolithic Tea Party to mandate E-Verify nationwide. This will mean the propagation of E-Verify, with audits on all manner of business, including contractors and sub-contractors in every occupation. American labor must unite to uncover unscrupulous companies from large to small, who are using discount services. More and more patriotic Citizens and residents are joining other “Whistle Blowers” in contacting ICE and local police, of illegal aliens working in construction, manufacturing and thousands of other industries.

    Another issue that many states see as a major peril to our sovereignty rights is illegal aliens using the absentee ballot system to vote in elections. New York, Colorado, New Jersey, Texas are being investigated by state Attorney General commissions. Acorn is still a major player and although dissolved on paper, is still involved in the registration racket. There are occurrences in California and Nevada of manipulation of voter rolls.

    Can any American citizen or green card holder imagine what this country was like thirty years ago, before the illegal immigrant invasion? How many hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps even a Trillion in three decades? Fewer illegal aliens meant fewer taxes to support the huge support mechanism that we have today? An example would be California, was a less congested place, where there was room to breathe? Just think were those taxes to subsidize illegal immigrants today could be highly beneficial, if it was spent on our own population. Education, for instance is forced on us, by a federal court that we must pay the schooling for every child of illegal immigrants. Then we have health care that the courts say, that anybody who breaks the law to come here is entitled to treatment. Remember in1912 the Titanic sunk, but not because of the iceberg above the Atlantic Ocean, but what was ominously concealed beneath the surface?

    This is the same story with illegal immigration and the failure to place, 5000 “boots on ground. “of the each border States Nation Guardsman permanently? I was astounded to read a “Wikileaks” secret document, that the border is intentionally left open for the clandestine arrangement to merge Canada, Mexico and the United States. You have a chance to read these reports at Wikileaks website, under the headline, “Viewing cable 05OTTAWA268, PLACING A NEW NORTH AMERICAN INITIATIVE.” This is a serious situation concocted by the Canadian Paul CELLUCCI and American Ambassador, which seems to never have been observed by Congress.

    From both parties are hundreds of thousands, tens of millions finding that the TEA PARTY, doesn’t discriminate against race or religion. That these people are delusion by the Liberals, democrats and Republicans, that are not doing enough to stop the in-sourcing of illegal immigrants or outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Cafta and Nafta was a massive mistake as the whole “FREE TRADE AGEEMENTS” have been detrimental to our society. We are importing everything from a nail file to steel, at far below the cost of doing business here? Once a lender of billions of dollars, we must now go cap in hand to Communist China, that owns our debts. We are the greatest market in the world, but our commerce is undercut by artificially engineering their currencies. The only winners in this commercial game are the importers of inferior products, who are profiting.

    As Billionaire Donald Trump we should place a 25 % import tax on everything coming to our country, and begin to rebuild our manufacturing industries again. An intentional failure of every administration to secure our borders or enact laws that would obstruct foreign national at the border, or a tracking system to deport visa overstays. E-Verify will eradicate this problem of the issuance of a Secure Communities law, to enforce that every police department fingerprint and send those scans to ICE. If you want less government, a fair Tax system, individual responsibility and the return of federal excessive power to the states, join the Tea Party in your local area. Tell your Federal, State or local lawmaker, unless they join the TEA PARTY, they will be out of office in 2012.

    Contact them at Senate—202-224–3121/ House—202-225–3121.

    NO Copyright. Copy & Paste! Distribute Freely

    Brittanicus (d4f7cd)

  34. And thus that is federal policy.

    Good thing the supremacy clause makes federal law, not federal “policy”, supreme. If they want their policies to be the supreme law of the land, they have to actually enact them

    Brett Bellmore (6652c2)

  35. I keep finding stari on the sole of my shoe.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  36. Exactly, Brett.

    There’s really no sane way around it. Sure, there is some need for discretion and interpretation at the borderlines of many laws, but the law either is followed or it isn’t. A policy of going in the opposite direction of the law is lawlessness.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  37. Did you see about the bunnies Mr. Milhouse?
    America punishes the industrious anymore.

    That’s horrible, but hardly surprising. The principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse needs to be dumped down the sewer. If policemen, whose job it is to know the law, get qualified immunity if they didn’t, and violated it in good faith, then how much more so must we all be entitled to that same consideration? How was anyone to know that you need a license to sell rabbits? Sure, they could have asked a lawyer, but 1) why would it occur to them to do so? and 2) when they did ask a lawyer, after they already knew they were in trouble for something, he couldn’t find this law! Which is not surprising, because there are so many laws, nobody can possibly know them all.

    The principle was suited for a time when it was possible for someone to know all the laws, and reasonable to expect everyone to do so; today it’s sheer nonsense, and in my opinion unconstitutional. If due process means anything at all, it must mean giving someone notice that he’s doing something wrong.

    By the way, it appears that this particular story may turn out OK.

    Milhouse (5d260b)

  38. I didn’t read that long copy-and-pasted piece from “Brittanicus”, but it appeared to be the usual protectionist drivel that Adam Smith refuted 235 years ago, and that every economist in the world agrees is nonsense. Free trade is the original issue on which the liberal movement (today called “conservative”) was founded, and it ought to be basic. Guarding the border to keep terrorists, criminals, invaders, and similar unwanted people out is a duty of every sovereign nation; but laws like the one we’re discussing are not about public safety but about economic protectionism, and that is not legitimate. It is fundamentally wrong to restrict immigration just to prop up wages, just as it is to restrict the import of goods to prop up their prices. The law must work for the consumer, not the producer.

    Milhouse (5d260b)

  39. The IRS has a program where you can turn in a tax cheat and get a percentage of the take. Been in force for decades. Apply the same program to turning in illegals. Pay out a reward based on illegal’s salary or fine against company. Increase the cost of hiring illegals to more than the cost of hiring legals.

    Punslinger (7b10c7)

  40. FWIW, I used to believe in open borders, until 11-Sep-2001.

    Milhouse (616fa2)

  41. Well, by Milhouse’s logic, Israel must be the worst state in the world, in that it restricts immigration — in the sense of permanent settlement — only to a very small proportion of the world’s population.

    And the fact is that many economists are now doubting the dogma of ‘free trade’ in a world which little resembles that of Ricardo. See the work of William Baumol and Ralph Gomory. Classical trade theory held land, labor, and capital fixed in each country– now capital flows to cheap labor markets, and libertarian autistics propose that labor should be able for flood across borders.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  42. See here for a review of Baumol and Gomory

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  43. Thank you for the isolationist Stomfront view, stari.

    JD (38b977)

  44. JD, I offer facts, or analysis by experts in the relevant fields, you offer one liners — not even original one liners.

    I understand, probably the first month of Econ 101 and comparative advantage was the most complex thing you understood (are capable of understanding) but real economists have progressed quite a bit over the 230 years since Ricardo.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  45. Well, by Milhouse’s logic, Israel must be the worst state in the world, in that it restricts immigration — in the sense of permanent settlement — only to a very small proportion of the world’s population.

    No, Stari, you saying Israel is the worst nation in the world is not based on economic experts or Milhouse’s views on America.

    The USA is not Israel. We are thousands of miles wide, with practically endless opportunity and resource. We are not the homeland of a people that have been systematically murdered many times over.

    Jews NEED a sanctuary. WASPs don’t.

    You ignore a hell of a lot of information to say the USA and Israel must operate exactly the same, or Israel must be the worst country in the world. It’s almost as though you just wanted to spit that out if you could find and excuse to.

    You are, in fact, a complete idiot, and you ignore any expertise, cherry picking morons and calling them the only experts.

    Also, Israel has a lot of Arabs and other non-Jews living a pretty damn good existence as citizens. Sure, they don’t get veteran loans and other benefits, which is a source for some degree of differences, but they have all the civil rights and can work and earn a great life, even serve high office. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best that region HAS EVER HAD.

    JD doesn’t respond to you with arguments because you don’t really warrant much of one. You’re a dumbass.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  46. BTW, preemptive slap at anyone who wants to bring up native americans.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  47. Giving the stormfront opinion some credence on here right far-left schizoid?

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  48. It’s hilarious to me. We’re talking about Arizona’s immigration problems. We’re talking about thousands of miles of borders, right here.

    Stari wants to bash Jews and their 18 crumbs of land on the other side of the planet, surrounded by countries that want them all dead.

    What’s really funny is that Stari doesn’t want Mexicans immigrating here anyway. He has exposed a dramatic inability to play fair, though, in how he compares Israel’s border to Arizona’s. Both need to be protected, but one is protecting a tiny sanctuary in a sea of murder from repeated military invasions, and the other stops drug smugglers and people looking for jobs.

    How sick. What a stupid way to attempt to defend the US border.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  49. But of course the best evidence that this case was a no-brainer is simply this: the Ninth Circuit upheld the Arizona statute.

    The same was true regarding the execution of Tookie Williams. As Chris Morton pointed out:

    When the 9th Circuit thinks you need to die, you REALLY need to die! :)

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  50. “Jews NEED a sanctuary. WASPs don’t.”

    I don’t believe in double standards. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. As it happens, even England is being inundated by immigration (ditto Australia, New Zealand Canada, etc).

    “Stari wants to bash Jews and their 18 crumbs of land on the other side of the planet, surrounded by countries that want them all dead.”

    I am not bashing Jews, I am simply pointing out the contradictions in supporting an ethnically based state for Jews and not for anyone else (including WASPs, Germans, Norwegians, Malays, whoever).

    And the contradictions of putative conservatives who, in my opinion, fall all over themselves to please people who, as a group, overwhelmingly oppose conservative policies.

    This I think is what accounts for your anger, the inner recognition of the absurdity of your position. That’s okay, I can stand the name calling.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  51. And BTW, immigration into Israel doesn’t have to be limited to Arabs — wouldn’t Israel benefit from importing ‘hard-working Mexicans(tm)’?

    Of course Israel does import non-Jewish workers, it just doesn’t let them stay and works really hard to avoid them reproduce and establish families.

    (yes, that’s a link to the dreaded bbc)

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  52. Oh noez Israel is making palestinian men impotent Aw noez!!Eleventyone!!

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  53. It’s so funny how some people manage to find a reason to talk about Jews and Israel and how bad they are, no matter what.

    PlayStation Network is down? JEWS. Coffee bean futures up? JEWS.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  54. Desperate housewives canceled? JEWS

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  55. No, Dustin, there is a whole lot of important stuff in the world that doesn’t involve Jews as a group. NASCAR, surfing, the toll road through Trestles (for SoCal folks), air quality.

    In fact, I admire Jews, when they are right:

    “We don’t want to create an incentive for an inflow of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrant workers into the country.”

    That’s not Pat Buchanan or Tom Tancredo. That’s Netanyahu.,7340,L-3927960,00.html

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  56. Netanyahu is not a racist asshole unlike you.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  57. And trust me, if Mexico was treating the USA like Hamas treats Israel, or if Canada and USA’s history matched Egypt and the USA’s, we’d be a lot more aggressive than Israel has been.

    But this is about USA’s situation, and our federal law, and how it impacts state law. It’s got nothin’ to do with Jewish survival.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  58. Why do we allow legal muslims to immigrate here so they can mooch off of our systems and get away with not paying for medicare and allow them to set up a caliphate?

    Am I racist?

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  59. I buy my yogurt from jews and they keep switching brands and I’m like hey jews – where’d the sorta runny swiss style kind go – that was very tasty and it made awesome smoothies and what happened to the “cream on top” one? Yum! I like the big tub o yogurt they still carry though it’s just you never know what’ll be there when you go it’s like yogurtpalooza over there with them jews. Either that or it’s a conspiracy.

    wonderpup (a55ba0)

  60. maybe when I find my famery they will have the tasty yogurt


    wonderpup (a55ba0)

  61. Stasi – all I do is mock and scorn. Your hatred deserves no better than that.

    JD (318f81)

  62. My dog happens to love yogurt too. Goes absolutely bonkers for some rice and plain yogurt.

    But my dog also hates Jews almost as much as Stari Momak. And frankly, both are little bitches.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  63. FTR I have no objection to ethnic states; but the USA is not one.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5951 secs.