<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Open-borders outrage alert: Judges are voting on the side of local immigration enforcement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/</link>
	<description>news and commentary from a conservative perspective</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:42:12 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mr_Conservative_Cat</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-242493</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr_Conservative_Cat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:52:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-242493</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;On February 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm, TXRose said: 
 politicians
become addicted to sucking at the public teat.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Yikes! I mean, yeah, I guess so...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>On February 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm, TXRose said:<br />
 politicians<br />
become addicted to sucking at the public teat.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yikes! I mean, yeah, I guess so&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FirstSkirt</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241979</link>
		<dc:creator>FirstSkirt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:21:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241979</guid>
		<description>TX Rose - I agree.  These &quot;careerist&quot; politicians no longer represent their constituencies.  It is time, no long past time, that term limits were enforced.  Most politicians walk into Congress as middle-class nobodies and walk out rich million celebrities--enough already! No excuses--it&#039;s time to vote out incumbents since they will not ever vote themselves into a term-limited situation!  I hear my fellow conservatives saying term limits won&#039;t solve anything, but I refuse to believe that.  Unencumbered electioneering instead to working has resulted in the disaster we now have in Congress.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TX Rose &#8211; I agree.  These &#8220;careerist&#8221; politicians no longer represent their constituencies.  It is time, no long past time, that term limits were enforced.  Most politicians walk into Congress as middle-class nobodies and walk out rich million celebrities&#8211;enough already! No excuses&#8211;it&#8217;s time to vote out incumbents since they will not ever vote themselves into a term-limited situation!  I hear my fellow conservatives saying term limits won&#8217;t solve anything, but I refuse to believe that.  Unencumbered electioneering instead to working has resulted in the disaster we now have in Congress.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Judge Wake’s Employer Sanctions decision merits praise &#171; Seeing Red AZ</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241859</link>
		<dc:creator>Judge Wake’s Employer Sanctions decision merits praise &#171; Seeing Red AZ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:18:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241859</guid>
		<description>[...] Malkin’s excellent post, Open-borders outrage alert: Judges are voting on the side of local immigration enforcement, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Malkin’s excellent post, Open-borders outrage alert: Judges are voting on the side of local immigration enforcement, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barry F.</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241723</link>
		<dc:creator>Barry F.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:58:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241723</guid>
		<description>It is good to hear that some level of government is protecting our security.  But, it is still sad that the federal government is not doing it, as that is actually their job. *&lt;em&gt;sigh&lt;/em&gt;*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is good to hear that some level of government is protecting our security.  But, it is still sad that the federal government is not doing it, as that is actually their job. *<em>sigh</em>*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TXRose</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241604</link>
		<dc:creator>TXRose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:46:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241604</guid>
		<description>The 14th Amendment is not the problem.  The &quot;re&quot;interpretation of this Amendment by liberal SCOTUS is the problem.  Once again, I think that it was just
a bid for votes.  So much of what happens in this country seems to come back to
politicians feathering their own nests.  Just like lifelong welfare families, politicians
become addicted to sucking at the public teat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 14th Amendment is not the problem.  The &#8220;re&#8221;interpretation of this Amendment by liberal SCOTUS is the problem.  Once again, I think that it was just<br />
a bid for votes.  So much of what happens in this country seems to come back to<br />
politicians feathering their own nests.  Just like lifelong welfare families, politicians<br />
become addicted to sucking at the public teat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: graysonret</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241296</link>
		<dc:creator>graysonret</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:20:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241296</guid>
		<description>Tommygun, if someone wanted to &quot;legally&quot; challenge the 14th amendment, I think they would have a good case.  Senate vote was 33-11. 1 senator who voted &quot;nay&quot; was thrown out on a majority vote( you need 3/4). There were 5 abstentions.  There were some dubious &quot;ayes&quot; from senators(4) who shouldn&#039;t have been seated. When it came to the states, there weren&#039;t enough votes to ratify (3/4) so Congress used the Reconstruction Act to extort the proper &quot;aye&quot; votes. Many states recinded their approval.  Didn&#039;t matter, it &quot;passed&quot; regardless. Congress wanted it, so the Constitution was ignored.  Sound familiar?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tommygun, if someone wanted to &#8220;legally&#8221; challenge the 14th amendment, I think they would have a good case.  Senate vote was 33-11. 1 senator who voted &#8220;nay&#8221; was thrown out on a majority vote( you need 3/4). There were 5 abstentions.  There were some dubious &#8220;ayes&#8221; from senators(4) who shouldn&#8217;t have been seated. When it came to the states, there weren&#8217;t enough votes to ratify (3/4) so Congress used the Reconstruction Act to extort the proper &#8220;aye&#8221; votes. Many states recinded their approval.  Didn&#8217;t matter, it &#8220;passed&#8221; regardless. Congress wanted it, so the Constitution was ignored.  Sound familiar?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fred5676</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241286</link>
		<dc:creator>fred5676</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:56:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241286</guid>
		<description>Hopefully, states will get their act together in time to render Shamnesty &#039;09 unnecessary.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jmi.com/immigrationmarches/attrition.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Four states and counting&lt;/a&gt;!

And maybe with a little bit of support from everyone here, Heath Schuler&#039;s enforcement-only SAVE Act might have a chance. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/attrition.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Start FAXing&lt;/a&gt;!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hopefully, states will get their act together in time to render Shamnesty &#8216;09 unnecessary.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.jmi.com/immigrationmarches/attrition.html" rel="nofollow">Four states and counting</a>!</p>
<p>And maybe with a little bit of support from everyone here, Heath Schuler&#8217;s enforcement-only SAVE Act might have a chance. <a href="http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/attrition.html" rel="nofollow">Start FAXing</a>!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tommygun</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241285</link>
		<dc:creator>Tommygun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241285</guid>
		<description>DesertLover #14

Amendment 14, Section. 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It doesn&#039;t say &quot;modify,&quot; it says &quot;enforce.&quot;  Many Constitutional amendments have the same or similar provision in them (did you know that?)  Congress can legislate to ensure the amendment&#039;s provisions are actually in effect--such as ensuring that &quot;[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside&quot; (Section 1).  They cannot on their own undo it or change it so that it doesn&#039;t apply to everyone in that description.  And no, simply because you want it to say something else, doesn&#039;t mean it actually does.

Are illegal aliens indeed &quot;subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]&quot;?  The fact we arrest them or charge/try them with crimes (beyond actually being illegally here) would say yes.  The provision seems to refer to &quot;diplomatic immunity&quot;--a child born to diplomats--and similar such things.  

Now, the best alternative might be declaring illegals, &quot;enemy invaders,&quot; then treating them as an enemy in war and... Well, you get the idea.  

You are right in that this ill-conceived, badly-composed, and frankly harmful amendment is in need of serious revision or repealing.  It was pushed into the Constitution by liberal elements (the &quot;Radical Republicans&quot;) as an effort to implement their post-Civil War/War Between the States agenda on America.  It was bad enough when written, but conditions have changed to make it worse, and the liberal court system pushes it far beyond how its framers envisioned it, to destroy the fabric of traditional American life in so many areas.  

The 14th Amendment is the worst thing to ever (legally) happen to our Constitution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DesertLover #14</p>
<p>Amendment 14, Section. 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.</p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t say &#8220;modify,&#8221; it says &#8220;enforce.&#8221;  Many Constitutional amendments have the same or similar provision in them (did you know that?)  Congress can legislate to ensure the amendment&#8217;s provisions are actually in effect&#8211;such as ensuring that &#8220;[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside&#8221; (Section 1).  They cannot on their own undo it or change it so that it doesn&#8217;t apply to everyone in that description.  And no, simply because you want it to say something else, doesn&#8217;t mean it actually does.</p>
<p>Are illegal aliens indeed &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]&#8220;?  The fact we arrest them or charge/try them with crimes (beyond actually being illegally here) would say yes.  The provision seems to refer to &#8220;diplomatic immunity&#8221;&#8211;a child born to diplomats&#8211;and similar such things.  </p>
<p>Now, the best alternative might be declaring illegals, &#8220;enemy invaders,&#8221; then treating them as an enemy in war and&#8230; Well, you get the idea.  </p>
<p>You are right in that this ill-conceived, badly-composed, and frankly harmful amendment is in need of serious revision or repealing.  It was pushed into the Constitution by liberal elements (the &#8220;Radical Republicans&#8221;) as an effort to implement their post-Civil War/War Between the States agenda on America.  It was bad enough when written, but conditions have changed to make it worse, and the liberal court system pushes it far beyond how its framers envisioned it, to destroy the fabric of traditional American life in so many areas.  </p>
<p>The 14th Amendment is the worst thing to ever (legally) happen to our Constitution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr_Conservative_Cat</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241283</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr_Conservative_Cat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:39:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241283</guid>
		<description>Wartip&lt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;Having to choose the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil no matter which side it falls on. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

The matter of degree on any issue is really the deciding factor. Perfection is impossible.


&lt;blockquote&gt;However, if we cannot make a serious adjustment and bring about a true Conservative movement, I still fear that this country will never be the same without even more drastic measures in the not too distant future. Having served in the Military as did the majority of men in my family, I find that particularly distasteful and unappealing. 

Perhaps this national attention will ultimately help us to turn this situation around. Even if we do get a Republican in the White House, we will still only be able to wait and see. That is what bothers me more than anything.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Thanks for your service and I think you have the right idea exactly in the last paragraph. If McCain gets in, we have time to see what lax conservatism has brought us and regroup for &#039;08. McCain, of course, will be informed of that and try to stay at least center-right to keep his chance for a second term since he appears to be, like Hillary, essentially power-mad. But that&#039;s okay, it&#039;s a &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; kind of power-mad, the kind we can use to the benfit of the conservative movement by keeping McCain in line while we organize to find his replacement in 08.  

&lt;blockquote&gt;On February 11th, 2008 at 1:58 am, jcjones717 said: &lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;I hope that other conservatives will stop the infighting and start the real war on socialism by defeating any Democratic Nominee. Sorry for so much info.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I always feel an obligation to chime in with &quot;YES&quot; to posts like yours because I think it needs to be said loud and often. The stakes are as high this time around as almost any time in this country&#039;s history.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wartip&lt;</p>
<blockquote><p>Having to choose the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil no matter which side it falls on. </p></blockquote>
<p>The matter of degree on any issue is really the deciding factor. Perfection is impossible.</p>
<blockquote><p>However, if we cannot make a serious adjustment and bring about a true Conservative movement, I still fear that this country will never be the same without even more drastic measures in the not too distant future. Having served in the Military as did the majority of men in my family, I find that particularly distasteful and unappealing. </p>
<p>Perhaps this national attention will ultimately help us to turn this situation around. Even if we do get a Republican in the White House, we will still only be able to wait and see. That is what bothers me more than anything.</p></blockquote>
<p>Thanks for your service and I think you have the right idea exactly in the last paragraph. If McCain gets in, we have time to see what lax conservatism has brought us and regroup for &#8216;08. McCain, of course, will be informed of that and try to stay at least center-right to keep his chance for a second term since he appears to be, like Hillary, essentially power-mad. But that&#8217;s okay, it&#8217;s a <em>good</em> kind of power-mad, the kind we can use to the benfit of the conservative movement by keeping McCain in line while we organize to find his replacement in 08.  </p>
<blockquote><p>On February 11th, 2008 at 1:58 am, jcjones717 said: </p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>I hope that other conservatives will stop the infighting and start the real war on socialism by defeating any Democratic Nominee. Sorry for so much info.</p></blockquote>
<p>I always feel an obligation to chime in with &#8220;YES&#8221; to posts like yours because I think it needs to be said loud and often. The stakes are as high this time around as almost any time in this country&#8217;s history.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jcjones717</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241274</link>
		<dc:creator>jcjones717</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:58:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241274</guid>
		<description>I am living in Oklahoma and am not afraid to say that I voted for John McCain.  It was a difficult decision to make because I am both a social and fiscal conservative.  I will share with you my thinking on why I voted the way I did.  First, I do not believe that either Romney nor Huckabee could win the General Election and frankly, I am not sure that McCain can, but he has a better shot.  Secondly, the military plays a big roll in Oklahoma economics and with families making their livlihood from the many facets that are interconnected, I believe that they and I see John McCain as the leader that would continue to fight for a strong military because of his background.  His &quot;war hero&quot; status was extremely helpful in this arena as well.  As for my feelings for Romney, I find it interesting that many believe his problem here was his &quot;Mormonism.&quot; Many Mormons live in this state and coexist with all other religions well.  My problem with Romney was that he was the former Gov. of Massachusetts (one of the most liberal states) and my gut feeling was that he would flip-flop on any decision that would win him an election. I want a Republican to win because I am terrified for our country if Clinton or Obama win and implement socialistic policies that cannot be undone in the future.  I fear that my children and grandchildren will suffer under that system and will work to keep that from happening even though McCain is dead wrong on immigration.  Also, I am not as afraid that Oklahoma&#039;s new stance on illegal aliens will be damaged by a McCain government, but it surely will under Obama and Clinton.  I hope that other conservatives will stop the infighting and start the real war on socialism by defeating any Democratic Nominee.  Sorry for so much info.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am living in Oklahoma and am not afraid to say that I voted for John McCain.  It was a difficult decision to make because I am both a social and fiscal conservative.  I will share with you my thinking on why I voted the way I did.  First, I do not believe that either Romney nor Huckabee could win the General Election and frankly, I am not sure that McCain can, but he has a better shot.  Secondly, the military plays a big roll in Oklahoma economics and with families making their livlihood from the many facets that are interconnected, I believe that they and I see John McCain as the leader that would continue to fight for a strong military because of his background.  His &#8220;war hero&#8221; status was extremely helpful in this arena as well.  As for my feelings for Romney, I find it interesting that many believe his problem here was his &#8220;Mormonism.&#8221; Many Mormons live in this state and coexist with all other religions well.  My problem with Romney was that he was the former Gov. of Massachusetts (one of the most liberal states) and my gut feeling was that he would flip-flop on any decision that would win him an election. I want a Republican to win because I am terrified for our country if Clinton or Obama win and implement socialistic policies that cannot be undone in the future.  I fear that my children and grandchildren will suffer under that system and will work to keep that from happening even though McCain is dead wrong on immigration.  Also, I am not as afraid that Oklahoma&#8217;s new stance on illegal aliens will be damaged by a McCain government, but it surely will under Obama and Clinton.  I hope that other conservatives will stop the infighting and start the real war on socialism by defeating any Democratic Nominee.  Sorry for so much info.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: secondsight</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241271</link>
		<dc:creator>secondsight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:45:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241271</guid>
		<description>Oklahoma&#039;s James H Payne&#039;s ruling: http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/pdfs/show_case_doc.pdf

Payne is in stark contrast to the Pennsylvania District Judge: 

&lt;blockquote&gt;The Court’s focus, however, is not on the illegal alien Plaintiffs’ claims—nor the rights underlying those claims—it is on the Plaintiffs themselves.
In focusing on the illegal alien Plaintiffs here, the Court is reminded that courts have customarily declined to entertain cases involving plaintiffs with “unclean hands.” .... This equitable maxim—that “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands”—is a judicial closing of the courthouse doors to those tainted with inequitableness or bad faith related to the matter in which they now seek relief. Id. In the present case, the Court is deeply concerned by the implications of the illegal Plaintiffs’ admission of violations of federal immigration laws. These Plaintiffs admit their violation of federal law, and then ask this Court to allow them to file suit anonymously, so as to avoid detection by the federal law enforcement agencies tasked with
investigating immigration violations. Additionally, the illegal alien Plaintiffs make no attempt to validate their unlawful presence in this country. Indeed, curiously absent from their voluminous complaint is any challenge to the federal laws rendering their presence in this country illegal. Instead, these Plaintiffs seemingly concede the validity of the federal immigration laws, and file this suit in order to remove any barriers the state of Oklahoma has erected to their continued violation of those federal laws. These illegal alien Plaintiffs seek nothing more than to use this Court as a vehicle for their continued unlawful presence in this country. To allow these Plaintiffs to do so would make this Court an “abetter of iniquity” and this Court finds that simply unpalatable.&lt;/blockquote&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oklahoma&#8217;s James H Payne&#8217;s ruling: <a href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/pdfs/show_case_doc.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/pdfs/show_case_doc.pdf</a></p>
<p>Payne is in stark contrast to the Pennsylvania District Judge: </p>
<blockquote><p>The Court’s focus, however, is not on the illegal alien Plaintiffs’ claims—nor the rights underlying those claims—it is on the Plaintiffs themselves.<br />
In focusing on the illegal alien Plaintiffs here, the Court is reminded that courts have customarily declined to entertain cases involving plaintiffs with “unclean hands.” &#8230;. This equitable maxim—that “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands”—is a judicial closing of the courthouse doors to those tainted with inequitableness or bad faith related to the matter in which they now seek relief. Id. In the present case, the Court is deeply concerned by the implications of the illegal Plaintiffs’ admission of violations of federal immigration laws. These Plaintiffs admit their violation of federal law, and then ask this Court to allow them to file suit anonymously, so as to avoid detection by the federal law enforcement agencies tasked with<br />
investigating immigration violations. Additionally, the illegal alien Plaintiffs make no attempt to validate their unlawful presence in this country. Indeed, curiously absent from their voluminous complaint is any challenge to the federal laws rendering their presence in this country illegal. Instead, these Plaintiffs seemingly concede the validity of the federal immigration laws, and file this suit in order to remove any barriers the state of Oklahoma has erected to their continued violation of those federal laws. These illegal alien Plaintiffs seek nothing more than to use this Court as a vehicle for their continued unlawful presence in this country. To allow these Plaintiffs to do so would make this Court an “abetter of iniquity” and this Court finds that simply unpalatable.</p></blockquote>
<p>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WarTip</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241263</link>
		<dc:creator>WarTip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:27:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241263</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I did my time in the Army and those choices were easy to make in comparison.  You are correct in your observations about not voting for one being a vote for the other as well. I am not contesting that but only saying that as far as I can see, even if McCain is the best (only?) choice, the possibility is all too real that this election cycle could still lead us past the point of no return down the slippery slope we have all been traversing. Having to choose the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil no matter which side it falls on. 

However, if we cannot make a serious adjustment and bring about a true Conservative movement, I still fear that this country will never be the same without even more drastic measures in the not too distant future. Having served in the Military as did the majority of men in my family, I find that particularly distasteful and unappealing. 

Perhaps this national attention will ultimately help us to turn this situation around. Even if we do get a Republican in the White House, we will still only be able to wait and see. That is what bothers me more than anything.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I did my time in the Army and those choices were easy to make in comparison.  You are correct in your observations about not voting for one being a vote for the other as well. I am not contesting that but only saying that as far as I can see, even if McCain is the best (only?) choice, the possibility is all too real that this election cycle could still lead us past the point of no return down the slippery slope we have all been traversing. Having to choose the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil no matter which side it falls on. </p>
<p>However, if we cannot make a serious adjustment and bring about a true Conservative movement, I still fear that this country will never be the same without even more drastic measures in the not too distant future. Having served in the Military as did the majority of men in my family, I find that particularly distasteful and unappealing. </p>
<p>Perhaps this national attention will ultimately help us to turn this situation around. Even if we do get a Republican in the White House, we will still only be able to wait and see. That is what bothers me more than anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr_Conservative_Cat</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241227</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr_Conservative_Cat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:56:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241227</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Wartip,

The reality is that there are really only 2 choices, Republican and Democrat. &lt;/strong&gt;Anything else, like third-party-voting or sitting it out is voting for the opposition as surely as if you physically pulled the handle for them youself. It isn&#039;t pretty, but that&#039;s where we are. People who talk about voting in good conscience seem to have forgeotten this little, awful reality. &lt;strong&gt;Arlington Cemetary is filled with the graves of men who made a tough choice knowing they would die for it, but made the tough choice anyway. In compariason, making a tough choice you simply find unpleasant at the polling booth doesn&#039;t seem all that much to ask. &lt;/strong&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Wartip,</p>
<p>The reality is that there are really only 2 choices, Republican and Democrat. </strong>Anything else, like third-party-voting or sitting it out is voting for the opposition as surely as if you physically pulled the handle for them youself. It isn&#8217;t pretty, but that&#8217;s where we are. People who talk about voting in good conscience seem to have forgeotten this little, awful reality. <strong>Arlington Cemetary is filled with the graves of men who made a tough choice knowing they would die for it, but made the tough choice anyway. In compariason, making a tough choice you simply find unpleasant at the polling booth doesn&#8217;t seem all that much to ask. </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WarTip</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241224</link>
		<dc:creator>WarTip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:44:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241224</guid>
		<description>I remember when I was in Jr. High School and decrying the legislation (I think it was legislated in though it has been a long time) saying that the SCOTUS could refuse to hear cases. I explained that this would allow them to avoid controversial issues or any issues that would not be politically expedient for the party in power. I was chastised for my observation and told that the SCOTUS was and would remain &quot;neutral&quot;. History has shown that I was correct there. 

I hope that I am wrong in this instance and perhaps new facts, revelations and perhaps even actions by McCain himself will convince me to change my mind between now and November. I have seen McCain/Feingold which actively violated the Constitutional principles of free speech of We the People ... Not only did it pass but it was upheld in those courts. The McCain/Kennedy Shamnesty bill still lives in the minds of enough politicians to make it frighteningly viable and I do not see McCain denouncing Kennedy or Sr. Hernandez despite his &quot;tough talk&quot;. 

My personal opinion at the moment is that we have been going down the road first from a Constitutional Republic to the perception at least, of a Democracy. The ultimate end for almost every democracy throughout history has either been a socialist state or a dictatorship. At this point in time I do not see any viable candidates who will return us to a Constitutional Republic based on the rule of law and perhaps that is where my biggest obstacle is. 

Sadly, I think we have gone too far down the path to socialism for it to change now. I have been called many things for my &quot;radical&quot; views but I just do not see any real alternative other than one as it was expressed in the Declaration of Independence. I think without a truly Conservative base ... maybe with a little bit of Libertarianism tossed in, that this nation will finally be lost either way without a massive restructuring of the government as it currently exists. I also do not see that happening any time soon either. 

I understand all too well what the implications of this election are and I share in your passion, your concern and your sliver of hope. McCain does have a relatively good outlook on defense apparently and perhaps in his take on terror. (Though his observations about Gitmo make me wonder about that some) However, when he starts dancing across the political aisles as he has so often in the past, the only way he will be able to pay the political pipers is with compromise. If he only has a couple of points with which he can compromise, it leaves we the people in an equally precarious position. 

Again, I hope I am just simply being too pessimistic. However, I think unfortunately, that there really may be no winning choice. I hope I can be convinced I am wrong between now and November but ...  

(Sorry for the long-winded response)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I remember when I was in Jr. High School and decrying the legislation (I think it was legislated in though it has been a long time) saying that the SCOTUS could refuse to hear cases. I explained that this would allow them to avoid controversial issues or any issues that would not be politically expedient for the party in power. I was chastised for my observation and told that the SCOTUS was and would remain &#8220;neutral&#8221;. History has shown that I was correct there. </p>
<p>I hope that I am wrong in this instance and perhaps new facts, revelations and perhaps even actions by McCain himself will convince me to change my mind between now and November. I have seen McCain/Feingold which actively violated the Constitutional principles of free speech of We the People &#8230; Not only did it pass but it was upheld in those courts. The McCain/Kennedy Shamnesty bill still lives in the minds of enough politicians to make it frighteningly viable and I do not see McCain denouncing Kennedy or Sr. Hernandez despite his &#8220;tough talk&#8221;. </p>
<p>My personal opinion at the moment is that we have been going down the road first from a Constitutional Republic to the perception at least, of a Democracy. The ultimate end for almost every democracy throughout history has either been a socialist state or a dictatorship. At this point in time I do not see any viable candidates who will return us to a Constitutional Republic based on the rule of law and perhaps that is where my biggest obstacle is. </p>
<p>Sadly, I think we have gone too far down the path to socialism for it to change now. I have been called many things for my &#8220;radical&#8221; views but I just do not see any real alternative other than one as it was expressed in the Declaration of Independence. I think without a truly Conservative base &#8230; maybe with a little bit of Libertarianism tossed in, that this nation will finally be lost either way without a massive restructuring of the government as it currently exists. I also do not see that happening any time soon either. </p>
<p>I understand all too well what the implications of this election are and I share in your passion, your concern and your sliver of hope. McCain does have a relatively good outlook on defense apparently and perhaps in his take on terror. (Though his observations about Gitmo make me wonder about that some) However, when he starts dancing across the political aisles as he has so often in the past, the only way he will be able to pay the political pipers is with compromise. If he only has a couple of points with which he can compromise, it leaves we the people in an equally precarious position. </p>
<p>Again, I hope I am just simply being too pessimistic. However, I think unfortunately, that there really may be no winning choice. I hope I can be convinced I am wrong between now and November but &#8230;  </p>
<p>(Sorry for the long-winded response)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr_Conservative_Cat</title>
		<link>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-241144</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr_Conservative_Cat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:21:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/10/open-borders-outrage-alert-judges-are-voting-on-the-side-of-local-immigration-enforcement/#comment-241144</guid>
		<description>TX Rose,

And it&#039;s worth repeating again:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Throwing temper tantrums and refusing to
vote for the GOPs candidate or writing something in that no one but election
workers will ever see (so no point will be made) is behaving like what we have
seen ever since 2000. We are more intelligent that they are.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TX Rose,</p>
<p>And it&#8217;s worth repeating again:</p>
<blockquote><p>Throwing temper tantrums and refusing to<br />
vote for the GOPs candidate or writing something in that no one but election<br />
workers will ever see (so no point will be made) is behaving like what we have<br />
seen ever since 2000. We are more intelligent that they are.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- NEW -->
