Hey, I didn’t say that, she did. Here she is at yesterday’s press conference:

It actually is no different than what was already in place.

It’s true. Since the president’s directive doesn’t actually grant any new legal status to anyone, Brewer’s “executive order” amounts to announcing that she’s enforcing things that are already covered by state laws.

It’s ridiculous bloviation disguised as action, and I’m sure we’ll hear how this is another demonstration of her gutsyness or some such nonsense. What makes this worse than her usual grandstanding is that she’s basing her “order” on the wrong headed right-wing thesis that Barack Obama “granted amnesty” to millions of people.

It was nothing of the kind. It’s a temporary reprieve. Heck, the fact that it’s not a more permanent solution is a big part of the criticism from Mitt Romney surrogates Carlos Gutierrez and Marco Rubio. Brewer knows that no one has been granted any sort of legal status here.

Brewer could have chosen to have a press conference where she said something like, “Hey, they are still illegal…” and make some sort of statement about lines in the sand or something. Instead, she chose to perpetuate a lie because it’s convenient for her supporters. And, heck, while she’s at it, she gets to metaphorically kick some Mexicans around.

I guess I should just be glad she hasn’t called for shootings.

In the book, Arpaio states that second and third generation Mexican-Americans are separate from the American mainstream. When confronted with this nugget, Arpaio did the brave, no-nonsense and take-charge thing: he blamed his co-author.

Setting aside whether he wrote it or paid someone else to write it, I have a question for Joe…do I qualify as a “mainstream” American?

I’m thinking maybe, since my dad’s ancestors are from Eastern Europe. As we all know, immigrants from Europe at the beginning of the last century all showed up loving NASCAR and knowing the lyrics to all of Lee Greenwood’s songs.

My mom’s side, the Hispanic side, is dicier. My grandfather’s ancestors came up here in the 1770′s. It probably would shock Arpaio and his supporters to find that there are Hispanics here whose families didn’t immigrate to the United States, illegally or otherwise. Still, I suppose that they would grudgingly acknowledge that over two centuries of history would have to qualify as mainstream.

My grandmother, on the other hand, came up from Hermosillo as a child to escape the Mexican Revolution. That would make my mother, uncles and aunts maternally second generation.

So, which is the controlling gene, Joe? I need to know this for the next time we take a family trip to Maricopa County.

Yo, genius- check the record: http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1621.hthird.1.asp&Session_ID=102

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1621.hthird.2.asp&Session_ID=102

Oh yeah- how did it feel to be 4th in 2008 and 5th 2010? http://www.pima.gov/elections/Past%20Results/res0906.htm

http://www.pima.gov/elections/Past%20Results/res0810.htm

Something tells me this won’t get approved.

Well, not only will I approve it, I’ll go and re-post it.

The irony is that if you include more than two links in your comments, they go into a is-this-spam-or-not cue for my review. The comment would not have required my approval had the good gentleman not added the two gratuitous shots at my forays into electoral politics.

Of course, Horatio’s purpose here is not to point out that I lost two primaries (believe me, I know), it is to say that somehow I was wrong on Matt Heinz’s vote on a bill to deny the Pima County sheriff funding while giving it to the Pinal County sheriff. This was done in the name of border security because Pinal County’s border with Mexico is as long as Nebraska’s.

In fact, it is as long as Luxembourg’s, Paraguay’s and Tajikistan’s combined.

The language came up in a couple of bills, including SB1621 which Horatio references. Yes, Heinz did vote no on that one, but he missed a couple of votes on that bill as it went through the process, including absences for votes before the appropriations and rules committees.

The bill I was referencing, however, was HB2718. That was an attempt to do the same thing a couple of weeks earlier. Heinz voted yes on that one, and took a lot of grief for it at the time (including from me, by the way), which likely led to his voting no when the issue came up again after HB2718 got held up in the senate.

The post I linked was referring to SB1621, so I can understand why Horatio was a bit confused. This wasn’t, however, something I just came up with out of thin air. The vote was referenced in other places and Heinz has had to address it, especially when a later controversy emerged. This isn’t just made up.

All this stuff is on record and kind of easy to find these days.

The English are so allergic to tie breakers (in addition to being allergic to decent cooking) that for years, they didn’t allow for tie-breakers, even in knockout tournaments where a winner is necessary.

What was their solution? Replays.

If you didn’t have a winner, say in a match in the storied FA Cup, you’d simply schedule another match a few days later. In the 1975 FA Cup tournament, for example, it took Fulham FC four tries to beat Nottingham Forrest FC. Fulham ended up playing twelve games in five rounds of the tournament due to so many replays, which might explain why they lost the final to West Ham United. They were probably just tired.

That’s what we got on Section 2 of SB 1070 yesterday, a nil-nil draw and a not yet scheduled replay for later.

Take a look at the portions of the law that were struck down. They were all stricken because they were preempted by federal law. Section 2, despite being the one that generated the most ire from the opponents, didn’t fit into that argument. But supporters of 1070 who think of this as a win might want put away the champagne.

Here’s Anthony Kennedy:

Without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that conflicts with federal law. Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277. This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect. Pp. 22–24.

So, in other words, we don’t see how the preemption argument applies here. But, show us how you can enforce this thing and still make it constitutional. Given how hard this law would be to enforce without racial profiling, expect another challenge.

Still, the right is saying this is an unalloyed victory. Heck, they are demanding a medal for Russell Pearce for being such a swell guy.