If the South American nations feel so poorly for the illegal immigrants invading the United States, where are the invitations to come to their countries instead?

Are they opening their borders to any and all who want to drop by and take up residence?
Are they willing to have people who illegally sneak into the US flown directly to their countries, put on their social welfare systems, send un-taxed money from their economies back to Mexico?

Since Newsom wants a boycott of Arizona, and openly supports illegal immigrants, why doesn't he invite the 400,000 illegals in Arizona to his sanctuary city? Would he sing the same tune if they all showed up on his doorstep?

You know, all that violence the MSM has predicted will come from little old ladies and taxpayers at these protests. Unlike the "mostly peaceful" riots by pro-illegal protesters in AZ. Cause these folks in Illinois are much more dangerous to BHO's agenda- they are! They vote!
Not racist. Not violent. Just no longer silent!

Chicago, WAKE UP! Let's do the math here-

(Citizens that obey law) + (electing gun-control freak as mayor) = (Mayor who takes guns away from citizens.)

(Criminals who already ignore and break the law) + (unarmed population) = (City of Chicago under Siege by criminals.)

And this last one {very important here}-
(Citizens who wake up and boot idiot mayor from power) + (taking back their right to protect themselves and families) = (City criminals flee from because population are no longer lambs at slaughter.)

Yes, it really IS that simple. Class dismissed.

I know I'm probably asking for some ribbing here, but something to consider:

1. Given the advertised "crash the tea party" folks on April 15, it wouldn't be unimaginable that some left-wing jerk wouldn't come in and take a few pot-shots at the center, pretending to be Tea Partiers;
2. Given the violent nature of the illegal-immigration-riot crowd in AZ, it wouldn't be unfeasible for rioters to take it out on a) the Tea Partiers, or b) the president.

Not a fan of Obama, but I can't help but think this may have been a smart idea. Then again, Granny does look awfully riled, don't she?

Nullification doesn't necessarily mean cessation. There IS a history of states protecting their citizens from federal overstepping by using nullification, standing up against the federal mandates that were harmful to the people of their states.

The Tenth Amendment Center site has an article describing historical use of this principle:http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/03/04/the-states-rights-tradition-nobody-knows/ .

It may seem extraneous, but to avoid loopholes, another bill is needed.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) tried to rebrand the mandate on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews (Apr. 8, 2010). Don't think of it as a forced purchase, she explained, just get ready to pay the price come tax day.

Said she:

"We did not require in this legislation Americans to have health care. What we did was established a different treatment via your tax return just like the difference between married people and unmarried people, or people who have children and don't, or homeowners and renters. So if you choose not to have health care, you can do that. But, you just need to understand that you're going to be treated differently on you tax return at the end of the year. You'll be assessed differently than you would have if you carry health care."

Call it what you will, but make sure our reps. cover the bases. A tax, a penalty, an assessment, whathaveyou. Pay one way or another.