• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge Blocks Parts of South Carolina’s Immigration Law

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ATLANTA — A federal judge on Thursday blocked the most controversial parts of South Carolina’s new immigration law from taking effect next month.
Click to expand...

At the same time, SCOTUS will be hearing Arizona's case, which is very similar. I do not like laws that promote racial profiling, but one of the decisions the court made to strike down parts of the law was ridiculous.

He also blocked provisions that made it a crime to harbor or transport an illegal immigrant.
Click to expand...

Yes, ridiculous. So those who knowingly harbor and/or transport criminals, and assist them in committing a crime, are not guilty themselves?

Here is the way I see it - I hope the Supremes do their job and protect the constitutional rights of everbody, but at the same time, I would like to see them uphold the law, and agree that it is a crime to harbor illegals. I mean, come on - If someone helps an illegal violate the law, then he himself is an accessory to the crime. That judge is an idiot.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
At the same time, SCOTUS will be hearing Arizona's case, which is very similar. I do not like laws that promote racial profiling, but one of the decisions the court made to strike down parts of the law was ridiculous.



Yes, ridiculous. So those who knowingly harbor and/or transport criminals, and assist them in committing a crime, are not guilty themselves?

Here is the way I see it - I hope the Supremes do their job and protect the constitutional rights of everbody, but at the same time, I would like to see them uphold the law, and agree that it is a crime to harbor illegals. I mean, come on - If someone helps an illegal violate the law, then he himself is an accessory to the crime. That judge is an idiot.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

The issue is federal preclusion. States do not have the authority to write their own criminal immigration laws.
 
AdamT said:
The issue is federal preclusion. States do not have the authority to write their own criminal immigration laws.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not--which is very debatable--but they certainly have the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.
 
apdst said:
Perhaps not--which is very debatable--but they certainly have the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.
Click to expand...

If it was certain then the Supreme Court wouldn't be hearing arguments on the question.
 
AdamT said:
If it was certain then the Supreme Court wouldn't be hearing arguments on the question.
Click to expand...

It's not certain that states have the authority to enforce federal law? States can't persue bank robbers? Arrest foreign enemy agents? Enforce Federal DOT regulations? It's ok for states to create their own laws regulating the transportation industry; it should be equally ok for states to create their own laws regarding illegal immigrants.
 
apdst said:
It's not certain that states have the authority to enforce federal law? States can't persue bank robbers? Arrest foreign enemy agents? Enforce Federal DOT regulations? It's ok for states to create their own laws regulating the transportation industry; it should be equally ok for states to create their own laws regarding illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

No, it's not certain that states can enforce CIVIL immigration law, which is at issue, and it's pretty damned clear that they can't create their own criminal immigration laws.
 
AdamT said:
No, it's not certain that states can enforce CIVIL immigration law, which is at issue, and it's pretty damned clear that they can't create their own criminal immigration laws.
Click to expand...

The only reason the SC is hearing the case, is because Obama's punk ass sued the state of Arizona.
 
AdamT said:
The issue is federal preclusion. States do not have the authority to write their own criminal immigration laws.
Click to expand...

Is there anything in the laws that you object to that controls "legal" immigration?
What is being addressed by the States is illegal immigration. It may be a concept to hard for some to understand. Nothing I have seen in State that have passed laws infringe or change federal law. It mearly gives the States more flexibility to enforce federal laws.

So you think illegal immigration is entirely a federal issue. OK, then lets hold Obama and every other federal elected official responsible for enforcing federal immigratiion laws. Funding can come from redirecting funds from the pork barrel spending and give away programs that we have. Guess States then start sending bills to the federal govt. for medical, education, and prison costs for illegals who are in the country. These costs must be a federal issue, since by your stance illegal immigration is a federal issue and not in the States rights to get involved.
 
apdst said:
The only reason the SC is hearing the case, is because Obama's punk ass sued the state of Arizona.
Click to expand...

Really? You think the Supreme Court is required to review every case that's filed? You do understand that that there are literally tens of thousands of cases appealed to the SC each year, and they only choose to review 70 - 80 of them, right?
 
AdamT said:
Really? You think the Supreme Court is required to review every case that's filed? You do understand that that there are literally tens of thousands of cases appealed to the SC each year, and they only choose to review 70 - 80 of them, right?
Click to expand...

I predict that this case will be one of those 70-80.
 
AdamT said:
Really? You think the Supreme Court is required to review every case that's filed? You do understand that that there are literally tens of thousands of cases appealed to the SC each year, and they only choose to review 70 - 80 of them, right?
Click to expand...

If it hadn't been for the lawsuit against Arizona, this case would never see the SC chambers.

Actually, it's an insult to the people of the United States that a state have to seek permission from the SC to enforce the law.
 
mike2810 said:
Is there anything in the laws that you object to that controls "legal" immigration?
What is being addressed by the States is illegal immigration. It may be a concept to hard for some to understand. Nothing I have seen in State that have passed laws infringe or change federal law. It mearly gives the States more flexibility to enforce federal laws.

So you think illegal immigration is entirely a federal issue. OK, then lets hold Obama and every other federal elected official responsible for enforcing federal immigratiion laws. Funding can come from redirecting funds from the pork barrel spending and give away programs that we have. Guess States then start sending bills to the federal govt. for medical, education, and prison costs for illegals who are in the country. These costs must be a federal issue, since by your stance illegal immigration is a federal issue and not in the States rights to get involved.
Click to expand...

This is the crux of the matter. The federal government refuses to aggressively or even with some level of care enforce immigration laws. The states are taking the brunt of the problems created by the deriliction of duty of the federal gvoernment. The federal goverment refuses to respond to pleas by states like Arizona to do their duty. And the federal govermnent refuses to have the guts to change immigration laws that they don't have the will to enforce because of politics. Reveal what they really feel and lose votes. Better just to ignore the laws because it will have less impact.
 
Only in America would there be a law that says it's illegal to enter our borders without proper Visa or Passport, then refuse to enforce the law because it might hurt the perpetrator and wouldn't be politically correct...only in a truly liberal-headed country. Anywhere else they shoot them or imprison them...we give them free access to our schools and hospitals. God help this country.
 
danarhea said:
Yes, ridiculous. So those who knowingly harbor and/or transport criminals, and assist them in committing a crime, are not guilty themselves?
Click to expand...

Err yes and no.. depend on how the law is worded. I agree fully people pushers should be punished and what they are doing is a crime. But knowing who wrote these laws .. then I would suspect that the wording would be so that anyone, knowingly or not, who transport or harbor illegals could be arrested and thrown in jail. That means that if you picked up a hitchhiker that was an illegal then you would go to jail. Bus drivers would be at huge risk of jail also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom