Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Judge Blocks Parts of South Carolina’s Immigration Law

  1. #1
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756

    Judge Blocks Parts of South Carolina’s Immigration Law

    ATLANTA — A federal judge on Thursday blocked the most controversial parts of South Carolina’s new immigration law from taking effect next month.
    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.
    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 by danarhea; 12-22-11 at 06:00 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #2
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Judge Blocks Parts of South Carolina’s Immigration Law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    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.
    The issue is federal preclusion. States do not have the authority to write their own criminal immigration laws.

  3. #3
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Judge Blocks Parts of South Carolina’s Immigration Law

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    The issue is federal preclusion. States do not have the authority to write their own criminal immigration laws.
    Perhaps not--which is very debatable--but they certainly have the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #4
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Judge Blocks Parts of South Carolina’s Immigration Law

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Perhaps not--which is very debatable--but they certainly have the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.
    If it was certain then the Supreme Court wouldn't be hearing arguments on the question.

  5. #5
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Judge Blocks Parts of South Carolina’s Immigration Law

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    If it was certain then the Supreme Court wouldn't be hearing arguments on the question.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #6
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Judge Blocks Parts of South Carolina’s Immigration Law

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    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.
    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.

  7. #7
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Judge Blocks Parts of South Carolina’s Immigration Law

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    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.
    The only reason the SC is hearing the case, is because Obama's punk ass sued the state of Arizona.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #8
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,027

    Re: Judge Blocks Parts of South Carolina’s Immigration Law

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    The issue is federal preclusion. States do not have the authority to write their own criminal immigration laws.
    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.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  9. #9
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Judge Blocks Parts of South Carolina’s Immigration Law

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The only reason the SC is hearing the case, is because Obama's punk ass sued the state of Arizona.
    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?

  10. #10
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756

    Re: Judge Blocks Parts of South Carolina’s Immigration Law

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    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?
    I predict that this case will be one of those 70-80.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •