• 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!

Democrats plan to force vote on Arizona immigration law if it’s upheld by court

Samhain said:
I'm sure he would raise holy hell if the GOP would propose voting on its validity if the Supreme Court strikes it down.

Queue the Hypocrisy Wars theme in 3...2....1.....
Click to expand...

I wish people would stop voting. With every vote you dig yourself deeper.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So let me get this straight, the Supreme court if it says it's good, chuck the **** schumer wants a vote to try again to outlaw, the immigration law? Is this vote pandering or what? :lamo [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...

Moot point.

Scotus will toss this one in the crapper where it belongs.
 
StillBallin75 said:
And the Republicans oppose healthcare laws, and consumer protection laws, and stimulus package laws.
Click to expand...

We oppose government run health care, not health care.... What CP laws.... And yes, we oppose wasteful, useless government spending.


What is your point?
Click to expand...

My point is rather clear... It's against the law to enter, live and work in this country without going through INS and aquiring permission to do so. Democrats oppose efforts to both prevent and enforce those laws... Just as they oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud and protect the integrity of the American electoral system.

What you listed, are policy differences, not disrespect for the rule of law and enabling election fraud.



And SB1070 in no way PREVENTS illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

Excuse me... SB1070 helps to catch illegal aliens by allowing police to ask for proof of citizenship on traffic stops.

Like you didn't know what I meant.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Sorry, but no cigar. Republicans have their dumb political moments .............. but not that dumb.

"Obama 2012" is an indicator of the dumbess amongess, btw. Such folks need an "L" on their foreheads ..... IMMHO of course.
Click to expand...
What an astute political analysis. :lamo
 
hazlnut said:
Moot point.

Scotus will toss this one in the crapper where it belongs.
Click to expand...
I suspect you are correct, it not up the state to decide anything on immigration, its the Federal Government that is in charge. I suspect the swing vote (Kennedy) will be on the liberal side on this issue.
 
DVSentinel said:
Who said the republicans don't like the Supreme Court? From what I have seen, they very much liked it when that court started shooting down unconstitutional gun laws.
Click to expand...

So your diatribe aside, Republicans don't like the Court when issues they care about are voted against.
 
Not necessarily. The Court could rule that the the AZ law isn't facially preempted by existing federal law without saying that states can conduct their own immigration policy regardless. In that case Congress could pass a law expressly preempting the states from enforcing these sorts of laws.

On a side note: For first time since Depression, more Mexicans leave U.S. than enter - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

False. The state is duplicating the statutes in the fed law and then giving its own agents the ability to enforce it because the fed will not--neither enforce on their own nor empower Arizona law enforcement to be able to enforce the federal laws.

If this law is struck down you can expect the states to file suit along the lines of non eforcement and sue for damages related to illegal aliens because they were blocked from enforcing the statutes that were the same as the fed law. The fed has abdicated its duty and is acting in bad faith on enforcement, especially at the local levels.

The fed will be forced to stop playing both sides against each other and act to enforce the laws on the books more strenuously.
 
Hatuey said:
So your diatribe aside, Republicans don't like the Court when issues they care about are voted against.
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed it but liberals around the country are still pretty pissed about Citizens v United. It aint limited to conservatives. Everyone does it, liberals act a bit more: "Im so outrageously outraged that Im outraged by this outrageouos decision, its outrageous."
 
OpportunityCost said:
Maybe you missed it but liberals around the country are still pretty pissed about Citizens v United. It aint limited to conservatives. Everyone does it, liberals act a bit more: "Im so outrageously outraged that Im outraged by this outrageouos decision, its outrageous."
Click to expand...

The most amusing thing will be if the Supreme Court either finds this law unconstitional or consititional and then Obamacare consitional or unconsititonal. We would then see people bitch about how the court ruled in one direction and it is to liberal/conservative and a different way in another case and how great the Supreme Court is.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Maybe you missed it but liberals around the country are still pretty pissed about Citizens v United. It aint limited to conservatives. Everyone does it, liberals act a bit more: "Im so outrageously outraged that Im outraged by this outrageouos decision, its outrageous."
Click to expand...

Puhlease. Conservatives have been whining about "activist" judges and courts for 80 years.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Maybe you missed it but liberals around the country are still pretty pissed about Citizens v United. It aint limited to conservatives. Everyone does it, liberals act a bit more: "Im so outrageously outraged that Im outraged by this outrageouos decision, its outrageous."
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed it, but it isn't just liberals. In fact, more Americans believe in witchcraft than believe Citizens United was a good decision.

The poll reveals that nearly 70 percent of Americans believe Super PAC spending will lead to corruption and that three in four Americans believe limiting how much corporations, unions, and individuals can donate to Super PACs would curb corruption. Of those who expressed an opinion, more than 80 percent believe that, compared with past elections, the money being spent by political groups this year is more likely to lead to corruption.

...

73% of respondents agreed that “there would be less corruption if there were limits on how much could be given to Super PACs.” Only 14% disagreed. Here, 75% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats agreed.

...

Two in three Americans — 65% — say that they trust government less because big donors to Super PACs have more influence than regular voters. Republicans (67%) and Democrats (69%) uniformly agree.

National Survey: Super PACs, Corruption, and Democracy | Brennan Center for Justice
Click to expand...

Recall that in reaching its decision, "the majority did not believe that reliable evidence substantiated the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, and so this rationale did not satisfy strict scrutiny."

Oops.
 
Grim17 said:
We oppose government run health care, not health care.... What CP laws.... And yes, we oppose wasteful, useless government spending.




My point is rather clear... It's against the law to enter, live and work in this country without going through INS and aquiring permission to do so. Democrats oppose efforts to both prevent and enforce those laws... Just as they oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud and protect the integrity of the American electoral system.

What you listed, are policy differences, not disrespect for the rule of law and enabling election fraud.





Excuse me... SB1070 helps to catch illegal aliens by allowing police to ask for proof of citizenship on traffic stops.

Like you didn't know what I meant.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, the Democrats are against SB1070 and laws like it for many reasons, but mainly because it appears to usurp the powers of the Federal Government to set immigration policy. Democrats are for comprehensive immigration reform just like President Bush was.

Also, it should not be the job of the police to become INS agents, they have their hands full just being policemen.
 
Hatuey said:
So your diatribe aside, Republicans don't like the Court when issues they care about are voted against.
Click to expand...

And Liberals do? Interesting. I seem to recall that it was a Liberal Democrat, currently in office that publically lashed out at the Court and basically claimed he did not believe the Supreme Court could declare laws unconstitutional. Never seen or heard a Republican or indipendent make such claims.
 
pbrauer said:
Excuse me, the Democrats are against SB1070 and laws like it for many reasons, but mainly because it appears to usurp the powers of the Federal Government to set immigration policy. Democrats are for comprehensive immigration reform just like President Bush was.

Also, it should not be the job of the police to become INS agents, they have their hands full just being policemen.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling you have not read SB1070. Does federal law make it a crime (civil/criminal) to enter into the US illegally?
The law passed in AZ allows LE to uphold federal laws regarding illegal immigration. So you must object to the federal law?
 
mike2810 said:
I have a feeling you have not read SB1070. Does federal law make it a crime (civil/criminal) to enter into the US illegally?
The law passed in AZ allows LE to uphold federal laws regarding illegal immigration. So you must object to the federal law?
Click to expand...

Based on the arguments presented today, the justices( minus the recused Kagan ) aren't buying the Federal objection based on jurisdiction. They are a little less in favor of detention until status can be confirmed, although that stance was softened when it was pointed out that immigration status is routinely verified between 11 minutes and 1 hour.
 
mike2810 said:
The law passed in AZ allows LE to uphold federal laws regarding illegal immigration. So you must object to the federal law?
Click to expand...

Lets face it... The overwhelming majority of those who oppose the Arizona law and voter ID laws do so for purely political reasons.

To those on the left:

SB1070 = Better illegal immigration enforcement = Fewer illegal aliens
Result:
Less democratic voters

Voter ID's = less cheating = Fewer illegal aliens and felons voting, and less multiple voting
Result:
Less votes for democrats

 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
I have a feeling you have not read SB1070. Does federal law make it a crime (civil/criminal) to enter into the US illegally?
The law passed in AZ allows LE to uphold federal laws regarding illegal immigration. So you must object to the federal law?
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of federal laws and treaties that the states have no business enforcing.
 
Hatuey said:
If Republicans lose whatever they have left of the Hispanic vote, I'm alright with that.
Click to expand...

No Conservative should ever WANT a vote from anyone else who is not a Conservative, just as they should never CAST a vote for anyone who ISN'T a Conservative. If these Hispanic voters choose to engage in the adherance to a Liberal lifestyle, why would any Conservative want their vote to begin with?
 
AdamT said:
I agree with a lot of federal laws and treaties that the states have no business enforcing.
Click to expand...

This thread is about SB1070 and not "lot of federal laws and treaties".

and I disagree in this particular case of dealing with illegal aliens. The States have a right to assist the Feds in enforcing Federal laws.

Then you must agree with having the Feds repay the State/Counties for all cost in dealing with illegal aliens. For example when the State/County rescues an illegal alien in the desert. Or the hospital for all medical care given to an illegal alien, or all education expenses teaching an illegal aliens.

Or in your world should the State just ignore the 911 call and report it to the Feds to deal with?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom