• 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!

The AZ Immigration Law Has Been Decided

I don't need to save face, you cheap provacateur. Sorry if the distinction between "South" and "Southwest" is too fine for you, but thanks for demonstrating your own limited understanding. Worry about splitting hairs after you're able to distinguish between various heads of hair.

Hahaha - awww I get it - somebody is mad cause the overwhelming majority of their little law didn't pass constitutional muster. I get it - it's a rough day for you and your kind. Maybe next time you'll have better luck. Try a law banning gay marriage. Those have had some success. If that doesn't work you can always blame your personal failures on the government. That never goes out of style. ;)
 
Hahaha - awww I get it - somebody is mad cause the overwhelming majority of their little law didn't pass constitutional muster. I get it - it's a rough day for you and your kind. Maybe next time you'll have better luck. Try a law banning gay marriage. Those have had some success. If that doesn't work you can always blame your personal failures on the government. That never goes out of style. ;)

Knowing your geography doesn't either.
 
Ok, just got home and skimmed through this thread, and while watching the ever disingenuous Chrissy Hissy fit Matthews misrepresent the provision upheld, and through implication throws the race card like it is the only one in the deck.

This President continues to ignore the problems with immigration, as do my own side in favor of trying to pander constantly. Now Obama effectively says that the AZ police can call ICE, but no one will respond? How in God's name are we allowing this usurper of power he doesn't have, and ignoring the Constitution to remain without people going absolutely Bat ---- crazy?

God help us in this country if this President, or these progressives retain power after Nov.

j-mac
 
No, it doesn't. The key is "reasonable suspicion" - and how is reasonable suspicion defined? It could be anything the law enforcer suggests.
Reasonable suspicion is only employed after someone is stopped for something else (expired registration, domestic abuse complaint, running a stop sign etc).

This is copied directly from the SCOTUS decision:
D
Section 2(B)
Section 2(B) of S. B. 1070 requires state officers to make a “reasonable attempt . . . to determine the immigration status” of any person they stop, detain, or arrest on some other legitimate basis if “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States.”​
So is this:
Second, officers “may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona
Constitution​
Looks like SCOTUS disagrees with your interpretation of their decision doesn’t it? There it is, in their words, straight from their website.

Only because it has not been implemented yet, and because SCOTUS was uncertain about what it meant and how it would be enforced.
The SCOTUS is already propped to throw that one out also, when AZ implements it, based on their comment regarding it.

"The nature and timing of this case counsel caution in evaluating the validity of [Section] 2(B)," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, noting that the law has not yet gone into effect. Because "[t]here is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced," the majority chose to allow the law to go forward, but made clear that "[t]his opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect."

Arizona Immigration Law Ruling: Supreme Court Delivers Split Decision

SCOTUS wasn’t referring to the reason for the stop with this quote; it was referring to questions about whether law enforcement is required to hold someone they suspect to be an illegal immigrant, how long they were being held simply for verification purposes etc. and basically said that they weren’t going to rule on it now because the enforcement of the law may or may not preempt federal law, depending upon how the law is enforced and how the lower courts rule on the lawsuits that are certain to follow if someone is stopped for jaywalking and held for an unreasonable time.

The court made the right call on this one.
 
Hahaha - awww I get it - somebody is mad cause the overwhelming majority of their little law didn't pass constitutional muster. I get it - it's a rough day for you and your kind. Maybe next time you'll have better luck. Try a law banning gay marriage. Those have had some success. If that doesn't work you can always blame your personal failures on the government. That never goes out of style. ;)

There's always the dictatorship option.
 
Well, not geographically. But I'd say they have far more in common culturally and politically with the old south than they do with any other part of the country.

Actually there's very little to cultural or linguistic differences between any of the 50 states. The big cultural/linguistic/political divide is actually between the inner city (of every city in America), and everyone else.
 
I love Brewer's commentary on this. You create a law of 4 parts and 3 of them are struck down and you still consider it a "victory". No wonder most of the South has abysmal education rates. If 1/4 provisions is a "victory" - we may as well start calling F a passing grade.

She (R) is happy because this is what the Globalist Republicans who want cheap foreign labor have really wanted the entire time. They can now go to the voters and say, "See it's the Democrats who are hindering us."

Of course lefties like you play the same partisan game on the other side, but it's still the same partisan game that puts out exactly the same results, with the same people benefiting. Useful idiots, all of you.
 
Of course it's not profiling. You're fishing, you need to have a license.

My Hispanic looking relatives could be doing anything, walking or driving down a street for instance, and be stopped and harassed for merely being suspected of being illegal. As a white person, I don't have to worry about that. That's profiling.

A real world example: My blue-eyed, blonde haired relative is married to an American born woman of Mexican heritage. They have two children. One is blue-eyed and white, the other is brown eyed and brunette. He could be out with his daughter and have no worries. She could be out with their son and potentially be stopped. They live in Arizona, so my concerns are very real, this could effect her and their child.

Yes your concerns are real, and commendable; but we have to solve a problem that's been going on too long. We can't just keep kicking this can down the road. The immigration laws need to be enforced.
 
She (R) is happy because this is what the Globalist Republicans who want cheap foreign labor have really wanted the entire time. They can now go to the voters and say, "See it's the Democrats who are hindering us."

Of course lefties like you play the same partisan game on the other side, but it's still the same partisan game that puts out exactly the same results, with the same people benefiting. Useful idiots, all of you.

Actually, I'm all for having illegal immigrants working freely in the US and without criminal liability. It'll teach the anti-union American populace a thing or two about how the free market operates. Hopefully, it'll be a wake up call to 89% of the working force that the danger is not in unions - but those seeking to destroy them and hand us over to the corporatist Plutocracy.
 
Easy solution... massive fines on business and revoking of business permits for 2nd time offenders of having illegals. If no one is hiring, no one will come illegally.
 
Easy solution... massive fines on business and revoking of business permits for 2nd time offenders of having illegals. If no one is hiring, no one will come illegally.

This is already available to states. CoC v. Whiting (563US)
 
This is already available to states. CoC v. Whiting (563US)

Makes you wonder why they dont do it... hmmmmmm..

Instead they target the illegals who would not be in the US if there was no work for them because the risk and cost for the employer far far far out weighs the benefit of slave labour.
 
Makes you wonder why they dont do it... hmmmmmm..

Instead they target the illegals who would not be in the US if there was no work for them because the risk and cost for the employer far far far out weighs the benefit of slave labour.

What the hell do you think Sheriff Joe was talking about?
 
The idea is that states don't have the right to protect themselves when the federal government won't.

Interesting, wonder if the plan is to work it from a state level down to an individual level. You don't have the right to protect yourself....
 
What the hell do you think Sheriff Joe was talking about?

I dunno, can he talk civilized? All I hear from him is attack the hispanics and make it hard for them.. legal or not, to live in the US. The problem is not that there are illegals ... because there will ALWAYS be illegals. The problem is that the illegals have a chance of a job.. a very good chance at that.. and no one is doing anything about it.. not even Sheriff Joe and his nazi methods.
 
Actually, I'm all for having illegal immigrants working freely in the US and without criminal liability. It'll teach the anti-union American populace a thing or two about how the free market operates. Hopefully, it'll be a wake up call to 89% of the working force that the danger is not in unions - but those seeking to destroy them and hand us over to the corporatist Plutocracy.

Like I said, no difference between the left and the right when it comes to the important issues.
 
This is already available to states. CoC v. Whiting (563US)

I'm not sure about that. The SCOTUS seemed to have said that revokation of the business license was OK but that fines were not. Shutting down an entire company, because it hired an illegal alien, seems to be overkill. That may put hundreds of citizens out of work, and cost the business owner millions, for the fault of a single lazy manager that failed to check ID properly. I can see shutting a company down for repeated violations, but a steep fine seems sufficient to act as a deterent.
 
Easy solution... massive fines on business and revoking of business permits for 2nd time offenders of having illegals. If no one is hiring, no one will come illegally.

yeah but we have to WANT to do it first.
 
I'm not sure about that. The SCOTUS seemed to have said that revokation of the business license was OK but that fines were not. Shutting down an entire company, because it hired an illegal alien, seems to be overkill. That may put hundreds of citizens out of work, and cost the business owner millions, for the fault of a single lazy manager that failed to check ID properly. I can see shutting a company down for repeated violations, but a steep fine seems sufficient to act as a deterent.
yeah but it would only happen once and some companies can pay a steep fine no prob.
 
yeah but it would only happen once and some companies can pay a steep fine no prob.

I doubt that very much. Saving $5/hour by using illegal alien labor is not worth $100K fine for each such employee found. Many companies, like Walmart, have several stores that hire independently. What if a business (or public school) had hired an illegal alien to mow their grass, would you shut that place down?
 
Actually, I'm all for having illegal immigrants working freely in the US and without criminal liability. It'll teach the anti-union American populace a thing or two about how the free market operates. Hopefully, it'll be a wake up call to 89% of the working force that the danger is not in unions - but those seeking to destroy them and hand us over to the corporatist Plutocracy.





123456789

j-mac
 
So if local law enforcement can't enforce immigration laws, does that mean they can't enforce any federal laws?
 
I doubt that very much. Saving $5/hour by using illegal alien labor is not worth $100K fine for each such employee found. Many companies, like Walmart, have several stores that hire independently. What if a business (or public school) had hired an illegal alien to mow their grass, would you shut that place down?
if they knowingly break the law then yes i say they should be shut down like i said it would only happen once the next employer would make sure.
 
Since states are no longer sovereign, I guess they can’t ask if I have any produce in my car when I cross state lines anymore either can they?
 
Back
Top Bottom