• 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

Boo Radley said:
Obama is not King. And we see this everywhere from health care to taxes to the economy. Only an idiot thinks he's king. The court ruled here.
Click to expand...

Niether the court nor congress said to make the current federal immigration law more "dreamy", but the king sure did. The court didn't say stop federal DHS/ICE cooperation with AZ, but the king sure did. ;-)
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
No, that's not what it means at all. The decision is restricted to the area of immigration which is specifically reserved to the federal government in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Nothing is ever restricted to anything when considering precedent. If the states can no longer exercise the most fundamental aspect of sovereignty, said sovereignty ceases to exist.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Nothing is ever restricted to anything when considering precedent. If the states can no longer exercise the most fundamental aspect of sovereignty, said sovereignty ceases to exist.
Click to expand...

Erm, not really.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Reasonable suspicion is only employed after someone is stopped for something else (expired registration, domestic abuse complaint, running a stop sign etc).
Click to expand...

Exactly. The libs on this board act like police officers pull people over just because they're black or hispanic.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Niether the court nor congress said to make the current federal immigration law more "dreamy", but the king sure did. The court didn't say stop federal DHS/ICE cooperation with AZ, but the king sure did. ;-)
Click to expand...

Dreamy? Be more specific. Yes, he signed his first executive order, but that's a different issue. And he has a long way to go before he catches up with other presidents. So, calling him king based on that is quite laughable.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Nothing is ever restricted to anything when considering precedent. If the states can no longer exercise the most fundamental aspect of sovereignty, said sovereignty ceases to exist.
Click to expand...

Justice Scalia remarks:
As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment.
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Dreamy? Be more specific. Yes, he signed his first executive order, but that's a different issue. And he has a long way to go before he catches up with other presidents. So, calling him king based on that is quite laughable.
Click to expand...

His first E.O. was signed January 21, 2009 and related to Presidential records.
 
Redbeard said:
His first E.O. was signed January 21, 2009 and related to Presidential records.
Click to expand...

You are correct that it wasn't the first, but his number is considerably lower than Bush's. In fact, in the moderen era, so far, his number is the lowest. GHW Bush had some 160 and Bush jr nearly 300. I think Roosevelt leads the field, but he had more time in office. Reagan was no slouch either. So, I guess we've been under dictators for a long time. I mean if we want to accept that poor and hyperbolic reasoning put forth by Fox and allies in poor thinking. ;)

BTW, you're not a birther are you?
 
Boo Radley said:
You are correct that it wasn't the first, but his number is considerably lower than Bush's. In fact, in the moderen era, so far, his number is the lowest. GHW Bush had some 160 and Bush jr nearly 300. I think Roosevelt leads the field, but he had more time in office. Reagan was no slouch either. So, I guess we've been under dictators for a long time. I mean if we want to accept that poor and hyperbolic reasoning put forth by Fox and allies in poor thinking. ;)

BTW, you're not a birther are you?
Click to expand...

You are correct. Believe 127 to date.
 
jamesrage said:
At least police can still verify the legal status of those they pull over for traffic offense.Hopefully Arizona goes back to the drawing board for other ideas on cracking down on illegal immigration. I would like to see these ideas implemented.

1.Mandate E-verify.

2.Make those who hire illegals subject to the same laws that drug dealers,mobsters and other criminals who profit from and or use their money for illegals activities are subject to. That means subject to assets seizure and fortifier and prison time.

3.Make those who have been convicted of hiring illegals permanently loose business licenses and for a certain period of time be barred from getting a business license.

4.Require that in order to get and renew a state issued ID or state issued driver's license or federal government ID(military ID for example) one needs to present a birth certificate(or certificate of naturalization) and SS card.

6.Require that in order to enroll and re-enroll children into school the parents must present a state issued ID or driver's license. The parent must also present birth certificates and ss cards to enroll their kids into school. Schools failing to do this shall be fined and the appropriate people fired and or face possible jail or prison time.

7.Require banks,check cashing services and money wiring services to verify that the customer has a state issued ID or driver's license.

8.Require that in order to apply for welfare,food stamps, section 8 housing, tax payer funded education grants/aid, or any form of tax payer funded aid you must present a state issued ID or driver's license.

9.Require that in order to get a business license, food handlers permit,fishing and hunting permit or any other tax payer funded service you must present a state issued ID or driver's license.

10.Require that in order to buy,lease,sell,give or borrow a car both parties must state issued driver's license.

11.Require that in order to rent,sell,buy,give or borrow property/housing both parties much present a state issued ID or driver license.

12.Require police to verify the legal status of anyone they pull over.If they can spend a few seconds of minutes to check if someone has warrants then they can most definitely check to see if someone is here legally.

13.Require that those who deliberately aid illegals shall be fined and or thrown into prison,unless they are aiding in returning an illegal to the border.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the USSR ...
 
notquiteright said:
Will be interesting to see how any banding of states together to try and assert state's rights over federal this time.

If I recall American History correctly the last time was 1861 and how did that go?

Tanks into Arizona???
really???
Shirley you jest...
Click to expand...


Any other administration I would agree with you, but this one? I am not so sure anymore....Obama is effectively saying he will not enforce the border in AZ, nor lend any federal help in doing so. I thought he took an oath?
 
GPS_Flex said:
Are you referring to this?
Click to expand...

More the 1875 ruling that made that argument. The argument doesn't have legs because sovereignty is not based on residency, but on admission into the country.

Residency had been considered the sole purview of the states, as he noted by citing the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Any other administration I would agree with you, but this one? I am not so sure anymore....Obama is effectively saying he will not enforce the border in AZ, nor lend any federal help in doing so. I thought he took an oath?
Click to expand...

It appears that Obama's friends on the left are "down with" his "dreamy" selective enforcement of federal immigration laws. The theory offered behind it is that it is impossible to totally enforce the law (due to "lack of rescources"), so Obama has defined "protected classes" with his own "dreamy" slant placed on them. Would the left accept these same "exceptions" on ALL federal crime? If a bank robber, kidnapper, tax cheater, forger or drug dealer is found to be under 30, has a HS education (or is seeking one) and has no prior "major" convictions that they be let go and left on a two year probationary status to be "fair"?
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
It appears that Obama's friends on the left are "down with" his "dreamy" selective enforcement of federal immigration laws. The theory offered behind it is that it is impossible to totally enforce the law (due to "lack of rescources"), so Obama has defined "protected classes" with his own "dreamy" slant placed on them. Would the left accept these same "exceptions" on ALL federal crime? If a bank robber, kidnapper, or drug dealer is found to be under 30, has a HS education (or is seeking one) and has no prior "major" convictions that they be left on a two probationary status to be "fair"?
Click to expand...

A better analogy would be "dreamy" wingnuts insisting on a massive police deployment to put an end to jaywalking, walking on the grass, and mattress tag removal, which of course would give more room for "dreamy" bank robbers, murderers, and rapists to do their thing.
 
AdamT said:
A better analogy would be "dreamy" wingnuts insisting on a massive police deployment to put an end to jaywalking, walking on the grass, and mattress tag removal, which of course would give more room for "dreamy" bank robbers, murderers, and rapists to do their thing.
Click to expand...

Not a similar analogy at ALL, it is NOT that Obama will no longer enforce ANY immigration law violations (altough I suspect that is his ultimate goal), it is that only SOME that violate it will be deported, while others FOR THE SAME EXACT CRIME will be let slide if they qualify as being "dreamy" offenders. I was simply extending the SAME "class of offending persons" to ALL of the other FEDERAL laws to show how rediculous the PRINCIPLE of selective enforcement is. If YOUR job opportunities were limitted by an illegal alien (or 20) having already filled those positions, would it make YOU feel any better that they are young illegal aliens and have HS educations, just like you do?
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Not a similar analogy at ALL, it is NOT that Obama will no longer enforce ANY immigration law violations (altough I suspect that is his ultimate goal), it is that only SOME that violate it will be deported, while others FOR THE SAME EXACT CRIME will be let slide if they qualify as being "dreamy" offenders. I was simply extending the SAME "class of offending persons" to ALL of the other FEDERAL laws to show how rediculous the PRINCIPLE of selective enforcement is. If YOUR job opportunities were limitted by an illegal alien (or 20) having already filled those positions, would it make YOU feel any better that they are young illegal aliens and have HS educations, just like you do?
Click to expand...

His policy is to concentrate the limited resources available to deport criminals.

If MY job was threatened by unskilled laborers who could barely speak the language I would rethink my career choice.
 
Last edited:
One thing you libs need to keep in mind, if obama has a right not to enforce federal laws he doesn't like does some future extreme right wing president have the same right? For instance what if he just decided the feds won't enforce laws against drilling oil in national parks and wilderness areas, you guys OK with that. This move by obama sets a very dangerous precedent.
 
AdamT said:
His policy is to concentrate the limited resources available to deport criminals.
.
Click to expand...

Then why not utilize State resources in States that want to help? Instead Obama basically says we don't want any help, even though we don't have the resources. Another fine example of leadership and problem solving.:mrgreen:
 
AdamT said:
His policy is to concentrate the limited resources available to deport criminals.

If MY job was threatened by unskilled laborers who could barely speak the language I would rethink my career choice.
Click to expand...

Construction trade workers, manufacturing/production workers, landscape/maintance workers, food service workers and retail sales positions ARE jobs. You must remember that over HALF of the U.S. workforce is NOT college educated. Your moronic stereotype of barely speaking english does NOT apply to the vast majority of the 15 million+ of the illegals and certainly not to their 15 million "anchor babies" that were born to them here and edcuated for FREE by taxes paid by the very workers that they now displace. This is what YOU and many similar high and mighty lefties fail to see. These "menial" jobs that you blow off as "beneath you" or not good enough for U.S. citizens are the very jobs that HALF of the U.S. citizens DO FOR A LIVING. Look at the teen unemployment rate, look at the minority unemployment rate and then THINK about how keeping 30 million+ that should NOT BE HERE affects those people; just because YOU do not compete DIRECTLY with these folks, and wish them well, does NOT change reality for many, many AVERAGE U.S. citzens that need jobs NOW. Get real!
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Construction trades, landscape workers, food service workers and retail sales positions ARE jobs. You must remember that over HALF of the U.S. workforce is NOT college educated. Your moronic stereotype of barely speaking english does NOT apply to the vast majority of the 15 million+ of the illegals and certainly not to their 15 million "anchor babies" that were born to them here. This is what YOU and many similar high and mighty lefties fail to see. These "menial" jobs that you blow off as "beneath you" or not good enough for U.S. citizens are the very jobs that HALF of the U.S. citizens DO FOR A LIVING. Look at the teen unemployment rate, look at the minority unemployment rate and then THINK about how keeping 30 million+ that should NOT BE HERE affects those people; just because YOU do not compete DIRECTLY with these folks, and wish them well, does NOT change reality for many, many AVERAGE U.S. citzens that need jobs NOW. Get real!
Click to expand...

Also affected are the legal aliens that come here to work. These people have gone through the proper processes to work in this country, unlike the illegals supported by the left.
 
mike2810 said:
Then why not utilize State resources in States that want to help? Instead Obama basically says we don't want any help, even though we don't have the resources. Another fine example of leadership and problem solving.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
That's funny!

Arizona has had to sell the property that the Capital building sits on...including the buildings....to try to balance the state budget. County and city budgets are in similar situations. In the meantime, illegal immigration is way down while fed enforcement within the state is at an all time high. Now what SB1070 does is to have local enforcement arrest on a fed level violation, put them into the local courts, process them through local jails, and pass those costs to state tax payers. Along with that, local cops will be sued not only by those who were falsely arrested, they will also be sued by state citizens who feel that local officials are NOT arresting enough suspects.

In the past, local officials would turn over suspects to fed authorities, that is not the process with SB1070. The state doesn't have the resources for this, let alone for regular enforcement.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That's funny!

Arizona has had to sell the property that the Capital building sits on...including the buildings....to try to balance the state budget. County and city budgets are in similar situations. In the meantime, illegal immigration is way down while fed enforcement within the state is at an all time high. Now what SB1070 does is to have local enforcement arrest on a fed level violation, put them into the local courts, process them through local jails, and pass those costs to state tax payers. Along with that, local cops will be sued not only by those who were falsely arrested, they will also be sued by state citizens who feel that local officials are NOT arresting enough suspects.

In the past, local officials would turn over suspects to fed authorities, that is not the process with SB1070. The state doesn't have the resources for this, let alone for regular enforcement.
Click to expand...

I disagree. So back to the point, then you support an action by the Feds to basically turn its back on AZ. Got it. This administration is a failure in dealing with illegal immigration.

As far as AZ budget, at least it is balanced. Unlike CA (for example) which is way deep in debt. Stockton (sp) is looking at filling for bankrupcy.
 
So back to the point, then you support an action by the Feds to basically turn its back on AZ.
Click to expand...
????? Straw, never said any such thing, I commented on the the costs and the fact that AZ does not have the additional resources for these added enforcement schemes.



Got it. This administration is a failure in dealing with illegal immigration.
Click to expand...
???? We are seeing huge changes in (lowered) entry and (higher) deportations levels.

mike2810 said:
I disagree. As far as AZ budget, at least it is balanced.
Click to expand...
...On the back of huge cuts in services to AZ CITIZENS. You are arguing for expanded govt, greater govt costs on the state level at a time of recession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom