Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting

  1. #11
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    He was a professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago for 12 years. Yeah, I'd say he's an expert. I don't know how you can just deny reality here. He is a well established expert, you are not.
    He's also a well established idealogue and propagandist... which may be more or less than 12 years but I'll grant you... he's an expert there too.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  2. #12
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    So what do the tea party's have to say about this? If Arizona is found to be violating the constitution, how bad will it look for them to be in outrage when this law gets struck down by the Federal government (which it will).

    You're not going to beat Obama at his own game, constitutional law.

    Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting - CSMonitor.com
    The DOJ is going to argue that the US government has jurisdiction over immigration.... that is false. That is one of the rights States retain according to the 10th amendment.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  3. #13
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,022

    Re: Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    He was a professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago for 12 years. Yeah, I'd say he's an expert. I don't know how you can just deny reality here. He is a well established expert, you are not.
    So he is and we are not. Would you accept his opinion on any law that he has not read? Seems he called Az misguided before he ever read the law, if he has taken the time to date. Is your viewpoint that Obama is 100% correct that we now don't need courts? We can just ask Obama to "rule".

    The courts and most likely the SC will rule on AZ law. So what you say or I say is all opinion. Bottom line, if the Feds want all the responsibilities then they are expected to enforce the federal law when it comes to "illegal" immigration. Then the States would not need to help the Feds.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  4. #14
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by BCR View Post
    Obama hasn't show any respect for the constitution??? just like how conservatives completely disregard the constitution when it comes to prayer in school and wanting to thwart the attempts to build a mosque two blocks away from ground zero?
    Please show where either of those examples are unconstitutional.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:30 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,071

    Re: Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    So what do the tea party's have to say about this? If Arizona is found to be violating the constitution, how bad will it look for them to be in outrage when this law gets struck down by the Federal government (which it will).

    You're not going to beat Obama at his own game, constitutional law.

    Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting - CSMonitor.com
    You are so firmly planted to Obama's jock, it's comical.

    Arizona is within their right to enforce established immigration law. Obama knows it, but he hates the Constitution intensely, and he'll try desperately to help the undocumented Democrats.

  6. #16
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    So what do the tea party's have to say about this? If Arizona is found to be violating the constitution, how bad will it look for them to be in outrage when this law gets struck down by the Federal government (which it will).

    You're not going to beat Obama at his own game, constitutional law.

    Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting - CSMonitor.com
    Still woefully uninformed I see. Case law supports Arizona in spades.

    Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468. 1983: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

    "Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens. De Canas, 424 U.S. at 354-55, 96 S.Ct. at 935-36. The plaintiffs' reference to exclusive federal authority over immigration matters thus does not resolve this question. Instead, we must define precisely the challenged state enforcement activity to determine if "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion.

    "The City's claim of authority is limited. It asserts only the power to enforce the criminal provisions of the federal immigration laws. There is nothing inherent in that specific enforcement activity that conflicts with federal regulatory interests. Federal and local enforcement have identical purposes--the prevention of the misdemeanor or felony of illegal entry. The subject matter of the regulation thus does not require us to find that state enforcement is preempted."
    United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F2nd 1298. 1984: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

    Footnote 3 in the decision: "A state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations. Moreover, the trooper's question about the green card was reasonable under the circumstances, and thus lawful."

    United States v. Vasquez- Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294. 1999: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

    "In particular, the United States observes this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law. See Davida v. United States, 422 F.2d 528, 530 (10th Cir.1970); cf. United States v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir.1983) ("inferring, as a matter of state law] that Illinois officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests"); United States v. Swarovski, 557 F.2d 40, 43-49 (2d Cir.1977) (noting generally that there is no overarching federal impediment to arrests by state officers for violations of federal law). In fact, this court has held that state law-enforcement officers have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws."

    United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

    "We noted just recently that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit "have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws," and that federal law as currently written does nothing "to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws." United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1296, 1299 n.4, 1300 (10th Cir. 1999). Rather, we observed that federal law "evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws." Id. at 1300."

    United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

    "During the routine stop of a vehicle for speeding, a South Dakota highway patrol officer discovered that Manuel Rodriguez-Arreola, a passenger in the vehicle, was an illegal alien. Rodriguez was detained and later charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (Supp. IV 1998) with being an illegal alien present in the United States after deportation.2 Rodriguez filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing that his status as an illegal alien was discovered through questioning that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court granted Rodriguez's motion to suppress and the government appeals. We reverse....

    "The government argues that Trooper Koltz did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Rodriguez. The government contends that the questions posed to Molina concerning his alienage were within the scope of the stop because they were based on a reasonable suspicion by Trooper Koltz.10 The government further contends that even if Trooper Koltz's questions to Molina constituted an unconstitutional search and seizure, the questions only violated Molina's Fourth Amendment rights--a violation that Rodriguez does not have standing to assert. After Molina stated that the passenger in his vehicle did not have a green card, the government argues that Trooper Koltz had reasonable suspicion to ask Rodriguez about his citizenship status. Finally, the government argues that even if Trooper Koltz's questions constituted a Fourth Amendment violation, Rodriguez's identity is not suppressible as a matter of law."

    Rodriguez does not have Fourth Amendment rights to assert because he was an illegal alien.

    Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93. 2005 United States Supreme Court.

    This case I had to look in two places. First, the Ninth Circuit Silly Circus Court of Appeals. It indicated Mena was a legal resident. It didn't state whether that was by green card, American born or otherwise, so I went to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision; here. This case involved a gang related drive by shooting.

    "Aware that the West Side Locos gang was composed primarily of illegal immigrants, the officers had notified the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that they would be conducting the search, and an INS officer accompanied the officers executing the warrant. During their detention in the garage, an officer asked for each detainee's name, date of birth, place of birth, and immigration status. The INS officer later asked the detainees for their immigration documentation. Mena’s status as a permanent resident was confirmed by her papers."

    The court reversed the Ninth Circuit that Mena's Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The court also held the officers had the right to question her citizenship status: "Mena’s detention was, under Summers, plainly permissible. [1]An officer's authority to detain incident to a search is categorical; it does not depend on the “quantum of proof justifying detention or the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure.” Id., at 705, n. 19. Thus, Mena’s detention for the duration of the search was reasonable under Summers because a warrant existed to search 1363 Patricia Avenue and she was an occupant of that address at the time of the search."

    United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez. 2005: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

    "The determination of whether investigative detention beyond the scope of the initial stop is supported by an objectively reasonable suspicion of illegal activity "does not depend upon any one factor but on the totality of the circumstances." Jones, 44 F.3d at 872 (citing United States v. Soto, 988 F.2d 1548, 1555 (10th Cir. 1993). We make this determination "with deference to a trained law enforcement officer's ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious circumstances." United States v. Mendez, 118 F.3d 1426, 1431 (10th Cir. 1997). Here, while the officer was checking Mercado's license and registration, Mercado revealed that he was an illegal alien. Further detention of Mercado was therefore justified, as was the questioning of Dominguez. See United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984) (stating that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations")."

    More drug dealers off the streets.

    Gray v City of Valley Park. 2008: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

    A bit of a convoluted case where the court ruled "federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens."

    I'm not a lawyer and I didn't come up with those cases. I found them on a web site for Walter Moore, an attorney with over 25 years experience. While he listed the cases, he didn't provide links, so I went and found most of them so you can see they are real. Not to doubt Moore's posting. Time is an issue for everyone, so I'm trying to help by giving you the links.

    And, there is the Estrada case I mentioned in a recent column, which was decided February 10, 2010; United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Another traffic stop by a state trooper. The illegals lost again. Perhaps Ronstadt in all her brilliance also missed that decision.

    We don't need another immigration "reform" bill out of Congress. Every time one is signed into law, it opens the flood gates. The laws on the books need to be enforced to the fullest by both the states and ICE. Congress can put together a simple bill calling for a moratorium on all immigration for a period of ten years. It will take that long to clean up the mess caused by the last "reform" bill signed into law by Ronald Reagan.

    It will take that long to unclog the courts and clean out the jails:

    "Some illegal aliens in the United States have been arrested and incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails, adding to already overcrowded prisons and jails. On April 7, 2007, the US Justice Department issued a report on criminal aliens that were incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails.

    "In the population study of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990.

    "They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses.


    Devvy -- Federal Court decisions favor Arizona's new immigration law -- 05/03/10
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  7. #17
    Student Goof Noodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Last Seen
    11-11-10 @ 10:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    257

    Re: Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    He was a professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago for 12 years. Yeah, I'd say he's an expert. I don't know how you can just deny reality here. He is a well established expert, you are not.
    So how many cases has he won?

    Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
    Failure is made possible by liberty.

  8. #18
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Goof Noodle View Post
    So how many cases has he won?

    Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
    I just love the contempt my fellow conservatives have for teachers... NOT!!!
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  9. #19
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,465

    Re: Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    So what do the tea party's have to say about this? If Arizona is found to be violating the constitution, how bad will it look for them to be in outrage when this law gets struck down by the Federal government (which it will).

    You're not going to beat Obama at his own game, constitutional law.

    Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting - CSMonitor.com
    If Arizona is violating The Constitution, then every single gun ban law in the country is illegal.

    Why isn't Obama sueing all those state and local governments for violating the 2nd Amendment? Let me guess; that's different. Huh?
    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.

  10. #20
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    07-27-10 @ 05:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6

    Re: Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting

    Cutting through the unproductive sarcasm and pissing contests and referring back to the original poster, the tea party activists (and anyone else who opposes the law) will still be able to denounce the actions of the federal government with, at least, internal consistency. This is because "legal" does not necessarily equal "right."

    The supremacy clause is a legal technicality. Important and, at times, useful, but a technicality nonetheless. If the Arizona law is struck down by the supremacy clause, the fact still stands that a state, with the support of a majority of Americans, wants to stem the flow of illegal immigrants across its border with Mexico, and it does not believe that the federal government is sufficiently enforcing federal law. If the Arizona law is ruled to be unconstitutional because of the supremacy clause, that ruling will say nothing and mean nothing as regards the federal government's failure to address the concerns of American citizens. If anything, it would actually seem to strengthen the argument that the federal government is not listening to its citizens' concerns (unless they struck down the Arizona law for procedure's sake, and immediately stepped up their own enforcement).

    As far as Obama's credentials are concerned, yes, he is an expert on constitutional law, as evidenced by his tenure at Harvard (as a side note, the fact that he was a teacher says nothing good or bad, by itself, of his competence in any capacity). But that does not mean it's "his game" or that he is infallible. Constitutional law is an incredibly vague, unpredictable field of the law, precisely because it ultimately falls to the Supreme Court of the United States to define what is, and what is not, "constitutional." And their opinions on the matter often change drastically.

    And kudos to texmaster for posting some truly useful information. Interesting stuff, there. And I'll be very interested to see how that case pans out. The supremacy clause only prevents states from passing laws that conflict with federal laws or undermine some purpose of the federal legislature. I'll be interested to see exactly what law or purpose the Arizona law supposedly conflicts with or undermines (I haven't read any of the government's briefs and I don't know if they've been released yet).

    Cheers,

    The Black Sheep
    Last edited by Black_Sheep; 07-23-10 at 12:38 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •