Page 23 of 29 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 281

Thread: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

  1. #221
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by BCR View Post
    Naturalization is about the immigration into the United States. I could even find more than one reason to declare this unconstitutional but you'd probably care less so I'll let one of the only sane people on Fox news tell you.

    YouTube - Arizona Immigration Law Backlash
    Refute post 216..... then show me the word "immigration" in the US. Constitution.
    Last edited by Crunch; 07-29-10 at 05:10 PM.
    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.

  2. #222
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Yea, the part of the law requiring people to carry papers proving their citizenship WAS struck down. You didn't know this? And yea, the part of the law struck down did specify that people could go to jail if they didn't have their papers in order. You didn't know this either?
    You seem to be a bit confused about the difference between an injunction and a law that has been struck down...... reread the post you replied to.

    Hint… an injunction is a temporary hold.
    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. #223
    Advisor BCR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    598

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    Your link is the generic USCIS Home Page so doesn't help your point at all.

    It would be more accurate to say that immigration is all about naturalization as people usually immigrate with the idea of becoming citizens of the country they immigrate to.... but the federal right to legislate a uniform law of naturalization does not translate to a federal right to tell the States who and how many can immigrate into their State, that is a State right via the 10th amendment.
    States cannot go beyond what the Federal law prescribes though, thus the uniform naturalization laws. This law does go beyond what the federal law dictates. This can also be considered foreign affairs which Federal government has rule over.
    I use a lot of satire and sarcasm so keep that in mind when reading my posts.

  4. #224
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Rightwingnutjob View Post
    Care to cite the bill for this? I don't recall seeing it when I read the bill. Maybe I missed it?
    You didn't miss it.... federal law requires all non-citizens to carry their papers that prove they are here legally... as far as I have been able to find, once a person is a citizen that requirement no longer exists, however, if you don't carry some form of official ID. and come to the attention of a LEO, you can be held for 72 hours of until your identity has been confirmed. That goes for any citizen in the US, not just newly naturalized citizens.
    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. #225
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Rightwingnutjob View Post
    Care to cite the bill for this? I don't recall seeing it when I read the bill. Maybe I missed it?
    1) I actually have no problem with some of the Arizona law. I have a huge problem with people being forced to carry papers that are above and beyond what is normal for people to carry. That is what Nazi and Communist nations do, and the whole idea is repulsive.

    2) Since there is already a Federal law against illegal immigration, all Arizona has to do is enforce what already exists. States already have the right to this. Where states don't do it, it is usually because some cities have become sanctuary cities. State law trumps local law, so all states have to do is outlaw sanctuary cities.

    3) You can't have 50 states with 50 different versions of a law that is already on the Federal books.
    Last edited by danarhea; 07-29-10 at 05:23 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  6. #226
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by BCR View Post
    States cannot go beyond what the Federal law prescribes though, thus the uniform naturalization laws. This law does go beyond what the federal law dictates. This can also be considered foreign affairs which Federal government has rule over.
    Show me in the Arizona law where it has anything to do with "NATURALIZATION".... You can't so knock off the strawman. This law is about "immigration", and that is a State right.
    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.

  7. #227
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:08 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,602

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    1) I actually have no problem with some of the Arizona law. I have a huge problem with people being forced to carry papers that are above and beyond what is normal for people to carry.
    The Arizona law does not require that.


    2) Since there is already a Federal law against illegal immigration, all Arizona has to do is enforce what already exists. States already have the right to this.
    The enjoined part of the law does nothing other than this, and the basis of the suit against it is that it's a federal matter of pre-emption. In fact, everything that Bolton deemed "likely to succeed" is the AZ scheme for enforcing federal law, which is why it's supposedly unconstitutional. She even specifically said the actual new laws, such as outlawing picking up day laborers, etc., would stand.


    3) You can't have 50 states with 50 different versions of the law that is already on the Federal books.
    See 1) and 2) above.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #228
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    1) I actually have no problem with some of the Arizona law. I have a huge problem with people being forced to carry papers that are above and beyond what is normal for people to carry. That is what Nazi and Communist nations do, and the whole idea is repulsive.
    This has been posted more than once..... memorize it.

    A green card is issued to all permanent residents as proof that they are authorized to live and work in the United States. If you are a permanent resident age 18 or older, you are required to have a valid green card in your possession at all times. Current green cards are valid for 10 years, or 2 years in the case of a conditional resident, and must be renewed before the card expires.
    USCIS - After a Green Card is Granted

    2) Since there is already a Federal law against illegal immigration, all Arizona has to do is enforce what already exists. States already have the right to this. Where states don't do it, it is usually because some cities have become sanctuary cities. State law trumps local law, so all states have to do is outlaw sanctuary cities.



    3) You can't have 50 states with 50 different versions of a law that is already on the Federal books.
    Why? Show me where in the Constitution that the Fed has the right to control immigration.... as far as that goes, just show me where the word "immigration" appears in the Constitution.
    Last edited by Crunch; 07-29-10 at 05:38 PM.
    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.

  9. #229
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    Show me in the Arizona law where it has anything to do with "NATURALIZATION".... You can't so knock off the strawman. This law is about "immigration", and that is a State right.
    The "Supremacy Clause" of the US Constitution says it is not a state right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Article VI
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    This will be affirmed by the Bush-appointed Supreme court, which strictly interprets the Constitution. No Liberal loose interpretations allowed here, folks, not even by the Tea Party.
    Last edited by danarhea; 07-29-10 at 08:49 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  10. #230
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:08 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,602

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    While I agree that immigration and border control is indeed a federal matter, Article VI doesn't establish that.

    And you, dana, say you want Arizona to enforce federal law, but as I pointed out earlier, that's exactly what the federal government is trying to stop them from doing. If the "Bush-appointed" Supreme Court does what you say here, then they will be stopping Arizona from doing what you say you want Arizona to do.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Page 23 of 29 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... 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
  •