• 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!

Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

The problem is she is ignoring legal precident for states to write their own laws against illegals

Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 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....""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.

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,"

United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola

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

Muehler v. Mena

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."


And those are just a few. She ignored all of this legal precedence and became a political activist instead an interpreter of the law.

None of those cases is a 9th Circuit case, and the sole Supreme Court case there isn't on point (though it does say that asking about immigration status doesn't violate the 4th Amendment). So, she wasn't ignoring anything she was bound to follow.
 
It is itself theater. It does nothing. It is only designed to hype the issue and garner votes. So, it creates the stage for both sides to play fight, thus gardnering their supporters. but in the end, no matter who wins any legal battles, ten years from now, nothing will have changed.

Then why is Obama fining business who hire illegal immigrants millions of dollars?
 
FWIW, for an injunction to be issued, the plaintiff must (1) be likely to prevail on the provisions in question and (2) face likely "irreparable harm" in the absence of an injunction. The crux of Judge Bolton's decision is that:

...the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:

Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person

Section 3 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work Section 6 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

The Court also finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States’ favor considering the public interest…

If enforcement of the portions of S.B. 1070 for which the Court finds a likelihood of preemption is not enjoined, the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm. This is so because the federal government’s ability to enforce its policies and achieve its objectives will be undermined by the state’s enforcement of statutes that interfere with federal law, even if the Court were to conclude that the state statutes have substantially the same goals as federal law…
 
Yeah, anyone want to explain what "a reasonable suspicion exists that person is an alien" means?

A reasonable suspicion is an articulable suspicion based on observation and law-enforcement experience.
 
Yeah, anyone want to explain what "a reasonable suspicion exists that person is an alien" means?

No drivers license, paid under the table....
 
Last edited:
It is itself theater. It does nothing. It is only designed to hype the issue and garner votes. So, it creates the stage for both sides to play fight, thus gardnering their supporters. but in the end, no matter who wins any legal battles, ten years from now, nothing will have changed.

You already said that. It doesn't answer the question. It's just a circle.
 
Then why is Obama fining business who hire illegal immigrants millions of dollars?

Supply and demand. No jobs, no illegal immigrants.

But, that has to be enforced more locally and won't be. Obama has to make a show in this direction as well. He can't afford to look pro illegal immigrations. None of this is new.
 
You already said that. It doesn't answer the question. It's just a circle.

But it does answer the question. None of this is real. both sides are acting in order to make a show, to look good to their followers. You can't have a show without a stage. So, you need it to go to court.
 
The problem is she is ignoring legal precident for states to write their own laws against illegals

Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 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....""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.

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,"

United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola

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

Muehler v. Mena

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."


And those are just a few. She ignored all of this legal precedence and became a political activist instead an interpreter of the law.

“[T]he fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute does
not render it a regulation of immigration

http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0729sb1070-bolton-ruling.pdf
 
But it does answer the question. None of this is real. both sides are acting in order to make a show, to look good to their followers. You can't have a show without a stage. So, you need it to go to court.

If your'e saying that AZ enacted the law for show, then I'd have to say you're mistaken. Though you may well be right that the federal government is suing for those reasons.
 
If your'e saying that AZ enacted the law for show, then I'd have to say you're mistaken. Though you may well be right that the federal government is suing for those reasons.

Yes, they did. They know they already have the laws to tackle this problem on the book. If they were serious, they'd skip the theater and just enforce the law.
 
Yes, they did. They know they already have the laws to tackle this problem on the book. If they were serious, they'd skip the theater and just enforce the law.

If you're referring to the feds (which you must be, because it doesn't make any sense as it would apply to AZ), then I agree entirely.
 
If you're referring to the feds (which you must be, because it doesn't make any sense as it would apply to AZ), then I agree entirely.

Nope Arizona. Arizona could have simply enforced the laws on the books. They choose theater.
 
Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court
finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following
Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:

1. Requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to
determine the immigration status of a person stopped,
detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that
the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and
requiring verification of the immigration status of any
person arrested prior to releasing that person.

This is exactly what she ruled against.

This ruling is not a bump in the rode, it is more like a dagger stabbed in the heart of this law.
-CNN
 
Last edited:
I hope this ruling can be changed. This judge clearly doesn't understand the law and is legislating from the bench. She hasn't ruled them to be illegal either, she has placed them "on hold" until things are legally resolved.
 
I hope this ruling can be changed. This judge clearly doesn't understand the law and is legislating from the bench. She hasn't ruled them to be illegal either, she has placed them "on hold" until things are legally resolved.

Your in no place to state whether or not a judge knows what she's talking about.
 
Your in no place to state whether or not a judge knows what she's talking about.

What utter nonsense. Any public official can and should be criticized.
 
Nope Arizona. Arizona could have simply enforced the laws on the books. They choose theater.

Which laws on the books? The federal laws? Funny; that's exactly what SB 1070 aims to do, and exactly what the suit against them claims they can't do.
 
What utter nonsense. Any public official can and should be criticized.

Yeah, followed by rational statements. Not just, "This judge is wrong!"
 
This is exactly what she ruled against.


-CNN


Son . . . she ruled against nothing. Have you not gotten that yet? Seriously?
 
Yeah, followed by rational statements. Not just, "This judge is wrong!"

No, "this judge is wrong" is perfectly acceptable for anyone to say. Indeed, it is their place. If they don't defend it well, so be it, but it's certainly well within their purview in a free society.
 
Oh really? So Arizona doesn't need to appeal anything huh.
 
Back
Top Bottom