Page 4 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 281

Thread: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

  1. #31
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Chappy View Post
    No. That clearly would be unconstitutional.
    You mean like the Patriot Act? What about criminal profiling of serial killers, rapists.. You know the FBI has an entire division devoted to doing just that? This racial profiling political debate is none sense! We DO IT ALL THE DAMN TIME! It's because the mexicans are somehow made a pawn in the liberal democrat plans for future power striggles, and perhaps adding more to the servitude class.

    Liberal hypocrits drive me nuts!!


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  2. #32
    Student The Dane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    08-01-10 @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    253

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    only if you base your logic on pure theory and ignore the law where it says racial profile illegal
    Your argument that there won't be racial profiling, IS PURE THEORY.
    Ever have to dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?
    Scales in the grass but the scales don't move right?

  3. #33
    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: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    It parallels Federal law, but Federal officials do not drive around the streets of Arizona looking for illegals. That point is a moot point.
    Obviously you never read the links I gave you with the judicial decesions that allow states to enforce immigration law


    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

    Don't feel bad. This dumbass judge didn't read them either.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  4. #34
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    It parallels Federal law, but Federal officials do not drive around the streets of Arizona looking for illegals. That point is a moot point.
    Well, actually, they DO, and if they DON'T, they're neglecting the duty to enforce federal law.

    But even if it were true, and they don't, it has nothing to with any of it. You simply don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, how the law operates, and the constitutional issues involved. You don't know how the process of law works, or how constitutional jurisprudence plays out. If you did, you wouldn't have said that.
    “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

  5. #35
    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

    I feel there are better ways to handle immigration, I think AZ's governor is using the immigration topic as a scape goat from bigger problems.
    I use a lot of satire and sarcasm so keep that in mind when reading my posts.

  6. #36
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    How about for you Lib's out here that AZ change the verb to everyone must now go through a citizenshio check? White, black, latino, Asian. Would that be ok with you that oppose this law?


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  7. #37
    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: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    Your argument that there won't be racial profiling, IS PURE THEORY.
    The law BANNING RACIAL PROFILING IS REALITY.

    Try and live in it.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  8. #38
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    For those who are interested, Judge Bolton's ruling can be found at: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0729...ton-ruling.pdf

  9. #39
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    Your argument that there won't be racial profiling, IS PURE THEORY.
    Your argument that there will be is, too. The AZ law specifically prohibits it. Any argument that there will be rests entirely on speculation that the law will be ignored.
    “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

  10. #40
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    I think we need to step back and take a look at what the ruling was on the injunction before we get any deeper into the misinformation parade.

    1. From what I just heard the injunction although it stops police from checking immigration documents when a traffic stop occurs, however, it still can, should, and will happen for any arrest situation.

    2. The appeal will continue to the 9th circuit, however this in no doubt a blow to AZ.

    3. and lastly, we wouldn't be having this discussion if Obama and the demo's would just take care of our immigration question by first, stopping the flow of illegals streaming across, instead of pandering to them as a future voting block.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 4 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •