• 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

ludahai said:
And you would expect anything different from a Clinton appointee?
Click to expand...

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
oh I don't know, that the 1st judge upheld it, now this Clinton appointed judge oversteps her authority?
Click to expand...


LOL...I wondered who would be the first to bring up...but..but it was Clinton...LOL


On the recommendation of Arizona Republican U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, Susan Bolton received unanimous consent of a Republican majority Senate.
 
j-mac said:
Easy there don....We were only discussing a little broader context. Would you agree don, that this fight over SB1070 comes down along party lines?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
I want to reduce the risk that this thread will deteriorate to the point where it is closed or so many members receive infractions that the discussion/debate withers. The issue at hand is a significant one with broad ramifications (legal, constitutional, unfunded mandates/fiscal, etc.).

Clearly, there is a partisan/ideological aspect with respect to opinions on the law and the judge's injunction. One can discuss those partisan/ideological differences, but the discussion shouldn't be turned into one about the nature of the general motivations of liberals/conservatives/republicans/democrats.
 
Harshaw said:
Dude, that's standard procedure. I think she got it wrong, but implementing a PJ pending adjudication happens all the time.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make it right especially on a decesion this big.
 
j-mac said:
Easy there don....We were only discussing a little broader context. Would you agree don, that this fight over SB1070 comes down along party lines?

j-mac
Click to expand...

No, I'm a registered Democrat but I side with conservatives on this one.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
People who are against this bill are either not from Arizona or just extremely ignorant.
Click to expand...


I disagree with that. Most or almost all people against this bill do not want any anti-illegal immigration laws being enforced on the state level.Because anti-illegal immigration laws on the state level are more likely to be enforced. Anti-illegal immigration laws being enforced on the state and local level makes it a lot harder to push amnesty or so-called immigration reform and proves that simply enforcing the laws on the books does work and that the government has been willfully ignoring the problem. It wouldn't matter if sb 1070 said everyone must checked when stopped for a traffic violation, dui check or some other form of lawful police contact , they would still scream racist like a two year old not getting his way. Basically the opposition to SB 1070 is just pro-illegals looking out for their own interests. I only wish that most of these people against SB 1070 were either just ignorant or not from Arizona, then you could have a minute or two long commercial reading part of the bill that allows for the checking of the legal status.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Moderator's Warning:
I want to reduce the risk that this thread will deteriorate to the point where it is closed or so many members receive infractions that the discussion/debate withers. The issue at hand is a significant one with broad ramifications (legal, constitutional, unfunded mandates/fiscal, etc.).

Clearly, there is a partisan/ideological aspect with respect to opinions on the law and the judge's injunction. One can discuss those partisan/ideological differences, but the discussion shouldn't be turned into one about the nature of the general motivations of liberals/conservatives/republicans/democrats.
Click to expand...

Hence my posting STATING that I didnt think all liberals wore the same nepharious label...
 
All I know is if States cant even ASK for proper doccumentation, like the TSA does... and goes further than that even.... then we as a Nation are headed for an even steeper decline than before.
 
BCR said:
Article One, Section 8

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Are you trying to derail the thread? What part of the Arizona law had anything to do with naturalization?

(Hint..... the Arizona law is about Illegal immigration.
 
ludahai said:
LEOs don't check everyone for a potential offense against the law, only people they have a "reasonable suspicion" of doing so. Why should this be any different?
Click to expand...

I can think of one instance where LEOs always check every one for potential offences of the law..... it's called a traffic stop.

Nothing make a cop look stupider than not calling in for wants and warrants, then finding out later that the person they had stopped was wanted for bank robbery.
 
Crunch said:
Are you trying to derail the thread? What part of the Arizona law had anything to do with naturalization?

(Hint..... the Arizona law is about Illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

Naturalization pertains to immigration laws..Arizona can perform whatever law they want as long as it doesn't go beyond what federal law has set. This bill goes beyond federal law, the whole thing might not get shot down but key parts of it will be blocked, which has already happened.
 
ludahai said:
The law SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS this....

Also, as for supremecy, are you arguing that state governments have ZERO authority to enforce ANY federal law?

Also, the legislature of AZ was not passing immigration legislation, they were legislating the behavior of illegals already in the state.
Click to expand...

Just to clear something up. (and no, I'm not picking on you :mrgreen: )

Under the Constitution, the federal government does not have any authority over immigration.... just uniform naturalization laws.

So according to the 10th amendment, immigration falls under the authority of the States.
 
ludahai said:
Which is interesting because the AZ law didn't mandate checking either... Love the tizzy liberals are in over this law. it is like they LIKE illegal immigrants or something...
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... debatable.

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Click to expand...

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
 
ludahai said:
Yeah, because the Ninth Circuit isn't very liberal nor does it have much of a record of it itself being overturned by the Supremes, does it?
Click to expand...

Looks like they are right on the money to me....

From prisoners' rights to environmental protection, laws set by the West's powerful appeals court were overturned in 15 of the 16 cases reviewed this term by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Read more: Supreme Court overturning numerous 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rulings

Uh.... er.... well.... Hmmmmmmmm.
 
Harshaw said:
You know what's actually ironic about this? As long as this litigation goes on, and armies of lawyers, reporters, and other hangers-on storm the place, AZ's tourism dollars are going to skyrocket. So much for the boycotts.
Click to expand...

Despite the threat of widespread travel boycotts tied to the state's strict new immigration law, early results for hotels and resorts in metropolitan Phoenix show little evidence of any short-term impact.

Hotel occupancy was up 6.5 percent in May and 10.6 percent in June from a year earlier, outpacing national gains, according to Smith Travel Research. Average room rates were flat on an above-average increase in rooms. Revenue per available room, the most closely watched measure, rose 6.2 percent and 11 percent in May and June, respectively.
Click to expand...



Read more: Arizona's immigration law has little impact on Arizona's tourism

:lamo
 
Crunch said:
Are you trying to derail the thread? What part of the Arizona law had anything to do with naturalization?

(Hint..... the Arizona law is about Illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

Actually naturalization is about immigration.

USCIS Home Page

But obviously these MOSTLY racist illegals need to be punted OUT of the US. My family didnt fight in wars for this type of ****.
 
BCR said:
Naturalization pertains to immigration laws..
Click to expand...

Wrong.....

To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native. See Usage Note at migrate.
v.tr.
To send or introduce as immigrants:
Click to expand...

immigration - definition of immigration by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. To grant full citizenship to (one of foreign birth).
2. To adopt (something foreign) into general use.
3. To adapt or acclimate (a plant or animal) to a new environment; introduce and establish as if native.
4. To cause to conform to nature.
v.intr.
To become naturalized or acclimated; undergo adaptation.
Click to expand...

naturalization - definition of naturalization by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Did I really have to point out the difference?... or are you being disingenuous just to support the unsupportable?
 
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
 
Harshaw said:
Uh, no, it was NOT struck down. Enforcement of some of the provisions of the law was enjoined temporarily.

Which doesn't even matter in this instance, because the law in question in no way authorized what happened in that case.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
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?
Click to expand...

Care to cite the bill for this? I don't recall seeing it when I read the bill. Maybe I missed it?
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Actually naturalization is about immigration.

USCIS Home Page

But obviously these MOSTLY racist illegals need to be punted OUT of the US. My family didnt fight in wars for this type of ****.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BCR said:
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
Click to expand...

Refute post 216..... then show me the word "immigration" in the US. Constitution.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Crunch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rightwingnutjob said:
Care to cite the bill for this? I don't recall seeing it when I read the bill. Maybe I missed it?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rightwingnutjob said:
Care to cite the bill for this? I don't recall seeing it when I read the bill. Maybe I missed it?
Click to expand...

The decision, a temporary action until the full legal dispute is aired, also blocks parts of the law that ban illegal immigrants from seeking work and require documented immigrants to apply for or carry registration papers.
Click to expand...

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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom