• 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 Dane said:
Oh really? So Arizona doesn't need to appeal anything huh.
Click to expand...

No, they don't need to appeal anything, because no law has been struck down. They could perfectly well sit it out until the actul matter is resolved. They will do so if they want the injunction lifted, but they don't have to.
 
Harshaw said:
That's probably true -- the AZ law was written to parallel federal law closely. Striking it down on those grounds certainly puts federal law at risk.

I'm certain, thought, that this will lead to lawsuits against "sanctuary cities," which overtly circumvent federal law. Yet, never a peep about "conducting their own foreign policy" in those situations.
Click to expand...

I, as an immigrant into the US was issued with a so called 'Green card' & instructed to hold it on my person at all times.
I asked why? at the time and was told that the Federal law required me to be able to prove at all times, I was legally in the US.
Am I to NOW understand that I no longer have to carry a Green card with me at all times?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Members should refrain from assessing one another's fitness to express personal opinions. Members' ability to express opinions, e.g., on the judge's knowledge of the law/injuction, should not be made into an issue of debate/discussion. That a member may not possess the expertise to make an informed evaluation on a matter(s) in question does not, under DP's Rule #1, bar him/her from expressing his/her personal opinion on that matter(s). In addition, there is no "test" or "requirement" that a member's opinion be sufficiently informed before it is posted. In this thread, the focus of debate/discussion should remain on Judge Bolton's injunction and related issues.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
jujuman13 said:
I, as an immigrant into the US was issued with a so called 'Green card' & instructed to hold it on my person at all times.
I asked why? at the time and was told that the Federal law required me to be able to prove at all times, I was legally in the US.
Am I to NOW understand that I no longer have to carry a Green card with me at all times?
Click to expand...

Why are you directing that question at me?
 
The Dane said:
Yeah, followed by rational statements. Not just, "This judge is wrong!"
Click to expand...

As opposed to your tactic of "this judge is right"? :lamo
 
The Dane said:
Your in no place to state whether or not a judge knows what she's talking about.
Click to expand...

You, and your legal superiority complex. First, Obama is the greatest Constitutional expert in the land, and now this judge is the all-knowing Wapner. LOL

Am I allowed to vote? I mean, am I qualified? LOL

I do know this: the country is going to rally in massive droves behind Arizona on this, and the Democrats just lost a few more seats than they would have.
 
Moderator's Warning:
With respect to Messages #80 and #81, the issue has already been addressed in Message #78 in this thread. Future messages that ignore the general warning from #78 will be infracted.
 
The Dane said:
I said policies. You can be against this law, and also be against illegal immigration. You really think any of these cops are going to ask white folks for their immigration papers? No, they're going to pull over a Mexican guy for a DUI, and be like, "Hrmmm I wonder if this guy is illegal...he is Mexican."

That is ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is illegal.

Good thing this law didn't make that legal.

:roll:
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, it is illegal.

Good thing this law didn't make that legal.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Or that the AZ law itself expressly prohibits such a thing.
 
jujuman13 said:
I, as an immigrant into the US was issued with a so called 'Green card' & instructed to hold it on my person at all times.
I asked why? at the time and was told that the Federal law required me to be able to prove at all times, I was legally in the US.
Am I to NOW understand that I no longer have to carry a Green card with me at all times?
Click to expand...
Federal Law still requires you to keep your "Green Card" with you at all times.... the ruling of this judge just halts the provision of the Arizona law that enables an officer of the courts from asking you for it under Arizona law. I would assume that an Arizona officer of the courts could still ask for your Green Card under Federal law.

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.
Click to expand...

USCIS - After a Green Card is Granted
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, it is illegal.

Good thing this law didn't make that legal.

:roll:
Click to expand...


Wait a minute...It is my understanding that in a DUI one is arrested, is that right? If so the subjects immigration status can, should, and will be checked.

j-mac
 
The Dane said:
Yeah, anyone want to explain what "a reasonable suspicion exists that person is an alien" means?
Click to expand...


Can you explain to me how one can follow and find leads and solve crimes without suspicion? We always, always have to rely on personal judgement and disgression otherwise we are paralized to do anything which I think is the aim of the court here. It is ridiculous to dismiss evidence just because someone is apparently Latino. Do you suggest we just radomly ask people for the citizenship papers? Ridiculous!
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, it is illegal.

Good thing this law didn't make that legal.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Good luck enforcing the law WITHOUT racially profiling when the majority of illegals are mexican. And the majority of mexicans are legal.

I wonder how the legal mexicans feel about this.
 
j-mac said:
Wait a minute...It is my understanding that in a DUI one is arrested, is that right? If so the subjects immigration status can, should, and will be checked.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Thats fine. (10 char)
 
SE102 said:
Good luck enforcing the law WITHOUT racially profiling when the majority of illegals are mexican. And the majority of mexicans are legal.

I wonder how the legal mexicans feel about this.
Click to expand...


I believe that the last poll taken showed Mexican Americans backing the law, but concerned how it would be enforced.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Wait a minute...It is my understanding that in a DUI one is arrested, is that right? If so the subjects immigration status can, should, and will be checked.

j-mac
Click to expand...

If you are driving and you don't have a license to drive, or have a license that is obviously fake, any person, in any State can expect to go to jail, directly to jail, and not pass go for 72 hours or until their identity has been determined. If said person is found to have a fake license they can expect to stay in jail for some time.

None of the above is new.
 
Crunch said:
If you are driving and you don't have a license to drive, or have a license that is obviously fake, any person, in any State can expect to go to jail, directly to jail, and not pass go for 72 hours or until their identity has been determined. If said person is found to have a fake license they can expect to stay in jail for some time.

None of the above is new.
Click to expand...


Exactly right.


j-mac
 
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.
Click to expand...
But forcing law-biding citizens to submit to a background check when buying a gun?
Well, that’s OK.
 
SE102 said:
Good luck enforcing the law WITHOUT racially profiling when the majority of illegals are mexican. And the majority of mexicans are legal.

I wonder how the legal mexicans feel about this.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with racially profiling in this case and profiling in general. Profiling is just a method, and a very successful one, in tracking criminals. We would be stupid not to profile so let's stop being coy about it. The concept of racial profiling has become a sham. True racial profiling would be to insert race into the profile for the specific purpose of excluding other legitimate suspects or to just "find a black guy to blame" or for the purpose of harrasing some minority. You have to profile in this case and the profile cannot exclude latino or latino looking folks because in Arizona at least it is a significant factor. This can't be some quota system where we hassle an equal number of white people to make everyone else feel good. And we shouldn't use only race in the profile which they are not. I swear people on both sides of this are acting like children.
 
Boo Radley said:
Sure. Not race based.
Click to expand...
Nor is the immigration check. It applies to everyone.

Please -- given what was said, make the case that background checks do -not- burden law-abiding citizens because their liberty will -not- be restricted while their status is checked
 
j-mac said:
Wait a minute...It is my understanding that in a DUI one is arrested, is that right? If so the subjects immigration status can, should, and will be checked.

j-mac
Click to expand...

It can be.

However "He's mexican" can not be used as reasonable suspicion as that is racial profiling and racial profiling is illegal.

Even JUST a DUI would not necessarily likely give means to have reasonable suspicion as there's no real reasonable way to articulate why its more likely that a person whose not legally in the country is going to be driving drunk than someone who isn't.

However if someones pulled over for DUI and doesn't have a license, that would likely be a legitimate thing to have a reasonable suspicion as its likely able to hold up articulating that the reason you asked for his papers is because its realistic to think someone that doesn't have a license could be that way because they can't legally get one.

Simply charging someone with a Crime doesn't suddenly make racial profiling legal, under this law or any other law. There's no way, under federal laws, to go "That man is mexican, I am using that as a basis for my search" other than situations where there is a very specific and narrowly defined subject (Such as "A 5'5" mexican man in blue jeans and a red t-shirt just robbed my store")
 
jambalaya said:
I have no problem with racially profiling in this case and profiling in general. Profiling is just a method, and a very successful one, in tracking criminals. We would be stupid not to profile so let's stop being coy about it. The concept of racial profiling has become a sham. True racial profiling would be to insert race into the profile for the specific purpose of excluding other legitimate suspects or to just "find a black guy to blame" or for the purpose of harrasing some minority. You have to profile in this case and the profile cannot exclude latino or latino looking folks because in Arizona at least it is a significant factor. This can't be some quota system where we hassle an equal number of white people to make everyone else feel good. And we shouldn't use only race in the profile which they are not. I swear people on both sides of this are acting like children.
Click to expand...

So If Im mexican I should deal with having to possibly prove my citizenship everywhere I go possibly. Even if I were legal. At the risk of ending up detained for not having papers?

I dont care about catching illegals that much. Its the legals that may suffer due to this that bothers me.
 
SE102 said:
Good luck enforcing the law WITHOUT racially profiling when the majority of illegals are mexican. And the majority of mexicans are legal.

I wonder how the legal mexicans feel about this.
Click to expand...

It affecting a disproportionate amount of Hispanic people than white people != racial profiling.

Racial Profiling is taking action based on the notion that someone is of [X] race and therefore that is reason to do whatever you're going to do.

Reasonable Suspicion requires the officer be able to articulate the reasonings behind their action, stating "He looked mexican" is not a legal reasoning.
 
SE102 said:
So If Im mexican I should deal with having to possibly prove my citizenship everywhere I go possibly. Even if I were legal. At the risk of ending up detained for not having papers?

I dont care about catching illegals that much. Its the legals that may suffer due to this that bothers me.
Click to expand...

Or...they may not. Police are trained in field interviews. They're not perfect but they've got no logical reason to be harassing legal residents. There are plenty of Hispanic cops in Arizona, too.
Using the logic some of the people in this thread are using (not saying you) we should get rid of half our laws because some cop somewhere might abuse their power. If a cop abuses they should be punished. As simple as that. You don't get rid of the law because of it. That's throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom