• 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!

Supreme Court will hear Arizona immigration case

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,099
Reaction score
33,418
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link


Stephen Dinan
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will take the case of Arizona’s tough immigration crackdown law, adding yet another contentious clash between the Obama administration and the states to its docket.

The case, which has attracted national attention, pits Arizona against the Obama administration, which sued and won court orders blocking implementation of most of the law at both the district and appeals court levels. Arizona’s law spawned a host of copycat laws in other states, and most of them have likewise seen their key provisions blocked by court challenges from the administration.

At stake is Arizona’s goal of granting state and local police the power to check the immigration status of persons they encounter during their duties, such as traffic stops. Administration lawyers argue the state statutes infringe on what is federal responsibility to police the borders and set immigration policy.
In its notice, the court said Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself from the decision to take the case.

Justice Kagan has come under fire for not recusing herself from the decision to hear challenges to the new health care law.
Click to expand...

Okay, what say ye?
 
Last edited:
It will be interesting. Truthfully I don't have a clue how it will go.
 
Would be interesting if they formalized a states inability to enforce federal law, but granted states the ability to sue the Federal government for lack of enforcement.
 
Did she recuse herself because she had a hand in the paperwork originally filed by the administration? I'm not really up to speed on what she was involved in before her placement in the SCOTUS.
 
This should be a real doozy.
 
tessaesque said:
Did she recuse herself because she had a hand in the paperwork originally filed by the administration? I'm not really up to speed on what she was involved in before her placement in the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

She's recused herself from numerous cases so far. I don't believe there needs to a recusal reason in the filing, but one can assume that some legal opinion was provided by her as Solicitor General.

I believe in 2010, her recusal rate was about 50%. I suspect, as time goes on, that rate will drop.
 
American said:
Link


.

Okay, what say ye?
Click to expand...

Hopefully they rule that the state can enforce anti-illegal immigration laws,especially seeing how it is the tax payers in the state who have to pay to deal with illegals
 
At least Arizona will finally gets its day in court. i hope they find in favor of the States.
 
What I find confusing is that it's not a new law. Illegal immigration is, well......illegal, lol. And has been since, what....Ellis Island?

This law is simply a measure to allow a state a greater ability to enforce the existing laws.

The only unfortunate part is some of it's wording, which, to be honest, COULD be done better, in my oh so unprofessional opinion.
 
I hope the law is stuck down. Not only is it immoral, it is unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically grants the power to regulate naturalization and immigration to the federal government, not the States.
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
I hope the law is stuck down. Not only is it immoral, it is unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically grants the power to regulate naturalization and immigration to the federal government, not the States.
Click to expand...
And of course you realize that the federal government spent millions of dollars training state and local police agencies to enforce federal immigration laws...right? This isnt about WHO has the authority to enforce what...it is about states finally deciding to act where the fed has failed so miserably to act. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia...all they are doing is passing laws that they are actually willing to ENFORCE. And THAT...THAT is what really pisses people off. Its just not FAIR to fight illegal immigration legally...

287(g) Results and Participating Entities
Currently ICE has 287(g) agreements with 69 law enforcement agencies in 24 states. Since January 2006, the 287(g) program is credited with identifying more than 217,300 potentially removable aliens — mostly at local jails. ICE has trained and certified more than 1,500 state and local officers to enforce immigration law.

Fact Sheet: Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
I hope the law is stuck down. Not only is it immoral, it is unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically grants the power to regulate naturalization and immigration to the federal government, not the States.
Click to expand...

The constitution also, once upon a time, prohibited a federal income tax, but we fixed that, didn't we?
 
VanceMack said:
And of course you realize that the federal government spent millions of dollars training state and local police agencies to enforce federal immigration laws...right? This isnt about WHO has the authority to enforce what...it is about states finally deciding to act where the fed has failed so miserably to act. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia...all they are doing is passing laws that they are actually willing to ENFORCE. And THAT...THAT is what really pisses people off. Its just not FAIR to fight illegal immigration legally...

287(g) Results and Participating Entities
Currently ICE has 287(g) agreements with 69 law enforcement agencies in 24 states. Since January 2006, the 287(g) program is credited with identifying more than 217,300 potentially removable aliens — mostly at local jails. ICE has trained and certified more than 1,500 state and local officers to enforce immigration law.

Fact Sheet: Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act
Click to expand...

GREAT point.
 
edit : redundant info in my link
 
Last edited:
KevinKohler said:
The constitution also, once upon a time, prohibited a federal income tax, but we fixed that, didn't we?
Click to expand...
Yes we did, through a constitutional amendment. If you want to try and pass an amendment to the Constitution to allow the states to regulate naturalization and immigration,then go for it.
 
tessaesque said:
Did she recuse herself because she had a hand in the paperwork originally filed by the administration? I'm not really up to speed on what she was involved in before her placement in the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
I dont like the thought of any of the justices recusing themselves. If they cant execute the oath they have no business being a Supreme Court justice.

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
 
VanceMack said:
And of course you realize that the federal government spent millions of dollars training state and local police agencies to enforce federal immigration laws...right? This isnt about WHO has the authority to enforce what...it is about states finally deciding to act where the fed has failed so miserably to act. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia...all they are doing is passing laws that they are actually willing to ENFORCE. And THAT...THAT is what really pisses people off. Its just not FAIR to fight illegal immigration legally...

287(g) Results and Participating Entities
Currently ICE has 287(g) agreements with 69 law enforcement agencies in 24 states. Since January 2006, the 287(g) program is credited with identifying more than 217,300 potentially removable aliens — mostly at local jails. ICE has trained and certified more than 1,500 state and local officers to enforce immigration law.

Fact Sheet: Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act
Click to expand...


You're saying that those officers who haven't been trained and certified by the federal government should just be empowered by their own states?
 
I am still amazed that some will support "illegal" aliens entering the US. The laws AZ wrote and other States is dealing with illegal aliens. It does nothing that existing federal law does, except instead of a federal agent a local LE after making a stop for some other violation can check a persons immigration status if they suspect the person to be in the US illegally. How is that making new immigration law. State is not controlling the number of legal immigrants. Checking status is nothing new. By federal law a legal alien in the US must carry proper identificaton to indicate they are here legally.

As other have said, it will be interesting what the SC decides. While the SC has ruled in the past on immigration, the cases dealt with legal immigrants, not illegal.
 
mike2810 said:
I am still amazed that some will support "illegal" aliens entering the US. The laws AZ wrote and other States is dealing with illegal aliens. It does nothing that existing federal law does, except instead of a federal agent a local LE after making a stop for some other violation can check a persons immigration status if they suspect the person to be in the US illegally. How is that making new immigration law. State is not controlling the number of legal immigrants. Checking status is nothing new. By federal law a legal alien in the US must carry proper identificaton to indicate they are here legally.

As other have said, it will be interesting what the SC decides. While the SC has ruled in the past on immigration, the cases dealt with legal immigrants, not illegal.
Click to expand...

If the federal government decided to actually start enforcing anti-illegal immigration laws, how many the pro-illegals would still say its only the federal government's job?
 
hazlnut said:
You're saying that those officers who haven't been trained and certified by the federal government should just be empowered by their own states?
Click to expand...
Im saying it is mindless and extraordinarily hypocritical to claim that enforcement of immigration laws is the sole arena of the fed when 1-they have consistently failed in the commission of said duties and 2-have set out to train and commission state LE to enforce immigration law.
 
VanceMack said:
Im saying it is mindless and extraordinarily hypocritical to claim that enforcement of immigration laws is the sole arena of the fed when 1-they have consistently failed in the commission of said duties and 2-have set out to train and commission state LE to enforce immigration law.
Click to expand...

It's anything but mindless or hypocritical. In fact it's mindless to have individual states making up their own rules regarding enforcement of civil immigration laws that should be enforced uniformly throughout the country.
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
I hope the law is stuck down. Not only is it immoral, it is unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically grants the power to regulate naturalization and immigration to the federal government, not the States.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the law which stops that or interfere's with it. All that it does is give support to federal law. That law does not stop the Federal government from naturalizing illegals nor does it stop or inhibit legal immigration.

As for it being immoral...it is more immoral for illegals to ignore our laws and come here taking jobs from American citizens and legal immigrants.
 
AdamT said:
It's anything but mindless or hypocritical. In fact it's mindless to have individual states making up their own rules regarding enforcement of civil immigration laws that should be enforced uniformly throughout the country.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps the Federal Government should be doing its job.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Then perhaps the Federal Government should be doing its job.
Click to expand...

We're experiencing negative immigration. Illegal immigration is falling. Enforcement and deportations are up. In fact there has been a record number of deportations under Obama.
 
AdamT said:
It's anything but mindless or hypocritical. In fact it's mindless to have individual states making up their own rules regarding enforcement of civil immigration laws that should be enforced uniformly throughout the country.
Click to expand...
or in other words...not at all...uniformly...across the country.

Forgetting of course that the fed has been training states to enforce immigration law.

California can have all the illegals they want. Arizona doesnt want illegal immigration. Many states are tired of the failure of the fed. They are doing what the fed wont. If the fed was doing their job the states wouldnt have to (except of course where the feds have TRAINED state agents to do so).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom