• 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!

The AZ Immigration Law Has Been Decided

I'll have to review this when I get a chance, but I thought most of the AZ law was AZ doing the feds job because the feds wouldn't do it... If that is the case, perhaps it's time to send a case up the courts against the feds for negligence.

Might I suggest you find some new sources for news because rather obviously you haven't noted that the present Administration has detained and deported more illegal immigrants than any previous Administration.

The fact that under President Obama there has been stricter enforcement of immigration matters than during the times of earlier Presidents and yet we constantly hear the ranting and raving of those who claim the "Kenyan anti-colonialist is doing nothing!". Why weren't the same raving loons shouting about the illegals in the past?
 
I'll have to review this when I get a chance, but I thought most of the AZ law was AZ doing the feds job because the feds wouldn't do it... If that is the case, perhaps it's time to send a case up the courts against the feds for negligence.

Too late, IMHO, AZ is much more dependent on the federal gov't than the federal gov't is on AZ. If SEVERAL states acted together on this, as they did against ObamaCare, THEN we would have a righteous battle on the SCOTUS steps. The FIRST step would be to band multiple states together and check the citizenship status in the schools, hospitals, welfare/SNAP offices and anything else now getting any FEDERAL tax money, and thus force the federal gov't get the SCOTUS involved in a hurry. It is very hard to call yourself a sovereign state with absolutely no control over the citizenship of who can live and work there.
 
Last edited:
Might I suggest you find some new sources for news because rather obviously you haven't noted that the present Administration has detained and deported more illegal immigrants than any previous Administration.

The fact that under President Obama there has been stricter enforcement of immigration matters than during the times of earlier Presidents and yet we constantly hear the ranting and raving of those who claim the "Kenyan anti-colonialist is doing nothing!". Why weren't the same raving loons shouting about the illegals in the past?

I certainly did under Bush, as he did basically NOTHING (on immigration enforcement) for 8 years. Texas GOV'T loves the illegals, they work hard, work cheap, don't ask for raises or benefits, will work in unsafe/unsanitary conditions and come with MASSIVE amounts of federal funding pumped directly into the Texas state treasury. Texas has NO state income tax but gets LOADS of sales tax revenue from these illegal alien folks. USA, USA, USA...
 
Last edited:
Of course it's not profiling. You're fishing, you need to have a license.

My Hispanic looking relatives could be doing anything, walking or driving down a street for instance, and be stopped and harassed for merely being suspected of being illegal. As a white person, I don't have to worry about that. That's profiling.

A real world example: My blue-eyed, blonde haired relative is married to an American born woman of Mexican heritage. They have two children. One is blue-eyed and white, the other is brown eyed and brunette. He could be out with his daughter and have no worries. She could be out with their son and potentially be stopped. They live in Arizona, so my concerns are very real, this could effect her and their child.
Then blame the illegals for making profiling accurate enough to qualify as an effective policy. Blaming fellow Americans instead is selfish. You are caught in a trap created by those who want to invade our country; be patriotic and make that sacrifice until the invaders are driven out and there is no longer a reason to profile.
 
Traitors, even technically before they lose their citizenship as a result, are effectively not "true Americans".

False. In order to be traitors, they must be true Americans. If they weren't, they couldn't possibly be traitors.

See, if someone isn't a true American, then they aren't traitors. the onus of loyalty to America stems from the fact that they are true Americans. If they were false Americans, they are incapable of being traitors.

"True" Americanness is not a function of mere legal American-citizen status, but a function of behaving ethically toward all fellow American citizens. :cool:

As I said, no true scotsman bases their arguments on fallacies.
 
Then blame the illegals for making profiling accurate enough to qualify as an effective policy. Blaming fellow Americans instead is selfish. You are caught in a trap created by those who want to invade our country; be patriotic and make that sacrifice until the invaders are driven out and there is no longer a reason to profile.

The problem, for some of us anyway. is that profiling seldom works as well as its advocates would like to claim. Street corner inquisition by a cop who has had a few hours of training will seldom provide accurate answers but such questioning is often used simply as a means of intimidation.
 
oh, I thought that is what this...meant:

The court rejected the parts of the law that making it a state crime for illegal immigrants not to possess their federal registration cards; for illegal imigrants to work, apply for work or solicit work; and a section that allowed state and local police to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant when probable cause exists that they committed "any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."

The answer to your question is in regards to the reason it was struct down. Not based on the individual merit of the individual laws but over the fact that it was the state presumedly making law that interfered or attempted to subvert federal claim over the issue.
 
They were right to do this. Federal law should overrule a state law so long as the Federal law doesn't trample on state's rights according to the Constitution.

They need to do the same thing to the states that are trying to legalize marijuana.

I wonder how many pro-illegals would be screaming that the states have a right to do legalize Marijuana?
 
Moderator's Warning:
thread merge
 
wait, SCOTUS decided that its unConstitutionsal for there to be a state law making it illegal for unlawful immigrants to work?

they are saying that illegal aliens have the right to work in the USA???

What's to stop a state for making it illegal for Texans to enter, or ex-convicts, gays etc?
 
And, yes, we most certainly disagree as to your quantification.

You say "a greater number".

I say it will be a teeny tiny lesser number than you state.
There are an estimated 12 million illegals in the entire country right now. This law effects Arizona of which there is an estimate 4% of that total.


You earlier said that it would be, in effect, a one-for-one stopping and questioning of American citizens for each of the 20 million illegals in America.

I said no such thing.
I'm saying, no, that's a gross exaggeration, made for ideologically motivated hyperbole effect.

I'm saying that it likely won't be more than 1 in 10,000, or at best 2,000 Americans nation-wide of all races and appearances, if that, that will be stopped and questioned about their citizenship.

And I'm saying that because law enforcement simply does not merely go on looks in a situation like this, and it's preposterous ideological posturing to say that they do.

Law enforcement will also be looking at behavior and reflecting attitudes before detaining someone.

So, knowing how law enforcement works, I see no basis for your extreme exaggerations, extreme exaggerations that merely function to create unjustified hysteria.

And regarding your phrase "based merely on suspicion", last time I looked, "suspicion" in the eyes of law enforcement is exactly what a stop and momentary detaining in such a situation as this would logically, rationally be based upon, a justified suspicion based on multiple relevant criteria in the matter.



A true American citizen is opposed to illegal immigration as illegal immigration is a crime against fellow American citizens.

No true American would support such a crime against their fellow American citizens, and any American who condones illegal immigration is a complict accomplice to the associated crimes, in effect, a Benedict Arnold to fellow American citizens, and to America itself.

I am opposed to illegal immigration and in fact am quite conservative in that area. I believe we should focus on the companies which hire them, giving out stiff fines for every violation, no bargaining. So you are barking up the wrong tree there.

What part of that statement do you have a problem with?



If there is indeed "a lack of good reason" to stop anyone, I doubt that law enforcement will stop that individual(s).
What makes you fear otherwise?

As to your relatives being stopped, have you asked them if they would mind being momentarily stopped in an effort to stop the egregious crime against Americans that illegall immigration is, in the name of putting an end to the economy-killing prolem for millions of American citizens?

Maybe they wouldn't mind at all.

Or, maybe that one relative of yours is married .. to an illegal?!

Regardless, the stop and detain activities of law enforcement is based on more than mere looks. By utilziing more than just looks they can stop and detain all ethnicities, as the problem isn't all about "Mexicans" as is ludirously accused, as illegal immigrants come from all over the world.

Law enforcement knows what it's doing, obviously.

No need to contrive hysteria where none exists.



And your paranoia doesn't make such fear-fantasies reality.

Besides, again, people get stopped and detained all the time in America because for one rational reason or another they look, act, etc. like someone the police are searching for, and without either force or hundcuffs, after a few questions, the police thank them for their patience in attempting to find the real criminal and they go on their way.

Americans who are oblivious to this reality of every-day law enforcement activity in hunting for the criminal either don't watch enough law-enforcement TV shows to know that it happens all the time, or are simply uninformed as to normal relevant occurrences in general.



Your projection is meaningless.

Your mistake which I "cleverly" called you on was about your error in understanding how law enforcement works and to also refute your call for hysteria in the face of an unreal fear.

I don't support doing wrong to a legal citizen in order find the illegals. This law allows for the police to stop and ask for papers for any one they suspect of being here illegally.

That provision, requiring police to conduct immigration checks on individuals they arrest or merely stop for questioning whom they suspect are in the U.S. illegally, does not appear to violate the Constitution by intruding on the federal government’s powers to control immigration, the court said

Read more: Arizona immigration ruling: High court strikes down much of Arizona immigration law - POLITICO.com

Why am I worried? Because law enforcement officers are human and they make mistakes. Why should my Hispanic or Hispanic looking relatives be subject to submit their papers, while their own white relatives would not be likely to have to produce the same? Again, especially where children are likely to be concerned. The one very close relative has left her ID behind in another purse on a few occasions. If she gets pulled over here, they let her off with a warning. There, owing to her perceived origin, it's likely she ends up detained until someone brings her ID to the detention center. What about her baby son? An innocent mistake, made by women all the time could result in her child being placed in foster care. If it happens once and the very fact that she and the other mother I've given as an example, could be at risk of such an incident, it is reprehensible.

We are all only as free as those most at risk of having their rights infringed upon.
 
What's to stop a state for making it illegal for Texans to enter, or ex-convicts, gays etc?

A little thing called the Constitution, Article IV, Sec. 2 The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

then there is the 14th Amendment, paragraph 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Does that answer your question?
 
This part of the law was ruled invalid by today's decision. Arizona law enforcement can not detain individuals without approval of federal authorities.

Yeah, I just posted that to show the portion that was upheld had been altered already.

What's a big deal for me right now is you have the DOJ saying they're going to keep their eyes on Arizona's use of the law, BUT, they're not going to do their job of course. Because they've also said that they'll no longer take Arizona's phone calls, for queries or for deportation holds.

If Obama wins this next election, I hope the republicans impeach his ass. Never said that about any president before, but this one has totally failed and now won't even do his job.
 
... you have the DOJ saying they're going to keep their eyes on Arizona's use of the law, BUT, they're not going to do their job of course. Because they've also said that they'll no longer take Arizona's phone calls, for queries or for deportation holds.

If Obama wins this next election, I hope the republicans impeach his ass. Never said that about any president before, but this one has totally failed and now won't even do his job.

Obviously we have rather different opinions about whether or not the President has been doing his job.

Would you care to provide some citations to support your claim that the DoJ has "said that they'll no longer take Arizona's phone calls, for queries or for deportation holds."?
 
Another ruling not worth a damn by the Supreme Court.
 
The Feds are not refusing to enforce the law. They are enforcing it now more than they were under the previous administration. The number of illegals is falling and border state crime has been falling for some time.

Then why would a state like Arizona feel the need for such a law? Could be because the Federal efforts are insufficient to protect the state internally?
 
Then why would a state like Arizona feel the need for such a law? Could be because the Federal efforts are insufficient to protect the state internally?

or could it be a political move by an opposition party in its efforts to make the President look bad?
 
Just to clarify the legalesse, to understand this ruling it is important to understand the distinction between "as applied" and "facial" constitutional challenges.

A facial challenge is saying that the law itself is flat out unconstitutional and that there is no way it could be implemented which is acceptable. For example, a law saying that no Asians will be allowed to work for the federal government would fail a facial challenge. But, a law saying that a particular individual will review all applications for federal employment for "appropriateness of the applicant" would survive a facial challenge. But, an as applied challenge looks at how the law is actually implemented. So, that law about the particular individual reviewing the applications would be struck down as unconstitutional under an as applied challenge if that individual chose to use that position to reject all Asian applicants.

So, this was the facial challenge. What the SCOTUS said is that 3 of the 4 provisions were facially unconstitutional- no matter how Arizona implements them, they would be unconstitutional, so they are gone before AZ even has a shot to implement them. The one provision they let stand was not declared constitutional, they just said that it isn't facially unconstitutional. They want to see how it is implemented before they decide. What that really means is that were AZ to try to use that to get Arpaio's racial profiling campaigns back up and running, they would strike that provision down, but if AZ uses it responsibly, with no more racial profiling at all, then they'll let it stand.

That result seems about right to me.
 
Might I suggest you find some new sources for news because rather obviously you haven't noted that the present Administration has detained and deported more illegal immigrants than any previous Administration.

Uh, never said they didn't. But even at the level that this administration used to deport people, how many millions do we still have 'in-country'? Yeah, see, it's the fed's not doing their job. Nothing political about it.
 
Obviously we have rather different opinions about whether or not the President has been doing his job.

Would you care to provide some citations to support your claim that the DoJ has "said that they'll no longer take Arizona's phone calls, for queries or for deportation holds."?


Here ya go
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Heavily biased site, but it was the first to come up on a search. I initially saw it from the Washington Tribune on googlenews.

Start impeaching the bastard now.
 
Last edited:
Then why would a state like Arizona feel the need for such a law? Could be because the Federal efforts are insufficient to protect the state internally?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

or could it be a political move by an opposition party in its efforts to make the President look bad?

Nope, see the quote above yours. It seems you want to make it all political, but it's not.
 
THIS is a nonsensical statement of belief unsupported by reality.

ON the section of the AZ law that was upheld by the Supreme Court, the "papers please" bit - there is one major aspect that I don't see mentioned here. The AZ police are no longer allowed to detain someone without prior federal approval of such detention.

Also, nobody has mentioned the fact that Native Americans have also been stopped and questioned under this AZ law - are they also "illegals" or do they just look like they are?

They could stop white people too, couldn't they? What type of immigration reform do you support, amnesty? How about open borders where anyone can do anything they want? Maybe you'd like to get rid of the border altogether. Would that work for you? You're the guy that implied this country could do much better than our constitution because of all the sufferings people have to endure due to circumstances outside their control. Why those poor people, and the poor poor Mexicans who sneak over the border; what's wrong with us just giving them a living, right? Have you ever suggested that Mexico do better?
 
Here ya go


Heavily biased site, but it was the first to come up on a search. I initially saw it from the Washington Tribune on googlenews.

Start impeaching the bastard now.

You mean the Washington Times, which is like 100 times more biased than hotair. Just FYI.

If you haven't seen it on a legit news source, you don't really know anything yet. Not to say the administration didn't say something, but just because ultra right wing hacks with zero credibility for accuracy describe it that way tells you nothing whatsoever.
 
Back
Top Bottom