• 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

Gina said:
If they legitimately stop someone for doing something suspicious, they don't need this law.

This law says the police can stop them merely for suspecting they are in the country illegally.
Click to expand...

That isn’t what the Arizona law says at all. The Arizona law that SCOTUS ruled on says that people can’t be detained to check legality, it is only after they have been detained for violating another law that the question of legal status can be asked.

Obviously there will be those who get pulled over for having a broken taillight and are asked for papers who will claim they were pulled over for “driving Latino” rather than for the broken taillight, and this is what SCOTUS left open for future challenges.

If the AZ law had allowed law enforcement to pull people over just to ask for their papers, it would have been overturned unanimously.
 
Matt Foley said:
Stopping education aid does nothing about the job magnet. Yanking employer licenses would.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS just struck that portion of the AZ law, state sanctions on employers is OUT.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

It has been on several TV news broadcasts as well. I predicted this in post #93 above. King Barrack has so ruled, thus it is law, or rather no longer the law, as the king now dictates what federal laws HIS federal LEOs will and will not enforce. Yes he did!
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, but I see in searching that the conservative bias sites are the first to publish this story. Here's Governor Brewer's statement confirming the Obama admin has indeed taken this action. I know, it's FoxNation, but are you really going to try to float that FN made up an entire official statement by the Governor of Arizona? Silly me, of course you'll try.

Statement by Governor Jan Brewer

President Obama Once Again Abandons Citizens of Arizona

“As though we needed any more evidence, President Obama has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement under the authority of which Arizona law enforcement officers have partnered with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law.

“Of course, it is no coincidence that this announcement comes immediately on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the heart of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law: SB 1070. It’s worth noting that 68 law enforcement entities in 24 states have functioning 287(g) agreements with the federal government. But it appears the only agreements eliminated today were those in Arizona, the state that happens to be on the front lines of America’s fight against illegal immigration. We are on our own, apparently.

“I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. The Obama administration has fought the people of Arizona at every turn – downplaying the threat that a porous border poses to our citizens, filing suit in order to block our State from protecting itself, unilaterally granting immunity to tens of thousands of illegal aliens living in our midst, and now this. Still, the disarmament of Arizona’s 287(g) agreements is a new low, even for this administration.

“Since 2006, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security credits the 287(g) program with identifying nearly 300,000 potentially-removable aliens nationwide. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has trained and certified more than 1,500 state and local officers to assist in the enforcement of immigration law, including many in Arizona. In fact, even as the President was wiping out Arizona’s 287(g) agreements, the ICE website itself continued to herald the collaborative approach of the 287(g) program, noting, ‘Terrorism and criminal activity are most effectively combated through a multi-agency/multi-authority approach that encompasses federal, state and local resources, skills and expertise.’

“The President’s action should be of concern to all Americans. This fight is not over. President Obama may disregard Congress. He may target individual states like Arizona. He may generally act with impunity. But he is not above judgment – and the American people will have theirs very soon.”



Read more: Jan Brewer Unloads on Obama - Gov. Jan Brewer - Fox Nation
Click to expand...
 
American said:
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?
Click to expand...

Look, I really don't think that it's racial profiling now, since Arizona still gets to ask for papers ON ARRESTS, and then report them to ICE if they can't prove who they are. However, I think Arizona cops should get to detain this guy without a warrant or probable cause, and I am really disappointed that today's SCOTUS ruling won't allow them to do it:

556044_359767154094219_322621388_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
No, but I see in searching that the conservative bias sites are the first to publish this story. Here's Governor Brewer's statement confirming the Obama admin has indeed taken this action. I know, it's FoxNation, but are you really going to try to float that FN made up an entire official statement by the Governor of Arizona? Silly me, of course you'll try.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that the quotes are accurate ... But I do doubt that Brewer is telling the truth.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll agree that HotAir is a "Heavily biased site", a bit more balanced report may be found here
According to the Department of Homeland Security, DHS officials in Arizona have been directed not to respond to the scene of a state or local traffic stop or a similar law enforcement encounter upon the requests from state and local police officers for assistance in enforcing immigration laws unless the individual meets DHS enforcement priorities - is a convicted criminal, has been removed from the US previously and reentered unlawfully or is a recent border crosser. DHS will continue to telephonically comply with its legal requirement to verify an individual's immigration status upon request.
Click to expand...
 
Gina said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, your claims are false. I know everyone refers to SB 1070 but that was amended almost immediately, by HB 2162 (LINK) with red font indicating what was removed and blue font indicating what replaced it, as follows:


Sec. 3. Section 11‑1051, Arizona Revised
Statutes, as added by Senate Bill 1070, section 2, forty-ninth legislature,
second regular session, as transmitted to the governor, is amended to read:

START_STATUTE11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration
laws; indemnification

A. No official or agency of this state or a
county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or
restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full
extent permitted by federal law.

B. For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest
made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or
a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town
or other political subdivision of this state in the
enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this
state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an
alien who and is unlawfully present
in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to
determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may
hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the
person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The
person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government
pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or
agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of
this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin
in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent
permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to
not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person
provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.

2. A valid Arizona nonoperating
identification license.

3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other
form of tribal identification.

4. If the entity requires proof of legal
presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal,
state or local government issued identification.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
Yeah, I'll agree that HotAir is a "Heavily biased site", a bit more balanced report may be found here
Click to expand...

That's funny, while some here doubt Governor Brewer is telling the truth, I know Napalitano is lying through her teeth (from your link):

Over the past three and half years, this Administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border and to enforcing our nation's immigration laws in a firm and reasonable fashion.
Click to expand...

Absolute rubbish. I see it every day where I live and the absolute incompetence of this administration can be seen by anyone with eyes. National Geoographic does a show called Border Wars. Check it out for yourself - every episode puts the lie to Janet's BS.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The SCOTUS just struck that portion of the AZ law, state sanctions on employers is OUT.
Click to expand...

The idea is that states don't have the right to protect themselves when the federal government won't.
 
AreteCourage said:
Now I'm confused on one aspect of this legislation.

Are the police able to stop anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant and force a citizen check, or can they only do that based on a traffic violation?
Click to expand...
No, they are not authorized to stop anyone simply based on immigration. They can only check on their immigration status if they stop them for a legit offense.
 
American said:
The idea is that states don't have the right to protect themselves when the federal government won't.
Click to expand...

But the Federal government is protecting them, AZ just wanted to take control of it, not even realizing how difficult it was going to make it for its own state if the SCOTUS had actually upheld their version of the law.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Again, your claims are false. I know everyone refers to SB 1070 but that was amended almost immediately, by HB 2162 (LINK) with red font indicating what was removed and blue font indicating what replaced it, as follows:
Click to expand...

From your source:

where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an
alien who and is unlawfully present


Looks to me that it was giving law enforcement latitude to claim "reasonable suspicion" and stop anyone they wanted anytime they wanted. SCOTUS says you cannot do that.
 
Last edited:
I imagine that most folks in the south are glad in retrospect that the federal government stepped in and put a stop to the jim crow stuff. At the time they were furious, but as times moved on, I think most of them came to see that what they were doing had been wrong and needed to change. I'd wager that in a decade or so Arizonans will feel the same way about the federal government's stance against racial profiling. Sometimes when you're in the heat of things, particularly a major demographic change like Arizona is going through, it isn't easy to see things clearly. People that are a bit more removed from the situation can see things that you can't. How many people in the jim crow south really did sincerely believe that there was an epidemic of black men raping white women and that the jim crow laws were just a sensible self defense regime? A lot. But once things had passed they saw things more clearly and realized that what they had been doing was wrong. Ultimately that is why civil rights are dealt with at the federal level instead of the state level and it has proven to be a wise policy time and again. This one won't be any exception.
 
Last edited:
mertex said:
From your source:

where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an
alien who and is unlawfully present


Looks to me that it was given law enforcement latitude to claim "reasonable suspicion" and stop anyone they wanted anytime they wanted. SCOTUS says you cannot do that.
Click to expand...

Obviously you aren’t very adept at reading legal documents if you make such conclusions. From the source:

in the
enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this
state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an
alien who and is unlawfully present
in the United States
Click to expand...

See how the sentence in blue, the one you left out, changes everything?

From the source:
For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest
made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency
Click to expand...

By the way, this is the part of the law SCOTUS left standing.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Obviously you aren’t very adept at reading legal documents if you make such conclusions. From the source:



See how the sentence in blue, the one you left out, changes everything?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. The key is "reasonable suspicion" - and how is reasonable suspicion defined? It could be anything the law enforcer suggests.




By the way, this is the part of the law SCOTUS left standing.
Click to expand...
Only because it has not been implemented yet, and because SCOTUS was uncertain about what it meant and how it would be enforced.
The SCOTUS is already propped to throw that one out also, when AZ implements it, based on their comment regarding it.

"The nature and timing of this case counsel caution in evaluating the validity of [Section] 2(B)," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, noting that the law has not yet gone into effect. Because "[t]here is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced," the majority chose to allow the law to go forward, but made clear that "[t]his opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect."

Arizona Immigration Law Ruling: Supreme Court Delivers Split Decision
 
Ok. Lets see if Obama and Homeland Security will step and do the job regarding immigration. Lets see what leadership will come from this Adminstration. Illegal immigration has been pretty much been decided is a federal issue now by the court.
Can the States now send the feds a bill for health care services rendered to illegal immigrants? How about a bill for eduction of illegal aliens? Illegal aliens is not a State issue, the court decided. So Feds, lets see you deal with it.
 
I love Brewer's commentary on this. You create a law of 4 parts and 3 of them are struck down and you still consider it a "victory". No wonder most of the South has abysmal education rates. If 1/4 provisions is a "victory" - we may as well start calling F a passing grade.
 
Hatuey said:
I love Brewer's commentary on this. You create a law of 4 parts and 3 of them are struck down and you still consider it a "victory". No wonder most of the South has abysmal education rates. If 1/4 provisions is a "victory" - we may as well start calling F a passing grade.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, Arizona wasn't part of "the South."
 
Hatuey said:
I love Brewer's commentary on this. You create a law of 4 parts and 3 of them are struck down and you still consider it a "victory". No wonder most of the South has abysmal education rates. If 1/4 provisions is a "victory" - we may as well start calling F a passing grade.
Click to expand...

It's a southwestern state, not a southern state. True southerners rarely miss an opportunity to take advantage of cheap labor.
 
nota bene said:
Last time I checked, Arizona wasn't part of "the South."
Click to expand...

It's Southwestern and you're splitting hairs just to save face. As per usual.
 
nota bene said:
Last time I checked, Arizona wasn't part of "the South."
Click to expand...

Well, not geographically. But I'd say they have far more in common culturally and politically with the old south than they do with any other part of the country.
 
nota bene said:
Last time I checked, Arizona wasn't part of "the South."
Click to expand...

I believe when people refer to "the South" they generally refer to the area from Georgia to West Virginia to Oklahoma to Texas and everything in between. Arizona and New Mexico (and maybe parts of west Texas) tend to be the South West.
 
Wiggen said:
Well, not geographically. But I'd say they have far more in common culturally and politically with the old south than they do with any other part of the country.
Click to expand...

I bet more of their population comes from the rust belt and midwestern states than the traditional south, especially the retirees.
 
Hatuey said:
It's Southwestern and you're splitting hairs just to save face. As per usual.
Click to expand...

I don't need to save face, you cheap provacateur. Sorry if the distinction between "South" and "Southwest" is too fine for you, but thanks for demonstrating your own limited understanding. Worry about splitting hairs after you're able to distinguish between various heads of hair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom