• 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 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.

Actually the bill had more than 4 parts. It was just the 4 parts the SCOTUS was hearing. Some others were already struck down/upheld by lower courts. I'll have to look back, but there were provisions for increasing fines on businesses who hired illegals and a few others.
 
I dunno, can he talk civilized? All I hear from him is attack the hispanics and make it hard for them.. legal or not, to live in the US. The problem is not that there are illegals ... because there will ALWAYS be illegals. The problem is that the illegals have a chance of a job.. a very good chance at that.. and no one is doing anything about it.. not even Sheriff Joe and his nazi methods.

Maybe if you walked in his shoes, instead of sitting comfy over in Spain with no Mexican sneaking across your border. Have you listen to any of the land owners along the southern border of Arizona. Their land is getting destoyed by these people crossing everywhere. But when you dislike Americans, it's easy to think of everything they do as Nazi methods. As far as I know, there are no concentration camps down there with gas chambers or ovens.
 
Interesting, wonder if the plan is to work it from a state level down to an individual level. You don't have the right to protect yourself....

Well, don't know if I'd go there yet, but the fed is stifling Arizona's ability to protect itself while being negligent in its own duties.
 
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.
Drugs are covered by Federal law. So should the cities and states get out of drug enforcement and let the DEA handle it all?
 
Well, don't know if I'd go there yet, but the fed is stifling Arizona's ability to protect itself while being negligent in its own duties.

Yeah, why won't Obama protect Arizona? Oh wait a minute....

According to the most recent year-end reports from Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol apprehensions fell to 340,252 in 2011 -- a 53 percent drop since 2008, when nearly 724,000 border-crossers were nabbed.

At the same time, the number of border agents hit a high of 21,444, according to CBP. Most agents -- 18,500 -- now are on the Southwest border. There were about 10,000 agents total in 2004.

Even with fewer targets, patrols in the Southwest dramatically boosted the amounts of drugs, guns and cash seized over the last three years compared to 2006 through 2008. Seventy-four percent more money, 41 percent more drugs, and 159 percent more weapons, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

And, in spite of the crime allegations, DHS said that according to 2010 FBI reports, violent crimes in the Southwest border states dropped by an average of 40 percent in the last two decades. Since 2008, crime rates have fallen in each Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.

Part of the reason for that progress is funding for border security, which Congress has consistently boosted, most recently in 2010, passing a bill by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) that sent $600 million to border enforcement.

Another factor driving down illegal immigration is the poor economy. Migration from Mexico has recently reversed, with more Mexican immigrants leaving the United States. Record deportations under Obama, whose administration shipped nearly 400,000 undocumented immigrants out of the country last year including many with criminal records, also is a factor.

Arizona Immigration Law: GOP Criticisms Disputed By Data Saying Crime, Border Crossings Have Dropped
 
Easy solution... massive fines on business and revoking of business permits for 2nd time offenders of having illegals. If no one is hiring, no one will come illegally.
I'd even give an illegal citizenship if he set up the sting. Confiscate the business property for 1st offense and sell it only to native born, which will increase government revenue too. Otherwise, as in 1776, we must take the law back into our own hands. The next amnesty should be for vigilantes who solve this problem the old-fashioned way. Laws are just substitutes for citizen enforcement. We must teach the government traitors a lesson they'll never forget.
 
This also means that states need to release all of the murderers, rapists and other criminals who were convicted in state courts rather than federal courts because this decision by SCOTUS means every state law that mirrors federal law is preempted by federal law and as such, these criminals must either be tried and convicted in federal courts or released by the states that convicted them.
 
This also means that states need to release all of the murderers, rapists and other criminals who were convicted in state courts rather than federal courts because this decision by SCOTUS means every state law that mirrors federal law is preempted by federal law and as such, these criminals must either be tried and convicted in federal courts or released by the states that convicted them.

Those laws have not been made federal concerns via judicial activism like immigration has been.
 
Those laws have not been made federal concerns via judicial activism like immigration has been.

It doesn’t matter. If there is a federal law on the books, there can be no identical state laws because that is preemption by the states of federal law.
 
It doesn’t matter. If there is a federal law on the books, there can be no identical state laws because that is preemption by the states of federal law.

The jurisdiction of those federal laws is very important to the matter of preemption.

Don't get me wrong, I whole heartedly disagree with this ruling (despite the fact that I would vehemently oppose a law like Arizona's being passed in Illinois), but I also find much Scalia's dissenting opinion to be pure nonsense as well because it fails to address the larger issue of hwo the federal authority over immigration was a product of judicial activism. In fact, the hypocrite supports that judicial activism in his opinion.
 
This also means that states need to release all of the murderers, rapists and other criminals who were convicted in state courts rather than federal courts because this decision by SCOTUS means every state law that mirrors federal law is preempted by federal law and as such, these criminals must either be tried and convicted in federal courts or released by the states that convicted them.

No, that's not what it means at all. The decision is restricted to the area of immigration which is specifically reserved to the federal government in the Constitution.
 
Drugs are covered by Federal law. So should the cities and states get out of drug enforcement and let the DEA handle it all?

You know, that's a great suggestion for Arizona to send a bit of the feds' treatment back to them - no drug smuggling help. Don't house or help the DEA in any fashion. No backup from local and state LEOs. The state LEOs will still enforce state and local drug laws, but will no longer enforce, house or help federal drug enforcement. Quid pro quo.
 
You know, that's a great suggestion for Arizona to send a bit of the feds' treatment back to them - no drug smuggling help. Don't house or help the DEA in any fashion. No backup from local and state LEOs. The state LEOs will still enforce state and local drug laws, but will no longer enforce, house or help federal drug enforcement. Quid pro quo.

Yeah, that would really be in their self interest. :lol:
 
You know, that's a great suggestion for Arizona to send a bit of the feds' treatment back to them - no drug smuggling help. Don't house or help the DEA in any fashion. No backup from local and state LEOs. The state LEOs will still enforce state and local drug laws, but will no longer enforce, house or help federal drug enforcement. Quid pro quo.

Not a good strategy, IMHO, since AZ gets lots of federal aid. I think a better approach is to team up with other "red" states and organize a much larger effort to assert state's rights; perhaps by placing toll booths on all interstates, located as to place the back up in the neighboring "blue" states and waiving through (for free) all vehicles with "friendly" state's plates, just to show Obama, and friends, what "selective law enforcement" can feel like. ;-)
 
Last edited:
No, that's not what it means at all. The decision is restricted to the area of immigration which is specifically reserved to the federal government in the Constitution.

But states can play the selective law enforcement game too, just ticket all "blue" state tagged cars a bit more rigorously. ;-)
 
Not a good strategy, IMHO, since AZ gets lots of federal aid. I think a better approach is to team up with other "red" states and organize a much larger effort to assert state's rights; perhaps by placing toll booths on all interstates, located as to place the back up in the neighboring "blue" states and waiving through (for free) all vehicles with "friendly" state's plates, just to show Obama, and friends, what "selective law enforcement" can feel like. ;-)

Well now, it's the legislative that grants that aid and I'm pretty sure the house at least would love seeing that thrown in the Executive's face. :mrgreen:

But I like your way. Maybe extend it further - escort the illegals detained that ICE refuses to deport to their border with a blue state (California) and release them. Here ya go fellas, we'll give you a ride, courtesy of the federal government.
 
Yeah, why won't Obama protect Arizona? Oh wait a minute....

Huffington Post......yeah, he stopped millions from coming over. Sure he did.
 
Rush said:
As we told you yesterday on this program, the regime said it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws.



It furthermore said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls from Arizona reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona cops. "Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named..." Why? Why? If you're so proud of this why not attach your name to it, regime? "Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police -- but that won't change President Obama's decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

"That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status -- but federal officials are likely to" tell them to go to hell. Arizona cops can call, and the administration is going to tell them, "(Raspberry)." And that's not all. To intimidate Arizona law enforcement officials... What happened here? All that happened here is there are federal immigration laws on the books that the federal government is not enforcing because the Democrat Party -- losing traditional American voters in droves, left and right -- needs as many foreign citizens and illegal immigrants to come into this country as possible to be converted into voters. And into recipients of whatever federal largess Obama wants to try to pass out to purchase their votes.

He has written off the state of Texas. He's written off white, working families. He's now written off the state of Arizona. Arizona was a state that was in play. I don't even understand why, but it was a state that was in play according to all the experts and all the presidential polling data. Well, not any longer! Arizona is... He doesn't care. To intimidate Arizona law enforcement officials, Obama further set up a hotline to complain when illegals are apprehended!

Get this: "The Justice Department..." That’s Eric Holder of Fast and Furious fame, a program which resulted in the deaths of over 200 Mexicans! "The Justice Department announced it has set up a telephone hotline and e-mail address for the public to report potential civil rights concerns related to the implementation of the Arizona SB 1070 provision requiring immigration status verification during certain law enforcement encounters." If anybody sees something (whispering) that they think is not right, they can call and tattle.

It's a tattletale line! It's an invitation to liberal troublemakers to shut this part of the law down What we have here is we have federal laws on immigration; the federal government was not enforcing them. Obama was not interested in enforcing the border. "What border?" He probably thinks there shouldn’t even be a border! Who do we think we are, the United States of America? What border?" Well, this is resulting in a state of chaos in the state of Arizona -- economically, politically, criminally.

So the responsible people, the adults in Arizona, said, "We are going to enforce the law ourselves." So they wrote law which mirrors federal law. They did not go one step further. It mirrors federal law. The Supreme Court said, "You can't do that. This is a federal government job and you can't do it," and Antonin Scalia in his dissent said it boggles the mind. A sovereign state writes laws that reflect and mirror federal laws which are not being enforced. The people not enforcing the law then sue the state of Arizona for trying to enforce what is, essentially, federal law -- and they win!

The Regime Refuses to Enforce the Border and Tells the State of Arizona to Go to Hell - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Unbelievable! What's next? US Military rolling tanks into AZ on Obama orders? Is his name Obama or Assad?
 
Unbelievable! What's next? US Military rolling tanks into AZ on Obama orders? Is his name Obama or Assad?

Sky high hyperbole!!!


:2funny:
 
That's it? That's all you got? How disappointing....Ah well, can't expect much I guess from progressives.

I'm sorry, I find it hard to take such massive hyperbole seriously. If you want more, take it down a few notches into reality. :shrug:
 
Will be interesting to see how any banding of states together to try and assert state's rights over federal this time.

If I recall American History correctly the last time was 1861 and how did that go?

Tanks into Arizona???
really???
Shirley you jest...
 
Unbelievable! What's next? US Military rolling tanks into AZ on Obama orders? Is his name Obama or Assad?

I predicted this earlier, about 2:30 pm yesterday, in my post #93 above. King Barack is in full campaign mode now, expect his court jester Holder to do other mighty strange things too. The more Obama can keep the economy out of the news the happier he is. Note the oil/gasoline price is dropping, Obama will, NO DOUBT, claim credit for that, even after saying its rise was beyond his control. The SCOTUS decision on ObamaCare will also ignite much madness as the BILLIONS appropraited for it will be up for "emergency reassignment" by king Obama as well. Note that the demorat convention has suddenly been removed from the NC NASCAR track, they say it was to save money (and some other BS excuses), but I suspect that it is REALLY the expected crowd shortage that is causing the move; imagine the absolute embarrassment of a half-full speedway for the demorat's national convention being shown on live TV. LOL
 
Obama is not King. And we see this everywhere from health care to taxes to the economy. Only an idiot thinks he's king. The court ruled here.
 
The jurisdiction of those federal laws is very important to the matter of preemption.

Don't get me wrong, I whole heartedly disagree with this ruling (despite the fact that I would vehemently oppose a law like Arizona's being passed in Illinois), but I also find much Scalia's dissenting opinion to be pure nonsense as well because it fails to address the larger issue of hwo the federal authority over immigration was a product of judicial activism. In fact, the hypocrite supports that judicial activism in his opinion.

Are you referring to this?

I accept that as a valid exercise of federal power—not because of the Naturalization Clause (it has no necessary connection to citizenship) but because it is an inherent attribute of sovereignty no less for the United States than for the States.
 
Back
Top Bottom