• 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

BCR said:
States cannot go beyond what the Federal law prescribes though, thus the uniform naturalization laws. This law does go beyond what the federal law dictates. This can also be considered foreign affairs which Federal government has rule over.
Click to expand...

Show me in the Arizona law where it has anything to do with "NATURALIZATION".... You can't so knock off the strawman. This law is about "immigration", and that is a State right.
 
danarhea said:
1) I actually have no problem with some of the Arizona law. I have a huge problem with people being forced to carry papers that are above and beyond what is normal for people to carry.
Click to expand...

The Arizona law does not require that.


2) Since there is already a Federal law against illegal immigration, all Arizona has to do is enforce what already exists. States already have the right to this.
Click to expand...

The enjoined part of the law does nothing other than this, and the basis of the suit against it is that it's a federal matter of pre-emption. In fact, everything that Bolton deemed "likely to succeed" is the AZ scheme for enforcing federal law, which is why it's supposedly unconstitutional. She even specifically said the actual new laws, such as outlawing picking up day laborers, etc., would stand.


3) You can't have 50 states with 50 different versions of the law that is already on the Federal books.
Click to expand...

See 1) and 2) above.
 
danarhea said:
1) I actually have no problem with some of the Arizona law. I have a huge problem with people being forced to carry papers that are above and beyond what is normal for people to carry. That is what Nazi and Communist nations do, and the whole idea is repulsive.
Click to expand...

This has been posted more than once..... memorize it.

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
2) Since there is already a Federal law against illegal immigration, all Arizona has to do is enforce what already exists. States already have the right to this. Where states don't do it, it is usually because some cities have become sanctuary cities. State law trumps local law, so all states have to do is outlaw sanctuary cities.



3) You can't have 50 states with 50 different versions of a law that is already on the Federal books.
Click to expand...

Why? Show me where in the Constitution that the Fed has the right to control immigration.... as far as that goes, just show me where the word "immigration" appears in the Constitution. :lamo
 
Last edited:
Crunch said:
Show me in the Arizona law where it has anything to do with "NATURALIZATION".... You can't so knock off the strawman. This law is about "immigration", and that is a State right.
Click to expand...

The "Supremacy Clause" of the US Constitution says it is not a state right.

Article VI said:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

This will be affirmed by the Bush-appointed Supreme court, which strictly interprets the Constitution. No Liberal loose interpretations allowed here, folks, not even by the Tea Party. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
While I agree that immigration and border control is indeed a federal matter, Article VI doesn't establish that.

And you, dana, say you want Arizona to enforce federal law, but as I pointed out earlier, that's exactly what the federal government is trying to stop them from doing. If the "Bush-appointed" Supreme Court does what you say here, then they will be stopping Arizona from doing what you say you want Arizona to do.
 
I read in the internet news that hundreds of protestors are doing their thing....HUNDREDS.....
Must be the AZ heat keeping them from showing up in any substantial numbers. If they can't stand the heat, they tend to stay out of Arizona.

Go, Sheriff Joe, go......
round em up, head em out, rawhide !!!
 
BCR said:
Naturalization is about the immigration into the United States. I could even find more than one reason to declare this unconstitutional but you'd probably care less so I'll let one of the only sane people on Fox news tell you.

YouTube - Arizona Immigration Law Backlash
Click to expand...

Naturalization is about the process of becoming a U.S. citizen.
Immigration is about the process of entering the United States for an extended period of time.

Immigration and naturalization are NOT the same. Large numbers of immigrants never undergo the naturalization process.
 
BCR said:
States cannot go beyond what the Federal law prescribes though, thus the uniform naturalization laws. This law does go beyond what the federal law dictates. This can also be considered foreign affairs which Federal government has rule over.
Click to expand...

This law states little more than what existing federal law already states. Also, the law addresses people ALREADY in the state, not those entering the state. Thus, it isn't regulating immigration... it is regulating those ALREADY RESIDING in the state...
 
So, if CA boycotts AZ for superceeding federal law, how can CA justify their attempts to legalize pot when it is against federal law?

If it was the federal gov't responsibility to provide, say, clean water but the people of any given state were forced to drink sewage because the fed wouldn't or couldn't enforce their obligation to provide said clean water, should the people be prevented from cleaning their own water and continue to drink sewage? (Weird analogy, I know, but I hope some pick up on it.)
 
An OVERWHELMINGLY percentage of Americans support AZ. I wonder what would happen if THEY held their OWN rally's? Screw La Raza.
 
Or, more on point, there are the "sanctuary cities" which overtly circumvent federal immigration law.
 
Captain America said:
So, if CA boycotts AZ for superceeding federal law, how can CA justify their attempts to legalize pot when it is against federal law?

If it was the federal gov't responsibility to provide, say, clean water but the people of any given state were forced to drink sewage because the fed wouldn't or couldn't enforce their obligation to provide said clean water, should the people be prevented from cleaning their own water and continue to drink sewage? (Weird analogy, I know, but I hope some pick up on it.)
Click to expand...

If the state had to profile the water and determine whether or not it was wet -- or polluted for that matter -- the law would be struck down. Actually, not a bad analogy.
---------------------------------

I wonder if they had passed a law that said every traffic stop would not only run Wants & Warrants but run through the ICE database whether or not it would still be considered profiling....?
 
Mellie said:
What kind of country are we now that police can arrest you for and illegal action, say, DUI, but then they can't do any research to find out if you're in their state illegally? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

the new law says "stopped, detained' OR arrested". i think if a person has been arrested, fine, check out their immigration status. otherwise, forget about it. if you're hispanic and pulled over for nothing, which happens all the time, this law invites profiling.
 
liblady said:
the new law says "stopped, detained' OR arrested". i think if a person has been arrested, fine, check out their immigration status. otherwise, forget about it. if you're hispanic and pulled over for nothing, which happens all the time, this law invites profiling.
Click to expand...

Maybe Arizona should up the ante. I'm sure coppers check Wants & Warrants on every stop -- whether they ticket or not. Maybe they should begin excluding FEDERAL W&W's.
 
I saw them on TV, and I wouldn't screw them. I may be old and ugly, but I still have the same old standards I have always applied.
No fatties, no stupids, no loud mouths, and certainly no unemployed welfare recipients. I know full well what they want, a sugar daddy, and that ain't me.
 
UtahBill said:
I saw them on TV, and I wouldn't screw them. I may be old and ugly, but I still have the same old standards I have always applied.
No fatties, no stupids, no loud mouths, and certainly no unemployed welfare recipients. I know full well what they want, a sugar daddy, and that ain't me.
Click to expand...

Huh???



Sorry. Must be ten characters.
 
MaggieD said:
Maybe Arizona should up the ante. I'm sure coppers check Wants & Warrants on every stop -- whether they ticket or not. Maybe they should begin excluding FEDERAL W&W's.
Click to expand...

how silly. yes, let's have them release people wanted by the federal gov't back onto their streets.
 
My post was in response to Capt. America's post, that I failed to quote....but here it is...with the best part bolded...

An OVERWHELMINGLY percentage of Americans support AZ. I wonder what would happen if THEY held their OWN rally's? Screw La Raza.
 
I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe this was asked already. But let's just assume that enforcement of law leads to racial profiling. I'm making no judgment that it will, nor am I making a moral judgment on the usage of racial profiling. But let's just say that it does. Let's say that most latino looking individuals who have been stopped or questioned for committing a crime are asked for some form of identification.

So? How is that a bad thing? Who would that hurt? OMG, they have to show an ID if they're stopped for committing a crime. Oh the horror. Seriously?

Look, if bunch of sexy white women with blonde hair and blue eyes were running around committing a crime spree in a certain area, I would expect to be stopped and questioned. If I was NOT, I would figure the cops aren't doing their jobs.
 
rivrrat said:
I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe this was asked already. But let's just assume that enforcement of law leads to racial profiling. I'm making no judgment that it will, nor am I making a moral judgment on the usage of racial profiling. But let's just say that it does. Let's say that most latino looking individuals who have been stopped or questioned for committing a crime are asked for some form of identification.

So? How is that a bad thing? Who would that hurt? OMG, they have to show an ID if they're stopped for committing a crime. Oh the horror. Seriously?

Look, if bunch of sexy white women with blonde hair and blue eyes were running around committing a crime spree in a certain area, I would expect to be stopped and questioned. If I was NOT, I would figure the cops aren't doing their jobs.
Click to expand...

But, sexy white women with blonde hair and blue eyes are in a definite minority....
Hispanics are not, not in the southwest...:lol:
 
Captain America said:
So, if CA boycotts AZ for superceeding federal law, how can CA justify their attempts to legalize pot when it is against federal law?
Click to expand...

I think you bring up a very valid point. Why is is illegal for AZ to create a law that mirrors federal law, but CA can legalize a substance that is illegal at the federal level?
 
digsbe said:
I think you bring up a very valid point. Why is is illegal for AZ to create a law that mirrors federal law, but CA can legalize a substance that is illegal at the federal level?
Click to expand...




More on topic, why are cities like SF allowed to be "sanctuary cities"?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
More on topic, why are cities like SF allowed to be "sanctuary cities"?
Click to expand...

They aren't, I just think justice in her blindness, turns a blind eye to those places. They aren't "allowed" to be sanctuary cities, but the law is not enforced. It is hypocrisy to crack down on AZ when the law is clearly legal, but to ignore sanctuary cities that are clearly illegal. I think the Obama administration supports what sanctuary cities are doing, and therefore they get a pass.
 
Last edited:
Time for AZ to sue CA and the Feds for contributing to the crime rate in AZ. Like Leno said last night, we should deport illegals to their point of origin, Los Angeles.....
 
Harshaw said:
While I agree that immigration and border control is indeed a federal matter, Article VI doesn't establish that.

And you, dana, say you want Arizona to enforce federal law, but as I pointed out earlier, that's exactly what the federal government is trying to stop them from doing. If the "Bush-appointed" Supreme Court does what you say here, then they will be stopping Arizona from doing what you say you want Arizona to do.
Click to expand...

1) What part of "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" don't you understand?

2) Enforcing Federal law is one thing, but adding new terms and conditions to Federal law, such as requiring "papers", is not allowed, as that would change the Federal law, thus violating the supremacy clause of Article VI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom