• 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

jamesrage said:
I expect this to go all the way to the supreme court with liberal judges blocking parts of it or trying to strike it down along the way.So I am not surprised. I just hope we do not have to wait years for it to make it to the suprume court for them to rule in favor of the law.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because the Ninth Circuit isn't very liberal nor does it have much of a record of it itself being overturned by the Supremes, does it?
 
SOunds to me like the states ought to play this out fully...no more cooperation with the feds on ANY federal investigations. No getting involved with enforcement of federal laws...no investigating FDIC Banks that get robbed nor responding to those robberies. No more involvment whatsoever with the ICE or immigration. After all...the states cant be meddling with stopping federal crimes.

I suspect this will go to the trial first, then the 9th, then it will all be tossed out by the SCOTUS.

Additionally...every state negatively impacted by illegal immigration ought to file a lawsuit against the fed for negligence in enforcing their laws and should sue the fed in civil court for damages...cost for social services, as should every private citizen impacted by illegal immigration.
 
ludahai said:
Yeah, because the Ninth Circuit isn't very liberal nor does it have much of a record of it itself being overturned by the Supremes, does it?
Click to expand...

This is why I expected the new Arizona law to go all the way to the supreme court. Obama and other pro-illegals know that at some point before going all the way to the Supreme court the law will be tied up for a while. Which will give them plenty of time to push for amnesty once the public is immune to the fact that they are trying to screw local states out of cracking down on illegals.
 
People who are against this bill are either not from Arizona or just extremely ignorant.
 
Zyphlin said:
Sure, its a couple things.
First, the supremecy clause, which designates that federal law over rules state. Second, the SCOTUS has found that in a DIRECT sense, exercising rasonable suspicion based singularly on the facet of race is unconstitutional and thus illegal. Additionally you have U.S. v. Montero-Camargo which found that race can not be part of a broader group of reasonings either. The only time when its currently legal to use race is for searching for a specific suspect, such as when you KNOW that the perpetrator based on eye witness reports is white/black/hispanic/etc.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled ehtnicity is ABSOLUTELY a viable reason for INS agents to investigate suspected illegal immigrants.

1975 United States v. Brignoni-Ponce-"likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor."
1982 AZ state court- State v. Graciano that "enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors."

Think about it for a second. How often do INS agents go to places where people are EXPECTED to be illegal and check ID? How about ALL THE TIME.

This isnt about whether it is legal or constitutional. This is a political and ideological battle right now. The left position is that there should be NO ENFORCEMENT of illegal immigration. California, AZ, Now Colorado...its all the same.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
People who are against this bill are either not from Arizona or just extremely ignorant.
Click to expand...

People who are againts this are kneejerk liberal ideologues. They dont 'think'. They feeeeeeeeeel.
 
Moderator's Warning:
As insults have begun popping up and they threaten to derail the thread, members should be reminded that a general warning was already given in Message #41 in this thread about avoiding insults. Infractions have been levied and they will continue to be levied as necessary.

In general, expressing support for SB1070 does not automatically make one a racist. Expressing opposition to SB1070 does not automatically demonstrate that one is ignorant. Such lines of argument should be avoided.
 
TBone said:
Please explain how this throws out federal law?
Click to expand...

Read the federal law.

She bans state troopers from asking for papers, the same thing that federal law states the feds can do.

She banned the requirement to carry your legal papers with you, something the federal law states is a requirement.

She ignored every legal precedent before her that says states can write law to stop illegal immigration.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
A court can find caselaw from other jurisdictions persuasive, but that court is never bound by it. Thus, the judge was not required to follow anything from a different circuit. She could ignore it at her pleasure.
Click to expand...

And that is the stupidity of her decesion not to mention she avoided actually ruling on the law and passed the buck.
 
disneydude said:
You can "cite it" but it isn't controlling.

What part of that don't you understand?
Click to expand...

Making up law as you go isn't what a judge is supposed to do. They are supposed to interpret the law and cite other law and decesions showing where they base their ruling. She did none of that.

What part of that don't you understand?
 
You know what's actually ironic about this? As long as this litigation goes on, and armies of lawyers, reporters, and other hangers-on storm the place, AZ's tourism dollars are going to skyrocket. So much for the boycotts.
 
texmaster said:
And that is the stupidity of her decesion not to mention she avoided actually ruling on the law and passed the buck.
Click to expand...

1) No. There IS stupidity in her decision, but it's not that.

2) This was never meant to rule on the law. The actual trial hasn't happened yet.
 
Harshaw said:
1) No. There IS stupidity in her decision, but it's not that.

2) This was never meant to rule on the law. The actual trial hasn't happened yet.
Click to expand...

That is what makes it so dirty. She halts the implmentation of the law while passing the buck.
 
texmaster said:
That is what makes it so dirty. She halts the implmentation of the law while passing the buck.
Click to expand...

Dude, that's standard procedure. I think she got it wrong, but implementing a PJ pending adjudication happens all the time.
 
Your Star said:
If the Arizona police want to check the citizenship of people they arrest then great. But they should check everybody they arrest, not just people with "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal.
Click to expand...

Why?

I guess what I'm trying ever so gently to say here is, why is it unreasonable to check the legal status of ANY individual? Given the demographics of the South, and the onslaught of a particular looking group, it makes sense to check those that are detained, or have come into custody? No drivers license? Ok, what's your name Sir? What can't speak English.. Hmmm Gee boss, we might have an illegal here, what should I do? Nothing constable, let him go.. :)

Do you not see how insane this is?


Tim-
 
j-mac said:
Would you agree these might be?

Congressional Progressive Caucus


j-mac
Click to expand...

I dont think MOST of the people that comment on it here for example are politicos. I DO think MOST democrats AND republicans (politicians) are scumbags...party and ideologically driven. just sayin...I think there is a difference.
 
Your Star said:
If the Arizona police want to check the citizenship of people they arrest then great. But they should check everybody they arrest, not just people with "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal.
Click to expand...

I posted a thread a few days ago that showed that Colorado was doing just that...fingerprinting everyone arrested and with the FED checking their liegal immigration status. And of course...everyone freaked because it is a violation of rights. because the left do not WANT enforcement of ANY kind.
 
VanceMack said:
I dont think MOST of the people that comment on it here for example are politicos. I DO think MOST democrats AND republicans (politicians) are scumbags...party and ideologically driven. just sayin...I think there is a difference.
Click to expand...

Um....Ok. But I think that is too broad a brush. I mean, it's a catch all...There are some serving in both houses right now that are on the right track. But the CPC as a whole I believe is in it to bring down Capitalism as a structure for this country, and if that should happen in full, it would be a sad, sad day....


j-mac
 
donsutherland1 said:
Moderator's Warning:
Discussing liberals is not germane to the topic at hand. The thread concerns SB1070 and Judge Bolton's injunction against select provisions of that law.

Please keep things on topic.
Click to expand...


Easy there don....We were only discussing a little broader context. Would you agree don, that this fight over SB1070 comes down along party lines?

j-mac
 
The Dane said:
........they're going to pull over a Mexican guy for a DUI, and be like, "Hrmmm I wonder if this guy is illegal...he is Mexican."

That is ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...


wouldnt that be "probable cause"?.....we have a problem with illegal immigrants from Mexico, not Canada.......if a cop thinks a crime is being commited, he should be able to investigate, which would mean asking for proof of citizenship. It should be that way in all states
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom