Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

danarhea said:

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?

Click to expand...

Where does it say anything about "immigration" there? You post it as proof that immigration is a federal matter. But it doesn't say that anywhere. By itself, it doesn't prove anything that you said, yet you offer it as incandescent, stand-alone proof. it simply isn't.

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.

Click to expand...

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the AZ law does not require anything above and beyond federal law? That it's the federal law, not the AZ law, which requires resident aliens to carry their documentation at all times? Do you simply not want to know what the truth of the matter is? Have you simply made a decision about this and will not accept that your version of what the law says might be erroneous? It certainly seems that way.

Learn what the law says. Then comment. It's the only responsible way to go about it. Anything other than that is only so much uninformed blather.

danarhea said:

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?

Click to expand...

The Constitution gives states rights. I don't see a Constitutional violation in the AZ law

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.

Click to expand...

They aren't adding to the federal law, nothing about the AZ law changes any feral law. What they are doing is making a federal offense a state offense as well (being an illegal immigrant). The AZ state police are not the ones doing the deporting either. They would merely have the power to ask for proof of citizenship if there is reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal. I believe under the law, the person has 24 hours to prove they are a citizen whether that be a license, birth certificate, passport, etc (nothing unreasonable about this, just as much as a cop asking for ID or a driver's license). Once caught, illegal aliens would be turned over to federal authorities who would then take it from there.

danarhea said:

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.

Click to expand...

wait, what?


So, the state can't demand identification documents from suspected (mexican) scofflaws?

Know what I'd love to see....

Someone taking suit if possible against Barack Obama and the executive branch for violating the law by choosing to not enforce it. For example, if a chief of police knew that there was a string of murders happening his city and he just decided to tell all his police officers to stop searching for and arresting murders, that we aren't going to enforce that law...what recourse could the population have against him? What punishment could he have for that. I honestly think similar should be available to Obama. There needs to be checks and balances and there appears to be none if the Executive Branch can essentially pick and choose whether or not it wishes to enforce laws.

From my understanding of this judge's ruling it is NOT based on Arizona's law conflicting with federal law, but conflicting with federal ENFORCEMENT...or more ot the point LACK of enforcement...of said laws. To me, the federal governments executive branch being derellict in its duties of enforcing the laws its legislative branch has passed should not be reason to stop states from enforcing said laws.

There's a way in this country to stop enforcing laws you dislike.....have it struck down in court or have it overturned legislatively.

I just got hired as a pharmacy tech, and part of my training is that I have to learn about laws regarding controlled substances, patient privacy, and certain otc drugs that may be used to make meth. One of the main laws I have to learn about and comply with is HIPAA. HIPAA (The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) is a federal law that gives guidelines to healthcare workers and facilities regarding patient privacy, patient documents, and the release of such information. In my training I have had to learn the federal HIPAA guidelines. But in my training I was taught that I am to put state regulations above HIPAA regulations if the state regulations are more stringent. States are allowed to mirror federal law (HIPAA) and pass stricter guidelines for patient privacy protection, and when they do, we are told to follow the state's regulations if their regulations are stricter than the federal ones. Why is this not illegal? Why can states in this instance be allowed to mirror federal law and pass laws that are more strict than federal law? The AZ law simply catches illegals and sends them to federal authorities, yet that was ruled illegal. Why is it that states can pass stricter patient laws but AZ cannot make a federal offense a state offense that is enforcible by state police as well? Even considering that the end result will be that the illegals caught will be sent to federal authorities.

Zyphlin said:

From my understanding of this judge's ruling it is NOT based on Arizona's law conflicting with federal law, but conflicting with federal ENFORCEMENT...or more ot the point LACK of enforcement...of said laws. To me, the federal governments executive branch being derellict in its duties of enforcing the laws its legislative branch has passed should not be reason to stop states from enforcing said laws.

Click to expand...

In fact, the exact argument used by the feds, and agreed to by the judge, was that this measure in AZ will overwhelm the feds with requests.

Zyphlin said:

Know what I'd love to see....

Someone taking suit if possible against Barack Obama and the executive branch for violating the law by choosing to not enforce it. For example, if a chief of police knew that there was a string of murders happening his city and he just decided to tell all his police officers to stop searching for and arresting murders, that we aren't going to enforce that law...what recourse could the population have against him? What punishment could he have for that. I honestly think similar should be available to Obama. There needs to be checks and balances and there appears to be none if the Executive Branch can essentially pick and choose whether or not it wishes to enforce laws.

From my understanding of this judge's ruling it is NOT based on Arizona's law conflicting with federal law, but conflicting with federal ENFORCEMENT...or more ot the point LACK of enforcement...of said laws. To me, the federal governments executive branch being derellict in its duties of enforcing the laws its legislative branch has passed should not be reason to stop states from enforcing said laws.

There's a way in this country to stop enforcing laws you dislike.....have it struck down in court or have it overturned legislatively.

Click to expand...

Why stop with Obama? Take it to Bush and all the presidents preceeding as well. Unless, of course, Obama gives them amnesty like Reagan did.

Because I honestly believe its generally bad precedent, save for the highest of crimes, to start prosecuting or taking action against former Presidents. I think it creates an atmosphere where it becomes even more politicized as one side gets power and just starts trying to extract a pound of flesh from the guy before. And I apply this equally to both Bush and Clinton.

That said, I don't actually think it should be necessarily equal to what the Police Chief may face. I'm not suggesting it should be some kind of legal punishment, though I do think it should be some sort of legal compelling to actually enforce the law that the legislative branch has passed. If affect such compulsion action's still not taken then possibly taking further action would be warranted.

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...

Any proof people get pulled over for nothing because they are hispanic, or are you being ignorantly judgemental of the people who maintain order in the society you live in?

The law doesn't invite profiling, the law invites using common ****ing sense to help enforce immigration law. If someone (since YOU brought up "pulled over" ) is driving a vehicle and cannot provide a driver's license (knowing that illegals cannot obtain a driver's license through the DMV), speaks little to no english, provides you with a foreign made ID card (this happens all the time) or an ID card made at a facility that makes ID cards that "claim" to be "official" (also happens all the time), and you know from your experience that this is the place where people who are not here legally go to get ID cards so they can purchase cigarettes/beer, etc. Said ID card has a local address on it. You can arrest this individual for the NOL (No Operators License) charge and take them in to be processed at the jail, and verify their immigration status at that time. If one is stopped on the streets behind the wheel, this whole problem is VERY, VERY easy.

Its contacts outside of the roadway where things get complicated.

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?

Click to expand...

Actually if an officer has reasonable suspicion (there is that word again) to stop you in reference to a possible connection with a crime that recently occurred, or is occurring (insert billions of ways that could come about via hypothetical situations here), and he asks for your ID, he is well within his rights to do so. If you done have one, well, you don't have one, I disagree that someone should be arrested for not having ID, but the fact remains that if you give false information and it is verified that you gave false information, you can be charged with that later. We have our ways of checking this sort of thing.

One thing that bothers me about this is people acting as if officers do not have the right to ASK people certain questions or ASK people for certain documents. We can ASK you for whatever the hell we want, just like any other person on the planet can. Its at what point you have the right to NOT ANSWER or NOT PRODUCE said documents is what one needs to look for. For example. I can walk up to any person on the street and ask them what their address is. They don't have to give it to me. However, if arrested and I ask them for a their address, and they refuse to give it to me, they can expect to sit in jail without having a bond set until they decide to stop being a douchebag and provide said information. See how that works?

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...

What if they didn't think you were sexy?

The Dane said:

Bull****, a judge disagrees with your racist based policies, its against the law and got struck down.

Click to expand...

Racist how so?

SE102 said:

Good luck enforcing the law WITHOUT racially profiling when the majority of illegals are mexican. And the majority of mexicans are legal.

I wonder how the legal mexicans feel about this.

Click to expand...

very angry

Well, the 2 "hispanic Americans" that I used to work with want the illegals gone, but both of those were college educated and had very good jobs and paid a lot of taxes that got misused to support the illegals........
Beats me why the less well off hispanics want the illegals here, they are competing for the lesser skilled jobs...

danarhea said:

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?

Click to expand...

The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to do anything it wants. There are definate limits on federal power, even if the Courts have expanded them to beyond any limit that would be recognized by the Founding Fathers...

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.

Click to expand...

How does this change federal law? All alien residents in the U.S. are required to carry their documents at all times ... even if many don't. Also, how is the supremacy clause violated if the State of Arizona is regulating the activities of illegal residents in their own state?

Captain America said:

Why stop with Obama? Take it to Bush and all the presidents preceeding as well. Unless, of course, Obama gives them amnesty like Reagan did.

Click to expand...

Actually, remember that the Democrats passed the law before Reagan signed it -- somethign he shouldn't have done, but it isn't as simple as saying Reagan gave them amnesty... no president has that solitary power...

ludahai said:

Actually, remember that the Democrats passed the law before Reagan signed it -- somethign he shouldn't have done, but it isn't as simple as saying Reagan gave them amnesty... no president has that solitary power...

Click to expand...

No.

The Messiah could, tomorrow, issue a blanket amnesty to all Invaders, just as That Idiot Carter gave amnesty to the Vietnam draft dodgers.

It probably won't be done because the political fallout would end some Democrat careers, but it's an option the Messiah might push.

danarhea said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, that's an interesting take.

Cite the paragraphs of the federal law that prohibit the states from acting to assist the federal government in identifying and detaining illegal aliens in the state who are violating federal immigration law, pending further action on the detained criminals by the fedeal authorities.

What new terms were added by Arizona to extant federal immigration law?

Be specific in your response.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

More on topic, why are cities like SF allowed to be "sanctuary cities"?

Click to expand...

Because politicians don't want to enforce the law, and the people keep voting for those politicians, mostly because the people are stupid and this is clear evidence that too many people are allowed to vote who should not, and I'm not talking about the illegal aliens here.

couple of things here. The AZ law is not like the federal law. The AZ law made it a misdemeanor to be in the AZ illegally. The Federal law makes it is an administrive crime, not a misdemeanor or felony, unless they are deported and return illegally, then it is a felony. Police officers are still required to enforce federal immigration laws, and if arrested in AZ, you get checked if you are incarcerated by MCSO 287g officers. Sheriff Joe don't need this law to do the high publized raids of profile and minor crime arrest to get illegals.

Next, if you get arrested, and you are here illegally, you don't get deported the next day. You go before a federal judge, he sets a hearing in about a year or two (not exagarating), then you post a bond or are released OR, and you are allowed to remain in the US until your hearing, and you are allowed to work in some case. If the court chooses to deport you. You appeal, you stay in the country for another 3 years. So FOLKS, arresting the illegals makes them legal for about 5 years because as long as they are pending court, they are not required to leave. So, what 1070 does is helps the illegals.

Next, all the passion that goes into AZ to have their law should be directed at your US Senators and Legislatures. The Tucson Cooridor had DOUBLE the arrests for smugglers and illegal aliens then any other sector, and YET, CARTER, REAGAN, BUSH, CLINTON, BUSH, and OBAMA, have 3 grand officers. The El Paso sector has about half the arrests, and they have 2.5 grand. Precious California gets close to this amount of officers and does not have near the amount of illegal trafficking. WOW. AZ is getting ****ED by the USA, and the US is letting it happen by not putting your USA military on our border to stop the influx of smuggling and illegal immigration. To me that is where the terrorist threat is at.

Lastly, the GOP and Democrats refuse to budge on finding a solution to this issue. It is going to take a politician with balls to get everyone to the table.

UtahBill said:

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.

Click to expand...

Really, where do you get your facts. An overwhelming percentange of Americans support immigration reform, not AZ. Get me an non biased, non right/conservative poll, that speaks to all americans, not just registered GOP, and we'll talk.

Wow, screw the La Raza? So, if I am pissed at Russel Pearce (drafter of 1070), who is Mormon, you'd be alright with me saying, screw the Mormons?

ludahai said:

Actually, remember that the Democrats passed the law before Reagan signed it -- somethign he shouldn't have done, but it isn't as simple as saying Reagan gave them amnesty... no president has that solitary power...

Click to expand...

Reagan was a real president, who worked with democrats, and did not say screw everything democrat, and did not say, I refuse to work with the other side of the isle. Unfortunately, democrats and GOP will not agree on anything, so we will continue to squabble instead of fixing our problems. Too bad we don't have more Reagans or JFK, etc., or Senators like Barry Goldwater that could compromise. This country lacks leadership from both sides. We let Rush, Hannity, MSNBC, FOX, Palin, and Beck lead us, SAD.

UtahBill said:

Well, the 2 "hispanic Americans" that I used to work with want the illegals gone, but both of those were college educated and had very good jobs and paid a lot of taxes that got misused to support the illegals........
Beats me why the less well off hispanics want the illegals here, they are competing for the lesser skilled jobs...

Click to expand...

Hell two latinos, wow, that is enough to make an assumption about all latinos. Yeah, only college educated latinos want to see illegal immigration gone. Did you know that in California, in the early 1900's immigrants from Mexico, created gangs, that are still in place today, to protect themselve from being attacked by the latino americans who did not want them here.

Did you know, many latino americans support sheriff joe (I am not one), but many do. Did you know that not all latino americas, educated and uneducated, don't think alike. Wow, a revelation.

Let me give you some more facts. During the demostrations on 7-29, there were many Anglos protesting 1070.

TBone said:

Reagan was a real president, who worked with democrats, and did not say screw everything democrat, and did not say, I refuse to work with the other side of the isle.

Click to expand...

The refusal to work across isles in this I think stems from a very simple concept. Securing our borders. Reagan ofcourse signed on to the Amnesty of the illegals at that time, however it is often little reported that this was supposed to hinge on securing our border so that we didn't have the mess we do today. Reagan was promised that by demo's that knew full well that they wouldn't carry that out, largely because it hurts their voting block.

Unfortunately, democrats and GOP will not agree on anything, so we will continue to squabble instead of fixing our problems.

Click to expand...

If demo's from the top down, weren't being so damned dishonest these days there might be things that could be worked out. But one can only be lied to so many times before we show them the hand.

Too bad we don't have more Reagans or JFK, etc., or Senators like Barry Goldwater that could compromise.

Click to expand...

It's commin' brother. It took a Jimmah Carter to give us Reagan. I think Obama will spark a return to more basic adherence of the Constitution provided we can undo the damage that these Marxists have wrought.

This country lacks leadership from both sides. We let Rush, Hannity, MSNBC, FOX, Palin, and Beck lead us, SAD.

Click to expand...

You know, even if you lump ALL talk radio conservatives, ALL conservative news outlets together, you still get less than a quarter of the news out there. The problem is not a Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity. The problem is that these demo's don't like the light shinning on them. Problem is that we have figured out their tactics and playbook, so they are less effective in duping the country.


j-mac

j-mac not slamming you, so don't take it that way, just responding.

j-mac;1058889386]The refusal to work across isles in this I think stems from a very simple concept. Securing our borders. Reagan ofcourse signed on to the Amnesty of the illegals at that time, however it is often little reported that this was supposed to hinge on securing our border so that we didn't have the mess we do today. Reagan was promised that by demo's that knew full well that they wouldn't carry that out, largely because it hurts their voting block.

Click to expand...

And yet, Bush and GW Bush and the GOP controlled congress did nothing to fix it or control the border. And, it sounds like it will never happen because as soon as this gets out of the lime light, we will go back to business as usual. Why, the GOP is afraid of losing those latinos that are GOP, and don't kid yourself, their are many. And, the democrats don't want to make people responsible. I say screw it, fix the border, no matter who you piss off. I am a latino, please piss me off. Just fix it. sorry for the rant.

If demo's from the top down, weren't being so damned dishonest these days there might be things that could be worked out. But one can only be lied to so many times before we show them the hand.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with non cooperation between the top Dem's and the top GOP. BUT, the GOP cannot whine about anything, they put this one upon themselves by deciding from the beginning to OPPOSE everything and chastizing (sic) anyone who supported their opposition. So, the GOP needs to be honest also. Two wrongs don't make it right. What we (you and I) need to understand is that this is business as usual, and any minority party claims it.

It's commin' brother. It took a Jimmah Carter to give us Reagan. I think Obama will spark a return to more basic adherence of the Constitution provided we can undo the damage that these Marxists have wrought.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and it took GW Bush and the GOP controlled congress to get what we have now. What is sad, is that this will be like a broken record, a GOP Prez and Congress will come back, and they won't fix anything either, and then we'll be back to square one, they will get voted out, and we'll get some more spineless policito's. j-mac, you and I need to be in charge and fix everything and say f it.

You know, even if you lump ALL talk radio conservatives, ALL conservative news outlets together, you still get less than a quarter of the news out there. The problem is not a Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity. The problem is that these demo's don't like the light shinning on them. Problem is that we have figured out their tactics and playbook, so they are less effective in duping the country.

Click to expand...

Don't just blame this on the demo's, the GOP hated it whenever anyone brought up the duping we got from GW Bush and company. The truth hurts anyone. Now if we could non ranters to give us just facts, I'd be happy. The problem, IMHO, is that to many people rely on someone to give them their opinion. They should research and learn how to think for themselves.

deleted duplicate