Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-02-2010, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
2,897 posts, read 10,380,840 times
Reputation: 937

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by think first View Post
American tourists need to boycott Mexico and vacation in AZ instead.
First off, not everyone in Mexico is trying to come here illegally.

Did you think of the negative effects of this? If we aren't there to support their city, such as Rocky Point, then their economy would collapse, and they would be forced to look for work elsewhere, such as the US.

 
Old 07-03-2010, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Tepic, Mexico
18 posts, read 20,694 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauiwowie View Post
You seem like a reasonable person so I'll give more background. I've stated repeatedly that SB1070 runs afoul of Federal law. The test is from De Canas v Bica:

Constitutional Preemption: Is AZ attempting to regulate immigration? I don't think so

Field Preemption: Did Congress intend to occupy the field ousting local power? Debatable here, IMO

Conflict Preemption: Is it in conflict with Federal law making compliance to state and Federal impossible? Here 1070 fails.

SB 1070 makes it a state crime to be unlawfully present akin to a class 1 misdemeanor. It is a federal civil offense. Here we have conflict and Federal law supersedes local or state law.

Could 1070 be upheld as it now stands? Certainly. We have a Court willing to set aside precedent and make activist decisions.

There have been amendments proposed to the Immigration and Naturalization act to end birthright citizenship in Congress. It would still be in conflict with the 14th Amendment.

Case law about birthright citizenship predates even the 14th. Murray v The Charming Betsey in 1804 implied that in the opinion 'Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character..." persons born here are citizens.

There was much debate about the 14th Amendment and the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" wasn't included in the original House version. Jacob Howard is credited for including "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude children of ambassadors and diplomats as was customary in English common law. It also excluded American Indians who weren't granted birthright citizenship until later because they weren’t completely under US jurisdiction.

Clearly, the language could have been stated to include born of citizens only. They knew this meant the inclusion of children born to non-citizens Mr. HOWARD. The meaning of the amendment wasn’t really debated. It was understood to include all born within the physical US boundaries with the exception of those outside the jurisdiction of US law. Debate centered on whether or not this was wise, but not it’s meaning. One opposed, and voting against the entire 14th Amendment was Sen. Cowan who said, in part,
Of course these questions predate the Chinese Exclusion Act, but show the seeds of discontent. A response was given by CA Senator John Conness, This followed the Civil Rights act of 1866 that guaranteed birthright citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” Some arguing on these boards confuse jurisdiction with allegiance. All within our borders, excepting those with diplomatic immunity are subject to US laws. It matters not if we like it or if we like the laws of some other country better, we are subject to US laws. Senator Cowan, who opposed the Citizenship clause, said it would extend birthright citizenship to “people who … owe no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own …; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him.”

It is clear that the Senate understood the ramifications of the language. Again, they could have included language granting birthright citizenship to those born to citizens and chose not to do so.

I’ll briefly touch on some case law. We’re all pretty familiar with US v Wong Kim Ark that established citizenship to those born of aliens. It was long considered to mean all born within the US were citizens, but challenges came because although Kim Ark’s parents couldn’t be naturalized, they were here lawfully. That question was answered in Plyler v Doe a landmark case about providing education to children of those here unlawfully. The 5-4 decision holds that the 14th Amendments Equal Protection applies to “any person within its jurisdiction”. Although four Justices dissented on the question of public education, they ALL agreed that the 14th Amendment applies equally to all, even those that enter illegally, and come under jurisdiction of the state. Writing for the majority Justice Brennan wrote, “[N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

That’s the state of case law now and a consistent precedent. Are there legal scholars that feel birthright citizenship rules could be changed by statute amending the INA? Yes, but they are very much in the minority. Further, any state law would run counter to Federal law and be struck down quickly. Bills like this have been proposed in Congress and go nowhere.
" It is a federal civil offense."
Wrong, first offense is a MISDEMEANOR, second offense is a FELONY.
Read the law and get back to me!
 
Old 07-04-2010, 12:19 PM
 
1,292 posts, read 3,457,867 times
Reputation: 1430
One of the biggest hurdles the Obama administration will face in arguing a conflict between SB 1070 and federal preeminent jurisdiction over immigration matters is the doctrine of selective enforcement.

Numerous cities have passed their own legislation on immigration matters that are in opposition to federal immigration law but the U.S. government has not gone to court to strike down the legislation in those states. The difference is that many of those laws are "sanctuary" laws and policies, and are thus in accord with the current administration's objectives. Why isn't DOJ filing suit against Los Angeles, San Francisco, Austin, and Milwaukee if the government is concerned with mainatining legal primacy in immigration matters?
 
Old 07-04-2010, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Southern Arizona
9,593 posts, read 31,571,261 times
Reputation: 11708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Mike View Post
One of the biggest hurdles the Obama administration will face in arguing a conflict between SB 1070 and federal preeminent jurisdiction over immigration matters is the doctrine of selective enforcement.

Numerous cities have passed their own legislation on immigration matters that are in opposition to federal immigration law but the U.S. government has not gone to court to strike down the legislation in those states. The difference is that many of those laws are "sanctuary" laws and policies, and are thus in accord with the current administration's objectives. Why isn't DOJ filing suit against Los Angeles, San Francisco, Austin, and Milwaukee if the government is concerned with mainatining legal primacy in immigration matters?
WOW, Mike . . . excellent question.

The Obama Goons are considering filing suit against Arizona's SB1070 (exactly the same as the Federal Law) while they have their heads in the sand, or other dark places better left unmentioned, when the Sanctuary City issues (totally against any and all Federal Laws) are involved.

Smells like a PERSONAL AGENDA to me.
 
Old 07-04-2010, 04:22 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,338,712 times
Reputation: 29336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bummer View Post
WOW, Mike . . . excellent question.

The Obama Goons are considering filing suit against Arizona's SB1070 (exactly the same as the Federal Law) while they have their heads in the sand, or other dark places better left unmentioned, when the Sanctuary City issues (totally against any and all Federal Laws) are involved.

Smells like a PERSONAL AGENDA to me.
My state has virtually the same laws on the books as SB1070, and has, and they're not going after us, either. Of course, we have a Democrat as Governor, not a Republican, we're not a border state and we don't have a Senator who ran against Obama!

Things that make you go, "Hmmmm!"
 
Old 07-04-2010, 04:38 PM
 
253 posts, read 461,908 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiberius View Post
jimj... The troops will go there quickly, but without ammo in their weapons.. However, if there's a firefight along the Arizona border and several Arizonans are killed, the FIRST thing obama will do is say to his wife .. " WHY ME !!" .. Then, after he makes a show of sending troops to save the day, ( with orders to not actually DO anything.), he'll have his advisors check the polls for the public's response.. Then his advisors will figure out what to do that will look best for HIM.. Then they'll leak a couple ideas to the press and see how they play.. Then whichever one looks best for him politically is what he will do.. And in the end, he will blame Arizona and have his justice department investigte the state to see if there's ANYTHING they can be sued for.. ABC will run an "up close and personal" piece on the mexican cartel members and how they're just trying for a better life, and blame our immigration system for not making it easier for the cartel members to legally immigrate .. illegals will march on the houses of the families of the slain Arizonans and throw rocks at them and call them pigs.. some neighbors will gather and tell the illegals they shouldn't do that.. The press will label the neighbors racist far right wingers, causing their homes to be stoned, too.. ( the press will cover it and surmise that this may be the just end for those preaching racial intolerance ) .. and finally, the families of the "murdered" drug cartel members will be on oprah, during which she will announce a music industry benefit concert for the now fatherless families.. During the show, obama will appear on a large screen and say he is issueing an executive order granting the family members of the "murdered" cartel members american citizenship.. oprah and her audience will stand and applaud and cry..

In a side story .. the body of one of the slain Arizonans will be sent home to california for burial next to his deceased wife, but he will be refused entrance to L.A. county, who will have already passed a proclaimation condemning Arizona and the people who tried to fight off the cartel members..

tiberius
Instead of putting nonsense like this on here why don't you talk to Jan Brewer if you want the National Guard on the border? She has the power to do that anytime she wants.
As far as most of the actions that you seem to want Obama to take, most of them require that a bill be presented for him to sign. Lets see now, I think that AZ has some representatives in Congress and the Senate. Have they written a bill and took it through the House and Congress?
It's a lot of fun to orate and postulate when you don't have to be bothered by little things like facts, isn't it?
 
Old 07-04-2010, 06:29 PM
 
682 posts, read 2,559,482 times
Reputation: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyoming Darrell View Post
Instead of putting nonsense like this on here why don't you talk to Jan Brewer if you want the National Guard on the border? She has the power to do that anytime she wants.
As far as most of the actions that you seem to want Obama to take, most of them require that a bill be presented for him to sign. Lets see now, I think that AZ has some representatives in Congress and the Senate. Have they written a bill and took it through the House and Congress?
It's a lot of fun to orate and postulate when you don't have to be bothered by little things like facts, isn't it?
As has been mentioned on this giant thread, Arizona is broke, in part due to the 2.5 BILLION spent by the state on illegals. If she had the money you can bet she would have the AZ guard on the border.

This is a Federal problem which the politicians are ignoring leaving the governors in a lurch to pay for the illegal costs in their states.

altus2006
 
Old 07-04-2010, 07:33 PM
 
253 posts, read 461,908 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by altus2006 View Post
As has been mentioned on this giant thread, Arizona is broke, in part due to the 2.5 BILLION spent by the state on illegals. If she had the money you can bet she would have the AZ guard on the border.

This is a Federal problem which the politicians are ignoring leaving the governors in a lurch to pay for the illegal costs in their states.

altus2006

How about the representatives (in congress and senate) of this state? Where have they been hiding? I see John McCain on TV using it as a crutch for re-election, but why has he not made progress on the problem in the many years he has had to do it. Either he hasn't tried or in all that time he hasn't generated enough power to have any effect, even though his party was in power for much of his incumbency.
 
Old 07-04-2010, 08:00 PM
 
Location: Shumway, Az.
139 posts, read 433,438 times
Reputation: 107
I don't know how many of you have been injured by a illegal drunk driver, but I have. The driver who hit me, had no drivers license, no insurance, no business driving, and no business in the state of Arizona, and no business in the United States of America. I had to pay all my hospital bills, after my insurance ran out.

I applaud the actions of Arizona's SB1070. For to long the federal government has lacked the brains to enforce federal law!! The Government of the United States secure the borders of other countries better then in America. Obama first said one of his first acts would be, immigration reform. I haven't seen anything out of Obama-nation, till Arizona's Jan Brewer signed into law, SB1070. And now Mr. Obama-nation is prissy, because Arizona is standing up to the federal government and doing the federal governments work.

By the way, all SB1070 does is mirror federal law.

We are the ones that have to pay for the welfare of these illegals, depriving Americans, and those here legally.

Frankly, I don't care what the illegals want. If they are here illegally, they should be deported. I don't have a problem with those here legally. They obeyed the law and came, by way of the laws of America.

By the way, the picture was taken at a rally in Phoenix.
Attached Thumbnails
Arizona passes strict illegal immigration act-36969_106485292736017_100001236392227_51488_5442838_n.jpg  
 
Old 07-04-2010, 08:58 PM
 
253 posts, read 461,908 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Route_66_traveler View Post
I don't know how many of you have been injured by a illegal drunk driver, but I have. The driver who hit me, had no drivers license, no insurance, no business driving, and no business in the state of Arizona, and no business in the United States of America. I had to pay all my hospital bills, after my insurance ran out.

I applaud the actions of Arizona's SB1070. For to long the federal government has lacked the brains to enforce federal law!! The Government of the United States secure the borders of other countries better then in America. Obama first said one of his first acts would be, immigration reform. I haven't seen anything out of Obama-nation, till Arizona's Jan Brewer signed into law, SB1070. And now Mr. Obama-nation is prissy, because Arizona is standing up to the federal government and doing the federal governments work.

By the way, all SB1070 does is mirror federal law.

We are the ones that have to pay for the welfare of these illegals, depriving Americans, and those here legally.

Frankly, I don't care what the illegals want. If they are here illegally, they should be deported. I don't have a problem with those here legally. They obeyed the law and came, by way of the laws of America.

By the way, the picture was taken at a rally in Phoenix.
Then why is the Los Angeles Times complex in the background?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top