U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-23-2010, 08:40 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,373,161 times
Reputation: 17990

Advertisements

That is a easy defended when they introduce Mexico's law and what they are doing on their southern borders.The of course there is the fedral law which allows them to actually not even have probable cause to stop for a citizens/visa check.Federal law is basiclly requires less ;the feds just seldom use it. The staes have always been able to hold for immagration when a arrst is made.I am wait for a citizen who suffers whne a illegal is not arrested by feds to file suit when they are injuries by that person. In Texas its called offical suppression.Bascially it's when a law enforcement knows a law has been violated and ignores it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-23-2010, 10:20 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 27,209,000 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Really?

Are they listed on the lawsuit as a plaintiff? Why, no, they aren't. So if they aren't listed, how can they be a party to a lawsuit? They can't, actually. They can be a "friend of the court", filing a brief which explains to the court their interest in the lawsuit, and arguing to support which side of the suit they favor. But "friends of the court" aren't plaintiffs.

Mexico is NOT suing Arizona.
They don't have to since Holder is doing it for them. I wonder if he is really doing that in the interests of the United States or actually doing it for Mexico and the other Central American countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2010, 10:23 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 27,209,000 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauiwowie View Post
I don't understand what "fully involved" means. An amicus curiae brief by definition means that they are not party to litigation.

Mexico is not an uninterested bystander. That much is not disputed. The problem is that it is simply untrue that they have filed suit. To claim otherwise is false. After several here have shown this some still persist in error. Moreover, they attempt to call out those with facts and reality on their side.

Once we've left the realm of reason, then anything goes. We should concern ourselves with the truth.
Damn, all those technical facts sure are important. I think that technicality put aside we can see that they didn't do what they did just for fun. I wonder why so many of the technical leaders are having such a time with this. I guess it is to take everybody's mind away from all the other Obama games like the Gulf spill and firing a General and replacing him with a demoted one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2010, 10:30 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 27,209,000 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
Wrong...settled case.

States and local police may enforce criminal provisions of federal immigration law. See Gonzales v. City of Peoria (AZ), 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in Gonzales v. City of Peoria that “nothing in federal law precluded…police from enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.” It is well established that state and local police possess the inherent authority to arrest aliens who have violated the criminal provisions of federal immigration law. Said alien is then turned over to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or a law enforcement officer authorized by the federal government to verify immigration status. A.R.S. § 11- 1051(E).
What you say but for some reason that federal group you mention is ICE and their head man has said that he won't likely do anything when state people turn the illegals in to him. Since the US government won't do anything to enforce that immigration law I think that the state people have a perfect right to do it for them. Haul their butts to the border and kick them over it and shoot them if they try to come back.

Seriously, the fact that the Congress passes laws and the executive branch won't enforce the laws makes me very unhappy with a number of Presidents. In this case Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 12:57 AM
 
353 posts, read 396,221 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
Wrong...settled case.

States and local police may enforce criminal provisions of federal immigration law. See Gonzales v. City of Peoria (AZ), 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in Gonzales v. City of Peoria that “nothing in federal law precluded…police from enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.” It is well established that state and local police possess the inherent authority to arrest aliens who have violated the criminal provisions of federal immigration law. Said alien is then turned over to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or a law enforcement officer authorized by the federal government to verify immigration status. A.R.S. § 11- 1051(E).
You are correct. The criminal provisions of the INA are sections 1324-26 and a few others. The 9th circuit also made clear that Congress has carved out a regulatory scheme consistent with exclusive federal power over immigration with respect to the civil provisions.

Therefore, LE must make a distinction between illegal entry and illegal presence, which is a civil offense per sec 1227.

The current debate is whether or not this view will continue, with express authority being required by Congress for states to enforce civil provisions or if state enforcement will be expanded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 01:00 AM
 
353 posts, read 396,221 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Damn, all those technical facts sure are important. I think that technicality put aside we can see that they didn't do what they did just for fun. I wonder why so many of the technical leaders are having such a time with this. I guess it is to take everybody's mind away from all the other Obama games like the Gulf spill and firing a General and replacing him with a demoted one.
Lawsuits can succeed or fail based on the meaning of a single word. It matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top