U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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 07-28-2010, 02:04 PM
 
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
3,858 posts, read 5,981,975 times
Reputation: 1807

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonaos View Post
Anyways, Kennedy's Amnesty included loopholes that allowed each of those given amnesty to bring anyone they knew from Mexico to America...So in total, that 1.3 million turned out to be nearly 9 million
Nice rewrite of history. It was Reagan's Amnesty with a Republican majority in the Senate and a Democrat majority in the House.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-28-2010, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,861,656 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacknight04 View Post
I don't see anyone backing illegal immigration here.
But they DO back illegal aliens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2010, 02:12 PM
 
61 posts, read 58,734 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauiwowie View Post
You should read the entire opinion in both De Canas and Gonzales. Also read Bolton's opinion that I linked in an earlier post.

Please provide support for your position.

Really? Do i have to do this again?

I read her opinion piece when it was first released, still does not change the fact that she did not follow precedence and just kicked the can down the road

Old Post on different thread
http://www.city-data.com/forum/14765075-post13.html


De Canas v. Bica 1976

"The Court distinguished between regulating immigration, which is "essentially a determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country, [along with] the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain"

The Court held that "the fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute does not render it a regulation of immigration."' Under the Court's rationale, state and local governments are constitutionally prohibited from regulating the conditions on legal entrance and residency in the United States, but they may enact otherwise valid regulations that impact immigrants.


Gonzales Vs City of Peoria 1983

"Under the Court's rationale, state and local governments are constitutionally prohibited from regulating the conditions on legal entrance and residency in the United States, but they may enact otherwise valid regulations that impact immigrants"

"While the Court recognized that the INA comprehensively regulates immigration and naturalization, it found that Congress did not intend to completely occupy the immigration field to the exclusion of state activity"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2010, 02:13 PM
 
17,287 posts, read 25,061,700 times
Reputation: 8537
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK;
Arizona was stolen from Mexico to start with and the Mexicans have every right to be there.



Seriously dude, hasn't this been debunked like a million times? "Mexico" didn't own the land that America "stole" --- it belonged to the Native Americans. And also, Southern Arizona was PURCHASED from Mexico via the Gadsden Purchase.

Indeed, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo included protection for Mexico BY the United States from Indian raids against Mexican settlements in the Southwest (and even within the confines of the borders of present day Mexico), because... get this... the Indians did not like the Mexicans setting up shop on THEIR land!


And btw, Aztec/Mayan descent Mexicans do not get to lay claim for lands to the North of the Border simply because they too are "indigenous" anymore than the British can lay claim and entitlement to Russia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2010, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 27,371,323 times
Reputation: 7567
Its a sad day for Arizona and certainly for the rest of the US.

But I agree with Jan, this is just a bump in the road. Arizona and the people of the US will prevail in defending its territory from invaders
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2010, 02:18 PM
 
8,760 posts, read 16,154,615 times
Reputation: 3486
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
You cannot take it back because it was not yours to begin with. You took it from the Indians and the Mexicans.
You want to run point for them when the time comes??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2010, 02:19 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 27,371,323 times
Reputation: 7567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Wrong! There are as many opponents of illegal immigration on the LEFT. Stop trying to make the rule of law a partisan issue.

By the way, do you support anarchy? That’s precisely where we’re headed, if our government will not enforce our laws.
I have been a democrat from voting age, but I support enforcement 100%

I believe the federal government has failed Arizona and its residents so Arizona was taking action to protect itself. We have a crisis that the Feds are doing nothing to try to solve and yet when a state tries to ameliorate the situation, the feds strike them down. That is beyond wrong

Very disappointed democrat here
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2010, 02:20 PM
 
353 posts, read 396,498 times
Reputation: 181
Talent70 sorry I can't quote your post due to limitations with mobile posting.

What you have done is show that you haven't read the cases. De Canas sets the test for preemption and while some view it as dicta Gonzales prohibits state enforcement of civil provisions of INA.

You really should read the full opinions because the cases you cite are precisely the basis supporting this injunction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2010, 02:21 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
61,403 posts, read 31,074,178 times
Reputation: 13058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
As predicted, the “reasonable suspicion” clause has been blocked. Basically, all contentious aspects of the law have been stricken. Also, non-citizens will not be required to carry proof of legal status, which is mandated by Federal law. The law will become effective tomorrow, but with mega restrictions.

Federal judge rules on Arizona's immigration law


On the basis it would put a burden on the federal government, straining the federal governments resources.

Is this judge serious?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2010, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,163 posts, read 26,739,146 times
Reputation: 6452
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacknight04 View Post
I was just showing the absurdity of that poster referring to those with different views as pro-criminals. Typical of the so called "anti-illegal" crowd, you love putting labels on others but get all riled up when the same is done to you.
Are you "pro-illegal??
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