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 07-29-2010, 09:32 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 27,248,904 times
Reputation: 7562

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tymberwulf View Post
Personally I think Arizona should tell the Federal Government to stuff it, arrest the illegals anyway and drive them to the California border and point them to L.A.

Somewhere along the lines the federal government has decided states are nothing more than admin personal for them to order around, I think it's time the states take a stand.
OMG that was exactly what I was thinking. Tell them screw them and start cleaning up their state
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-29-2010, 02:15 PM
 
349 posts, read 393,999 times
Reputation: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
You obviously didnt read the OP and his celebration of the END to
Section 6 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States


Supreme court challenge, Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 US 177 (2004), Supreme Court stated that state laws requiring identification was legal.

They were not contrary to federal law, SB 1070 was THE EXACT same thing as the federal law. Its not an infraction similar to a speeding ticket, do you understand that the federal government deports people DAILY for simply "being here" illegally?

States were not enforcing civil provisions of the INA, Arizona was turning these individuals over to the federal government to enforce the provisions..

And finally, when the federal government mandates states cover expenses for illegal aliens, then states have not only the authority, but an obligation to
minimize damages..
Are you purposefully getting this wrong?

Unlawful presence IS a civil provision of the INA.

Please read the HiIbel opinion. It upheld "stop and identify" statues where reasonable suspicion exists that a person has committed a crime. A name satisfies the requirement, nothing more is required for ID. In the 32 states that do not have such provisions not even a name is required.

Most of Sec 6 is not enjoined allowing some warrantless arrests. Furthermore, nothing prevents warranted arrests, therefore, false premise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2010, 03:04 PM
 
17,016 posts, read 11,383,613 times
Reputation: 8989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin View Post
I've already responded to you by telling you exactly what the court ruling said. You are simply being obtuse.

The answer is found in the The Supremacy Clause and preemption doctrine. Open up a legal book and learn for yourself or don't be surprised if I ignore you when you keep rephrasing a stupid question which has already been answered. Alternatively, you could actually read the judge's ruling if you understand enough about the legal system to comprehend what he said. Now, if you will excuse me I need to get ready for work.

But this does not preclude enforcement, as such an argument would prevent any state or local police officer from enforcing ANY federal law. Further, the Rhode Island decision in 1979 is a legal precedent that establishes that the states can enact and enforce immigration laws.

Further, Rhode Island HAS an immigration law essentially identical to that proposed in Arizona. However, the Obama administration has failed to sue them. Why? A political move which defies other state law and legal precedent in order to gain political support of Hispanics at the expense of the US citizens.

http://www.examiner.com/x-45621-Phoe...mmigration-law


Rhode Island police officers routinely check immigration status with routine traffic stops. Yet there is no outrage from Obama. Why is that?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...TU5MmIyZGUyMjg=


Lastly, the Supreme Court has already ruled TWICE that the determination of the immigration status of a suspect is legal. (mueller vs mendez and estrada vs rhode island). Both cases are SUPREME COURT decisions which basically mirror the Arizona law

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423


Therefore, all the liberal BS about violation of the Constitution and legal precedent is ridiculous. Legal precedent, as determined by the SUPREME COURT (not a liberal circuit judge) has upheld the legality of the Arizona law. Obama, however, has never been a big fan of what is legal, and is more concerned about political appearances.

Last edited by hawkeye2009; 07-29-2010 at 03:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2010, 10:49 PM
 
349 posts, read 393,999 times
Reputation: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
But this does not preclude enforcement, as such an argument would prevent any state or local police officer from enforcing ANY federal law. Further, the Rhode Island decision in 1979 is a legal precedent that establishes that the states can enact and enforce immigration laws.

Further, Rhode Island HAS an immigration law essentially identical to that proposed in Arizona. However, the Obama administration has failed to sue them. Why? A political move which defies other state law and legal precedent in order to gain political support of Hispanics at the expense of the US citizens.

http://www.examiner.com/x-45621-Phoenix-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d13-Missouri-Virginia-and-Rhode-Island--have-identical-laws-to-Arizonas-immigration-law


Rhode Island police officers routinely check immigration status with routine traffic stops. Yet there is no outrage from Obama. Why is that?

United States v. Arizona — How ‘Bout United States v. Rhode Island? - The Corner - National Review Online=


Lastly, the Supreme Court has already ruled TWICE that the determination of the immigration status of a suspect is legal. (mueller vs mendez and estrada vs rhode island). Both cases are SUPREME COURT decisions which basically mirror the Arizona law

Muehler v. Mena, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument


Therefore, all the liberal BS about violation of the Constitution and legal precedent is ridiculous. Legal precedent, as determined by the SUPREME COURT (not a liberal circuit judge) has upheld the legality of the Arizona law. Obama, however, has never been a big fan of what is legal, and is more concerned about political appearances.
Again, these links do NOT point to a similar law as no such law exists in RI nor did it exist. RI does 287(g) enforcement which at this time is being sought by the Federal government to aid in enforcement.

Supreme Court cases date back to Wonk Kim Ark supporting federal preemption. It is NOT liberal BS nor is it from a District judge. It is the law. That may change with the current Court, however, precedent is clearly on the side of the US DOJ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2010, 12:47 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,699,632 times
Reputation: 22158
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Therefore, all the liberal BS about violation of the Constitution and legal precedent is ridiculous. Legal precedent, as determined by the SUPREME COURT (not a liberal circuit judge) has upheld the legality of the Arizona law. Obama, however, has never been a big fan of what is legal, and is more concerned about political appearances.
Obama even admitted that he was going to try to smash the Arizona law because a foreign government wanted it smashed. How legal or Constitutional is it for a president to base his actions on the fact that he's following orders from foreign governments?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2010, 01:33 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Obama even admitted that he was going to try to smash the Arizona law because a foreign government wanted it smashed. How legal or Constitutional is it for a president to base his actions on the fact that he's following orders from foreign governments?
I believe this is one decision he will ultimately regret.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2010, 05:56 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
4,883 posts, read 7,118,343 times
Reputation: 1902
I'd like a link proving what Malamute said is true because that honestly sounds like some lame right wing talking point which isn't even remotely true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2010, 06:02 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
4,883 posts, read 7,118,343 times
Reputation: 1902
The 36 page ruling.

http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/wp-conte...SvsArizona.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2010, 07:33 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,699,632 times
Reputation: 22158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin View Post
I'd like a link proving what Malamute said is true because that honestly sounds like some lame right wing talking point which isn't even remotely true.
Really it couldn't be clearer if you followed Obama's reasoning for attacking the state of Arizona why Obama is attacking it. Obama is taking orders from foreign governments and determines which US laws can be enforced that way.


Obama administration sues Arizona over immigration law | Reuters

The Obama administration warned in the lawsuit that other states were considering similar immigration measures which would result in "further and significant damage" to U.S. relations with countries like Mexico, which last month joined a lawsuit seeking to derail the Arizona law.

Mexico's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday expressed "satisfaction" at the Obama administration's move to challenge the state law.

"The Mexican government will continue to follow this process closely, and stands by its firm commitment to protect the rights of Mexicans abroad," the ministry said in a statement.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2010, 09:36 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,599,519 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauiwowie View Post
Are you purposefully getting this wrong?

Unlawful presence IS a civil provision of the INA.

Please read the HiIbel opinion. It upheld "stop and identify" statues where reasonable suspicion exists that a person has committed a crime. A name satisfies the requirement, nothing more is required for ID. In the 32 states that do not have such provisions not even a name is required.

Most of Sec 6 is not enjoined allowing some warrantless arrests. Furthermore, nothing prevents warranted arrests, therefore, false premise.
PER the OP, this was banned.
Section 6 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

Is the OP wrong?
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