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 08-08-2010, 11:20 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,599,519 times
Reputation: 9357

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthBeautyGoodness View Post
I'm sorry, but what part of truth beauty or goodness can be described as bull sh*t?
Because you cant ignore common sense or intelligence in the equation of what is the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2010, 12:01 PM
 
Location: On the border, SW AZ
207 posts, read 465,374 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthBeautyGoodness View Post
Which part of my screen name is liberal, the truth, beauty, or goodness?


No you got it right pretty much there. I'm not for amnesty at all, we would get trampled and we would perhaps go into another recession.

I have a problem with Arizona making laws for something it has no legal jurisdiction over. And so does the U.S. Government.

If you don't understand that, then you really must be confused on why the Obama Admin is suing Arizona. Let me explain,

After the Civil War, states began passing their own immigration laws, so the U.S. Supreme Court decided to rule in 1875 that immigration law was a federal responsibility.

If you think that Arizona does have the legal right to do so because the Feds aren't doing their job is another argument that I may even agree with.

To be quite honest, I don't think any of us really know what we're talking about. When this immigration lawyer was explaining this all to me, it was very complex so I only got out the main ideas. But this is what I have.
You're classic example of someone having all the answers w/o knowing the questions. Your 'Immigration Lawyer' is equally confused (or disingenous... as this increasingly polititicized Judiciary seems to be...) SB1070 isn't about 'immigration'... it's about identification, detention and processing of illegal aliens. Got that? Arizona doesn't violate immigration laws. This is not an immigration matter... it's an illegal alien w/o papers matter. If anyone (from anywhere) enters the US they MUST carry a Consuler Visa at the very least. Or... a passport... or a INS Green Card. It's not a suggestion it's Title 8 USC §§ 1304.

The media keep calling it an immigration law. It's not and never was intended as such. It's a means to identify illegals. Crossing the border w/o authorization is a Federal felony (8 USC). Cops have been doing this exact same thing for as long as I can remember... but SB1070 made it universal w/certain caveats to insure uniformity of enforcement w/an ARS cite when effected.

"It is well established that the authority of state police to make arrests for violation of federal law is not limited to those situations in which they are exercising delegated federal power. Rather, such arrest authority inheres in the States’ status as sovereign entities. It stems from the basic power of one sovereign to assist another sovereign. This is the same inherent authority that is exercised whenever a state law enforcement officer witnesses a federal crime being committed and makes an arrest. That officer is not acting pursuant to delegated federal power. Rather, he is exercising the inherent power of his state to assist another sovereign.

There is abundant case law on this point. Even though Congress has never authorized state police officers to make arrest for federal offenses without an arrest warrant, such arrests occur routinely; and the Supreme Court has recognized that state law controls the validity of such an arrest. As the Court concluded in United States v. Di Re, "No act of Congress lays down a general federal rule for arrest without warrant for federal offenses. None purports to supersede state law. And none applies to this arrest which, while for a federal offense, was made by a state officer accompanied by federal officers who had no power of arrest. Therefore the New York statute provides the standard by which this arrest must stand or fall." 332 U.S. 581, 591 (1948). The Court’s conclusion presupposes that state officers possess the inherent authority to make warrantless arrests for federal offenses. The same assumption guided the Court in Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "[state] officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests." U.S. v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, they may initiate an arrest on the basis of probable cause to think that an individual has committed a federal crime.

The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have expressed this understanding in the immigration context specifically. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983). The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations," United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws," United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that "state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions ‘to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.’" United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295). None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable. Rather, the inherent arrest authority extends generally to both categories of federal immigration law violations" All the talking heads keep referring to 'Federal law'... as tho they understodd what that is. Here's the rhyme and verse: Title 8 U.S.C. § 1226, provides for apprehension and detention of aliens.

It is so EASY to find this stuff... yet none of the talking heads do it. None of 'you' do it... and worse... the freakin' US Attorney General hasn't done it. INAL... I'm just a former cop of a few years duration.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32270.pdf
State and Local Authority to Enforce Immigration Law: A Unified Approach for Stopping Terrorists | Center for Immigration Studies
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P48.pdf


Oh... about those 'Sanctuary Cities? Direct violation of Title 8 U.S.C. §§1373 and 8 U.S.C. 1644. There's the facts... not opinion.


"For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them.

BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

.

Each state has the obligation and duty to determine who is and who is not a “citizen of the United States” because Citizens of the United States, by the Federal Constitution’s 14th Amendment, are guaranteed all the “privileges and immunities” the state in which they are located has to offer. But those who are not “citizens of the United States” are not entitled to those “privileges and immunities“, and the 14th Amendment only requires that they may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the state’s due process of law being applied to them equally as it is applied to all others.

A state cannot carry out its internal policing powers essential to maintaining the State’s internal order, morals, and general public good, and do so within the limits of the Federal Constitution [see particularly the 14th Amendment] unless it is free to distinguish between aliens and “citizen of the United States” who are to be treated differently by the command of the 14th Amendment! And for Napolitano or Eric Holder to say that Arizona may not determine who is and who is not a “Citizen of the United States” while such persons are in Arizona’s geographical jurisdiction, as both Napolitano and Holder have indicated, exhibits their sophomoric approach to the rules of constitutional law, the powers reserved by the States, and ignores the defined and limited powers granted to Congress by our written Constitution.

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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