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 06-25-2012, 01:20 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
There never was any requirement to prove citizenship, just that you are in the country legally. A simple DL or state ID or green card would prove that. Most sane people would be carrying DL while driving. Legal immigrants are already required to carry their green cards.
OR their I-94 forms with their passports.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2012, 01:21 PM
Status: "As a wise man once said, “So?”" (set 26 days ago)
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,443 posts, read 8,571,364 times
Reputation: 5800
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigrs99 View Post
States can't do anything without DHS co-operation Arizona dont
have access to immigration database ICE has said today no detainers
will be issued unless an alien has a prior felony and no extra
staff will be posted to answer requests from Aruzona police
to chk immigration status
Saw that. Really, how can anyone defend this administration? They are outright flaunting they will not and do not want to follow the law. One of the reasons our society works and our democratic process works is because we follow the rule of law. What's it called when those in charge decide to simply not follow the law and there's no one to stop them?? I'm sure some of you know the answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 01:25 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Feds suspend immigration enforcement program after Arizona court ruling | Fox News



Really, I want to know the answer to this question. What recourse do States have if the Federal gov't does not enforce the law??
So Obama is retaliating against the state of AZ and the SC now? What a dictator! Wow, if this doesn't wake up Americans in November then I don't know what will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 01:29 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Saw that. Really, how can anyone defend this administration? They are outright flaunting they will not and do not want to follow the law. One of the reasons our society works and our democratic process works is because we follow the rule of law. What's it called when those in charge decide to simply not follow the law and there's no one to stop them?? I'm sure some of you know the answer.
Law/Policy allows for "proprietorial discretion" on a "case-by-case basis". What Immigration Law does not allow for is broad disregard for detaining illegals simply because the administration determined only illegal felons need be removed. Obama has usurped his position and is becoming a dictator with his overly broad interpretations of immigration law (only Congress can dictate law in regards to immigration). To punish Arizona by rescinding all 287(g) programs in the State of AZ is poor leadership on his part. S-Comm is still in force at the jails. Since he is refusing to detain illegals in AZ, unless convicted felons, he is showing his will over-rides that of the requirements as set forth by the Congress over immigration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Law/Policy allows for "proprietorial discretion" on a "case-by-case basis". What Immigration Law does not allow for is broad disregard for detaining illegals simply because the administration determined only illegal felons need be removed. Obama has usurped his position and is becoming a dictator with his overly broad interpretations of immigration law (only Congress can dictate law in regards to immigration). To punish Arizona by rescinding all 287(g) programs in the State of AZ is poor leadership on his part. S-Comm is still in force at the jails. Since he is refusing to detain illegals in AZ, unless convicted felons, he is showing his will over-rides that of the requirements as set forth by the Congress over immigration.
With his latest directive, Obama has indeed officially declared dictatorship. We can only imagine what's next.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 01:41 PM
 
39,020 posts, read 23,146,013 times
Reputation: 12146
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
There never was any requirement to prove citizenship, just that you are in the country legally. A simple DL or state ID or green card would prove that. Most sane people would be carrying DL while driving. Legal immigrants are already required to carry their green cards.
Legal non-citizens are required to carry their green cards. Legal citizens, whether they are immigrants or not, are not required to carry any documentation. And that's the rub, because if I'm at the park walking my dog, and a police officer asks me for proof that I'm legally in this country, as a lawful citizen I can laugh uproariously. And if I were illegal in this country, it would be best for me to similarly laugh uproariously, and behave as if I were a lawful citizen. Because what's the police officer going to do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 01:44 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,425 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Legal non-citizens are required to carry their green cards. Legal citizens, whether they are immigrants or not, are not required to carry any documentation. And that's the rub, because if I'm at the park walking my dog, and a police officer asks me for proof that I'm legally in this country, as a lawful citizen I can laugh uproariously. And if I were illegal in this country, it would be best for me to similarly laugh uproariously, and behave as if I were a lawful citizen. Because what's the police officer going to do?
It is a violation of the officer to do such thing without probable cause, or where no violation was committed. Now if you or your dog littered while you were in the park, the officer has every right to ask you for ID to write you a citation, and if you fail to comply or do not present an ID he can hold you until your ID is determined; case law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 02:14 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Legal non-citizens are required to carry their green cards. Legal citizens, whether they are immigrants or not, are not required to carry any documentation. And that's the rub, because if I'm at the park walking my dog, and a police officer asks me for proof that I'm legally in this country, as a lawful citizen I can laugh uproariously. And if I were illegal in this country, it would be best for me to similarly laugh uproariously, and behave as if I were a lawful citizen. Because what's the police officer going to do?
What person would not carry ID on them at all times in case of an accident? There would be no incident where a police officer would stop someone walking their dog in the part just to determine their status in this country anyway, so try again. Only under lawful contact (commission of or suspician of an unrelated crime) could a police officer do that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 02:15 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,584 posts, read 7,965,909 times
Reputation: 4146
Actually three of the Justices (Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) voted that the parts of the Arizona law that were struck down, shouldn't have been. (Alito said that two of them shouldn't have been and one should.)

Scalia basically said that the states are "sovereign", and one of the most basic characteristics of sovereignity, is that you can exclude who you want to from entering your territory. Since the Constitution didn't explicitly strip the states' sovereignity away form them, they have the power to pass and uphold laws like SB1070.

Thomas said even more directly, that sovereignity wasn't the controlling issue; but simply that states can enforce Federal law, unless the Constitution, or Congress, specifically tells them not to. And no part of the Const, or any law passed by Congress, tell Arizona not to pass a law like SB1070 which simply mirrors existing Federal law.

Justice Thomas wrote (see ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute ):
Quote:
I agree with Justice Scalia that federal immigration law does not pre-empt any of the challenged provisions of S. B. 1070. I reach that conclusion, however, for the simple reason that there is no conflict between the “ordinary meanin[g]” of the relevant federal laws and that of the four provisions of Arizona law at issue here. (“Pre-emption analysis should not be a freewheeling judicial inquiry into whether a state statute is in tension with federal objectives, but an inquiry into whether the ordinary meanings of state and federal law conflict” (brackets; internal quotation marks omitted)).

Section 2(B) of S. B. 1070 provides that, when Arizona law enforcement officers reasonably suspect that a person they have lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested is unlawfully present, “a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person” pursuant to the verification procedure established by Congress in 8 U. S. C. §1373(c). Nothing in the text of that or any other federal statute prohibits Arizona from directing its officers to make immigration-related inquiries in these situations. To the contrary, federal law expressly states that “no State or local government entity may be prohibted, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from” federal officials “information regarding the immigration status” of an alien. And, federal law imposes an affirmative obligation on federal officials to respond to a State’s immigration-related inquiries.

Section 6 of S. B. 1070 authorizes Arizona law enforcement officers to make warrantless arrests when there is probable cause to believe that an arrestee has committed a public offense that renders him removable under federal immigration law. States, as sovereigns, have inherent authority to conduct arrests for violations of federal law, unless and until Congress removes that authority. See United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 589 (1948) (holding that state law determines the validity of a warrantless arrest for a violation of federal law “in the absence of an applicable federal statute”). Here, no federal statute purports to withdraw that authority. As Justice Scalia notes, ante, at 12, federal law does limit the authority of federal officials to arrest removable aliens, but those statutes do not apply to state officers. And, federal law expressly recognizes that state officers may “cooperate with the Attorney General” in the “apprehension” and “detention” of “aliens not lawfully present in the United States.” Nothing in that statute indicates that such cooperation requires a prior “request, approval, or other instruction from the Federal Government.”

Section 3 of S. B. 1070 makes it a crime under Arizona law for an unlawfully present alien to willfully fail to complete or carry an alien registration document in violation of 8 U. S. C. §1304(e) and §1306(a). Section 3 simply incorporates federal registration standards. Unlike the Court, I would not hold that Congress pre-empted the field of enforcing those standards. “[O]ur recent cases have frequently rejected field pre-emption in the absence of statutory language expressly requiring it.” Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U. S. 564, 617 (1997); see, e.g., New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 415 (1973) . Here, nothing in the text of the relevant federal statutes indicates that Congress intended enforcement of its registration requirements to be exclusively the province of the Federal Government. That Congress created a “full set of standards governing alien registration,” ante, at 10 (majority opinion), merely indicates that it intended the scheme to be capable of working on its own, not that it wanted to preclude the States from enforcing the federal standards. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 (1941) , is not to the contrary. As Justice Scalia explains, ante, at 14, Hines at most holds that federal law pre-empts the States from creating additional registration requirements. But here, Arizona is merely seeking to enforce the very registration requirements that Congress created.

Section 5(C) of S. B. 1070 prohibits unlawfully present aliens from knowingly applying for, soliciting, or performing work in Arizona. Section 5(C) operates only on individuals whom Congress has already declared ineligible to work in the United States. Nothing in the text of the federal immigration laws prohibits States from imposing their own criminal penalties on such individuals. Federal law expressly pre-empts States from “imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.” 8 U. S. C. §1324a(h)(2) (emphasis added). But it leaves States free to impose criminal sanctions on the employees themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 02:47 PM
 
1,150 posts, read 990,803 times
Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruin Rick View Post
This was a great decision because it not only offers some protection to the poorest and most despised people among us who have only did the "crimes" of taking filthy jobs no American would touch and wanting to feed their family BUT, most importantly, it establishes again the SUPREMACY of the Federal Government over the states. This is good for the country.
No, the original crime was cropssing the border illegally. Then they continue to commit the crime of identity theft, fraud, and using stolen/fake SS#s to get those jobs, and obtain credit.
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