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, 11:13 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,584 posts, read 8,002,909 times
Reputation: 4151

Advertisements

The Supreme Court announced today that an Arizona cop, when encountering a person in other parts of his duties (traffic stop, domestic violence call etc.), could legally check whether the person was an illegal alien if he had reasonable cause to suspect he might be one.

But they struck down the parts of the law that had said the AZ cop could then arrest the person for being an illegal alien, and a few other parts of the law.

Full text of the Supreme Court decision, with syllabus, Opinion, and concurring and dissenting opinions, can be found here:
ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

Apparently the AZ law had said that the cop could check the person's status if there was good reason to suspect he was an illegal alien, but could not use race, color etc. as criteria to decide; and could then arrest the person if he was an illegal. The cop could then bring him to a local police station or jail, call the appropriate Federal authorities, and hold the person until the Feds showed up and took him away. AZ cops could not deport the person, they could only turn him over to the Feds, and (supposedly) the Feds would then deport him.

Well, most of that is gone now. The AZ cop can still check the person's illegal-alien status, but if they find he's an illegal, they can't arrest him (at least, not for that alone) or bring him down to the station for it.

The USSC's labored explanation for this, is that states cannot "interfere or impede" the Feds' efforts to enforce Federal law on immigration. How an immediate call to the Feds to come and get the guy "interferes or impedes" them, I'm not sure. But the Supremes somehow decided that it does.

Maybe the Supremes are saying that, when the illegal is held in a local station, that somehow "impedes" the Feds from running into him on the street themselves? Sounds like quite a stretch to me.

Now I have to wonder: How many instances will we see of an AZ cop pulling a guy over for running a stop sign, checking his immigration status and finding he is an illegal alien, and then looking the car over and noticing the left rear taillight is out, and bringing him in for the taillight (while giving the Feds a courtesy call and informing them they have found an illegal alien who is now being detained for having a taillight out on his car)? And then taking a really long time to process the paperwork for releasing the guy on the taillight charge?

Of course, we all know how quickly and enthusiastically the Feds respond to calls of an illegal alien being found: They are out to lunch. The entire Supreme Court lawsuit was filed by the Feds on grounds that they didn't have time to process all the illegal-alien calls they would be getting from state and local cops if the AZ law were to stand as written.

----------------------------------------------------------

See ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute for complete text of the Opinions)

Syllabus (legally quoted as a public document with no copyright restrictions):

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

ARIZONA et al. v. UNITED STATES
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 11–182. Argued April 25, 2012—Decided June 25, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Arizona statute known as S. B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State. The United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect. Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C) makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”; and §2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the United States had established a likelihood of success on its preemption claims.

Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1. Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88. Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52. Pp. 7–8.

3. Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 are preempted by federal law. Pp. 8–19.

(a) Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field in which Congress has left no room for States to regulate. In Hines, a state alien-registration program was struck down on the ground that Congress intended its “complete” federal registration plan to be a “single integrated and all-embracing system.” 312 U. S., at 74. That scheme did not allow the States to “curtail or complement” federal law or “enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.” Id., at 66–67. The federal registration framework remains comprehensive. Because Congress has occupied the field, even complementary state regulation is impermissible. Pp. 8–11.

(b) Section 5(C)’s criminal penalty stands as an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), a comprehensive framework for “combating the employment of illegal aliens,” Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U. S. 137, makes it illegal for employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized workers, 8 U. S. C. §§1324a(a)(1)(A), (a)(2), and requires employers to verify prospective employees’ employment authorization status, §§1324a(a)(1)(B), (b). It imposes criminal and civil penalties on employers, §§1324a(e)(4), (f), but only civil penalties on aliens who seek, or engage in, unauthorized employment, e.g., §§1255(c)(2), (c)(8). IRCA’s express preemption provision, though silent about whether additional penalties may be imposed against employees, “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles” or impose a “special burden” making it more difficult to establish the preemption of laws falling outside the clause. Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U. S. 861–872. The correct instruction to draw from the text, structure, and history of IRCA is that Congress decided it would be inappropriate to impose criminal penalties on unauthorized employees. It follows that a state law to the contrary is an obstacle to the regulatory system Congress chose. Pp. 12–15.

(c) By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States. The federal scheme instructs when it is appropriate to arrest an alien during the removal process. The Attorney General in some circumstances will issue a warrant for trained federal immigration officers to execute. If no federal warrant has been issued, these officers have more limited authority. They may arrest an alien for being “in the United States in violation of any [immigration] law or regulation,” for example, but only where the alien “is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.” §1357(a)(2). Section 6 attempts to provide state officers with even greater arrest authority, which they could exercise with no instruction from the Federal Government. This is not the system Congress created. Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform an immigration officer’s functions. This includes instances where the Attorney General has granted that authority in a formal agreement with a state or local government. See, e.g., §1357(g)(1). Although federal law permits state officers to “cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States,” §1357(g)(10)(B), this does not encompass the unilateral decision to detain authorized by §6. Pp. 15–19.

4. It was improper to enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that §2(B)’s enforcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives. Pp. 19–24.
(a) The state provision has three limitations: A detainee is presumed not to be an illegal alien if he or she provides a valid Arizona driver’s license or similar identification; officers may not consider race, color, or national origin “except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona Constitution[s]”; and §2(B) must be “implemented in a manner consistent with federal law regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.” P. 20.

(b) This Court finds unpersuasive the argument that, even with those limits, §2(B) must be held preempted at this stage. Pp. 20–24.

(1) The mandatory nature of the status checks does not interfere with the federal immigration scheme. Consultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system. In fact, Congress has encouraged the sharing of information about possible immigration violations. See §§1357(g)(10)(A), 1373(c). The federal scheme thus leaves room for a policy requiring state officials to contact ICE as a routine matter. Cf. Whiting, 563 U. S., at ___. Pp. 20–21.

(snip)

641 F. 3d 339, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., Thomas, J., and Alito, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Kagan, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

(See ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute for the full text of the Opinion etc.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,097,342 times
Reputation: 7707
The Court remanded 2b to the state courts to give them an opportunity to rule on it.

This is a slap in the face to Arizona's idiotic attempt to over-rule federal law and a well grounded decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
69,538 posts, read 79,825,470 times
Reputation: 38883
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
The Court remanded 2b to the state courts to give them an opportunity to rule on it.

This is a slap in the face to Arizona's idiotic attempt to over-rule federal law and a well grounded decision.
just the opposite, this is a victory for AZ and other states will follow...

Nita
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:25 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,180,215 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
The Supreme Court announced today that an Arizona cop, when encountering a person in other parts of his duties (traffic stop, domestic violence call etc.), could legally check whether the person was an illegal alien if he had reasonable cause to suspect he might be one.

But they struck down the parts of the law that had said the AZ cop could then arrest the person for being an illegal alien, and a few other parts of the law.

Full text of the Supreme Court decision, with syllabus, Opinion, and concurring and dissenting opinions, can be found here:
ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

Apparently the AZ law had said that the cop could check the person's status if there was good reason to suspect he was an illegal alien, but could not use race, color etc. as criteria to decide; and could then arrest the person if he was an illegal. The cop could then bring him to a local police station or jail, call the appropriate Federal authorities, and hold the person until the Feds showed up and took him away. AZ cops could not deport the person, they could only turn him over to the Feds, and (supposedly) the Feds would then deport him.

Well, most of that is gone now. The AZ cop can still check the person's illegal-alien status, but if they find he's an illegal, they can't arrest him (at least, not for that alone) or bring him down to the station for it.

The USSC's labored explanation for this, is that states cannot "interfere or impede" the Feds' efforts to enforce Federal law on immigration. How an immediate call to the Feds to come and get the guy "interferes or impedes" them, I'm not sure. But the Supremes somehow decided that it does.

Maybe the Supremes are saying that, when the illegal is held in a local station, that somehow "impedes" the Feds from running into him on the street themselves? Sounds like quite a stretch to me.

Now I have to wonder: How many instances will we see of an AZ cop pulling a guy over for running a stop sign, checking his immigration status and finding he is an illegal alien, and then looking the car over and noticing the left rear taillight is out, and bringing him in for the taillight (while giving the Feds a courtesy call and informing them they have found an illegal alien who is now being detained for having a taillight out on his car)? And then taking a really long time to process the paperwork for releasing the guy on the taillight charge?

Of course, we all know how quickly and enthusiastically the Feds respond to calls of an illegal alien being found: They are out to lunch. The entire Supreme Court lawsuit was filed by the Feds on grounds that they didn't have time to process all the illegal-alien calls they would be getting from state and local cops if the AZ law were to stand as written.

----------------------------------------------------------

See ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute for complete text of the Opinions)

Syllabus (legally quoted as a public document with no copyright restrictions):

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

ARIZONA et al. v. UNITED STATES
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 11–182. Argued April 25, 2012—Decided June 25, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Arizona statute known as S. B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State. The United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect. Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C) makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”; and §2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the United States had established a likelihood of success on its preemption claims.

Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1. Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88. Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52. Pp. 7–8.

3. Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 are preempted by federal law. Pp. 8–19.

(a) Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field in which Congress has left no room for States to regulate. In Hines, a state alien-registration program was struck down on the ground that Congress intended its “complete” federal registration plan to be a “single integrated and all-embracing system.” 312 U. S., at 74. That scheme did not allow the States to “curtail or complement” federal law or “enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.” Id., at 66–67. The federal registration framework remains comprehensive. Because Congress has occupied the field, even complementary state regulation is impermissible. Pp. 8–11.

(b) Section 5(C)’s criminal penalty stands as an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), a comprehensive framework for “combating the employment of illegal aliens,” Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U. S. 137, makes it illegal for employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized workers, 8 U. S. C. §§1324a(a)(1)(A), (a)(2), and requires employers to verify prospective employees’ employment authorization status, §§1324a(a)(1)(B), (b). It imposes criminal and civil penalties on employers, §§1324a(e)(4), (f), but only civil penalties on aliens who seek, or engage in, unauthorized employment, e.g., §§1255(c)(2), (c)(8). IRCA’s express preemption provision, though silent about whether additional penalties may be imposed against employees, “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles” or impose a “special burden” making it more difficult to establish the preemption of laws falling outside the clause. Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U. S. 861–872. The correct instruction to draw from the text, structure, and history of IRCA is that Congress decided it would be inappropriate to impose criminal penalties on unauthorized employees. It follows that a state law to the contrary is an obstacle to the regulatory system Congress chose. Pp. 12–15.

(c) By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States. The federal scheme instructs when it is appropriate to arrest an alien during the removal process. The Attorney General in some circumstances will issue a warrant for trained federal immigration officers to execute. If no federal warrant has been issued, these officers have more limited authority. They may arrest an alien for being “in the United States in violation of any [immigration] law or regulation,” for example, but only where the alien “is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.” §1357(a)(2). Section 6 attempts to provide state officers with even greater arrest authority, which they could exercise with no instruction from the Federal Government. This is not the system Congress created. Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform an immigration officer’s functions. This includes instances where the Attorney General has granted that authority in a formal agreement with a state or local government. See, e.g., §1357(g)(1). Although federal law permits state officers to “cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States,” §1357(g)(10)(B), this does not encompass the unilateral decision to detain authorized by §6. Pp. 15–19.

4. It was improper to enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that §2(B)’s enforcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives. Pp. 19–24.
(a) The state provision has three limitations: A detainee is presumed not to be an illegal alien if he or she provides a valid Arizona driver’s license or similar identification; officers may not consider race, color, or national origin “except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona Constitution[s]”; and §2(B) must be “implemented in a manner consistent with federal law regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.” P. 20.

(b) This Court finds unpersuasive the argument that, even with those limits, §2(B) must be held preempted at this stage. Pp. 20–24.

(1) The mandatory nature of the status checks does not interfere with the federal immigration scheme. Consultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system. In fact, Congress has encouraged the sharing of information about possible immigration violations. See §§1357(g)(10)(A), 1373(c). The federal scheme thus leaves room for a policy requiring state officials to contact ICE as a routine matter. Cf. Whiting, 563 U. S., at ___. Pp. 20–21.

(snip)

641 F. 3d 339, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., Thomas, J., and Alito, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Kagan, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

(See ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute for the full text of the Opinion etc.)

Quote: "But they struck down the parts of the law that had said the AZ cop could then arrest the person for being an illegal alien, and a few other parts of the law".

Wrong! They can do it with a warrant. They can also call ICE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,009 posts, read 15,236,054 times
Reputation: 3739
A solidly constitutional/libertarian (aka "racist" to neoprogs) decision. Doesn't disallow Alabama's policy for businesses rooting out illegals from work and other states can now use this as a template without interference from the feds.

All you have to do is make living here difficult as an illegal immigrant, and you'll leave. Self-deportation. No fuss, no muss. No knock at the door from Uncle Sam either. Uncle Sam can feel as SUPERIOR as it wants, but if illegals will leave on their own because there is no safe haven, it's still a win for states anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:27 AM
 
1,182 posts, read 951,995 times
Reputation: 439
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,763 posts, read 4,225,267 times
Reputation: 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
The Court remanded 2b to the state courts to give them an opportunity to rule on it.

This is a slap in the face to Arizona's idiotic attempt to over-rule federal law and a well grounded decision.
The ruling doesn't exactly come from a SCOTUS that's liberal, either. It may be a bitter pill to some, but the decision rests on American law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:30 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,941 posts, read 58,253,893 times
Reputation: 29494
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
just the opposite, this is a victory for AZ and other states will follow...
Is that the Charlie Sheen "win" definition for "victory"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
They can also call ICE.
Who will say something like...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE
Don't you cowboys have something better to do with your time? We sure do. Put the address and name in your report and send us a copy. Maybe next year we'll do something with it. Get back to your speed trap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,097,342 times
Reputation: 7707
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
just the opposite, this is a victory for AZ and other states will follow...

Nita

How is it a victory for Arizona when the Court just struck down most of their law?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,009 posts, read 15,236,054 times
Reputation: 3739
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.
All it means is that 'papers, please' police state banana republic nonsense isn't tolerated in America.

When/if the line is drawn on interstate commerce on Thursday, it'll look very different for the pro-fed folks. Buzzwords like "judicial activism" will run rampant.
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