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)
 
Old 10-09-2012, 07:06 AM
 
9,243 posts, read 7,099,270 times
Reputation: 2199

Advertisements

What remain of our immigration law?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-09-2012, 01:57 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
What remain of our immigration law?
Deferred Action is supposed to be on a case by case basis, what Obama and DJS have done is allowed all to apply for deferred action and have promised that if they have applied they will not be deported unless they do something that is harsh enough to deport.

Your link claims that DACA applicants have been granted legal status, no such thing has happened. They are still illegals and can be deported at any time.

I'm just as staunch as any out there when it come to illegals, but the claims made by the "law professors" only show that they are fallible in their opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,011,547 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
...I'm just as staunch as any out there when it come to illegals, but the claims made by the "law professors" only show that they are fallible in their opinion.
Until it comes to Chin ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 04:46 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Until it comes to Chin ...
You do realize that Chin is PRO-illegal along with K Johnson, right? (Both are UC Davis Law Professors UC Davis School of Law - Faculty & Administration - Johnson - Kevin R. Johnson and UC Davis School of Law - Faculty & Administration - Chin - Gabriel "Jack" Chin) As I told you, you fail to understand the ruling and what Chin is stating. Racial profiling an exception for immigration enforcement

As you should duly note, I am no fan of John Yoo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,011,547 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
You do realize that Chin is PRO-illegal along with K Johnson, right? (Both are UC Davis Law Professors UC Davis School of Law - Faculty & Administration - Johnson - Kevin R. Johnson and UC Davis School of Law - Faculty & Administration - Chin - Gabriel "Jack" Chin) As I told you, you fail to understand the ruling and what Chin is stating. Racial profiling an exception for immigration enforcement

As you should duly note, I am no fan of John Yoo.
I don't care what side Chin is on, he portrays Brignoni-Ponce entirely opposite from what the unanimous SCOTUS decision was...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 06:49 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
I don't care what side Chin is on, he portrays Brignoni-Ponce entirely opposite from what the unanimous SCOTUS decision was...
You still fail to understand what was stated, he in no way portrays Brignoni entirely opposite, what he does is point out that Brignoni only prohibits the stopping of a vehicle by roving patrol solely on the basis of the driver appearing to be of Mexican descent. What Chin stated was that race/ethnicity can be used as a criteria. Even from your own quotes of Brignoni http://www.city-data.com/forum/26369636-post30.html
Quote:
The Government also contends that the public interest in enforcing conditions on legal alien entry justifies stopping persons who may be aliens for questioning about their citizenship and immigration status. Although we 884*884 may assume for purposes of this case that the broad congressional power over immigration, see Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 765-767 (1972), authorizes Congress to admit aliens on condition that they will submit to reasonable questioning about their right to be and remain in the country, this power cannot diminish the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens who may be mistaken for aliens. For the same reasons that the Fourth Amendment forbids stopping vehicles at random to inquire if they are carrying aliens who are illegally in the country, it also forbids stopping or detaining persons for questioning about their citizenship on less than a reasonable suspicion that they may be aliens.
So all one needs according to Brignoni is....wait for it..... wait for it..... REASONABLE SUSPICION! ....

Just like Chin states.

Who woulda thunk it? ....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 09:43 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299
Here's another link stating exactly what I have said about Brignoni, showing Chin is correct. http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv3/grou...pro_060325.pdf
Quote:
Yet, the Court held in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce that a trained law enforcement officer deciding whether to conduct an investigatory immigration stop may, “in light of his experience,” rely upon a person’s racial appearance.
and here
Quote:
CURRENT LAW ON THE PERMISSIBLE USE OF RACE IN
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
Investigatory stops allow law enforcement officers to stop a pedestrian
or motorist and ask that person questions to determine
whether or not criminal activity is about to occur.8 These stops cannot
be conducted arbitrarily, thanks to the Fourth Amendment. However,
the Court has construed the constitutional right to be free from governmental
search and seizure as requiring only a reasonable suspicion to
justify an investigatory stop.9 As such, a Border Patrol officer can
stop a vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that at
least one of the occupants is an undocumented immigrant.
10 In
Brignoni-Ponce, the Supreme Court held that the officer can consider
the occupant’s apparent ancestry in making this assessment.
11 In order
to understand how this came to be the rule, this Part presents cases
leading to Brignoni-Ponce and analyzes the decision itself.
As I said, I'm baffled why you are attempting to argue something you have very little understanding of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2012, 09:24 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
but the claims made by the "law professors" only show that they are fallible in their opinion.
CORRECTION
The claim is made by Jon Feere (the author of the article from CIS) as to the legality of DACA receivers, the law professors do not claim such fallacy in their paper. Feere implies that they do, THEY DO NOT! Feere is WRONG.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 07:15 AM
 
9,243 posts, read 7,099,270 times
Reputation: 2199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Deferred Action is supposed to be on a case by case basis, what Obama and DJS have done is allowed all to apply for deferred action and have promised that if they have applied they will not be deported unless they do something that is harsh enough to deport.

Your link claims that DACA applicants have been granted legal status, no such thing has happened. They are still illegals and can be deported at any time.

I'm just as staunch as any out there when it come to illegals, but the claims made by the "law professors" only show that they are fallible in their opinion.
You have not proved that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 07:21 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,712,131 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
You have not proved that.
I don't need to prove it as the law professors never make the claim that DACA applicants become legal. Look above at post 8.

Have you read the paper by the law professors? The Obama Administration, the Dream Act and the Take Care Clause by John Yoo, Robert Delahunty :: SSRN

Please show in it where they claim DACA applicants gain legality. HINT: THEY DON"T!

The claim is made by the blog author Jon Feere on the CIS blog site. CIS didn't publish the Feere opinion, it was a blog posting making fallible claims attributing them to Yoo and Delahunty. Your OP is from a blog claim that is factually incorrect.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 10-11-2012 at 07:35 AM..
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