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 05-03-2010, 07:34 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,165 posts, read 30,630,253 times
Reputation: 12825

Advertisements

The illegals and their anchor babies can scream all they want. The law is the law, and only criminals don't like laws.

Too F'n bad, criminal parasite!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-03-2010, 08:06 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,744,233 times
Reputation: 4000
It's Shellabarger, not Shallabarger, and the Congressional Globe reference is to 1866, not 1886. In fact it's to March 9, 1866 -- three months before the drafting of the 14th Amendment had been completed. While he would later rise to minor positions in leadership, Shellabarger was a back-bencher in 1866. The principals involved in development of the 14th Amendment were John Bingham, Thaddeus Stevens, and Charles Sumner. These were all Radical Republicans, and quite a long way from the right-wing of their day. I would question the faithfulness of the characterizations here of their work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,314,353 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Then, what's the problem now? Why all the squeaking?
I'm content with the law now.

No more complaints from me.

There are some questions as to its constitutionality, based on it being an immigration law, and thats usually the sole duty of the Federal government, but I'll let lawyers and Judges sort that out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 11:14 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,062,067 times
Reputation: 14878
I never placed great stock in the Supremacy argument but as I read through the list of cases, I was struck by the fact that most found nothing objectionable about state or local law enforcement enforcing Federal immigration laws, which make sense, until I got to Muehler v Mena.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage."
“[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage."

All though I haven't read the actual decision yet, I find nothing objectionable in this reading, however, the Arizona statute as it still remains, makes several severe departures from this ruling.

For one, as an officer may ask general questions, a handcuffed individual has every 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer. And while an officer can ask to examine an individuals identification, under Federal law a person is not required to carry any identification that would establish their legal residence status. Under the Arizona statute, if a person cannot establish their resident status, they are presumed to be illegal. In short the burden of proof shifts away from the accuser to the defendant. Second, Arizona requires that individuals carry on or about their person identification that establishes their resident legal status which is all fine and good for Arizona residents, but does little in the way for those not required to carry on or about their persons those Federal documents that would establish their legal status.

That is somewhat troubling for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 12:21 PM
 
114 posts, read 86,443 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by hideandseekforever View Post
johnwk, you need to post this in the illegal immigration forum. this is good stuff.
Perhaps a moderator can move it over there. I’m just trying to offer documented information on the subject.


Regards,
JWK
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 12:49 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,293,898 times
Reputation: 6451
Thanks for some wise and useful information, with substance. All who put the info here. I appreicate this useful reading, learn some things to, thanks a bunch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 04:53 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,165 posts, read 30,630,253 times
Reputation: 12825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post

There are some questions as to its constitutionality, based on it being an immigration law, and thats usually the sole duty of the Federal government, but I'll let lawyers and Judges sort that out.


Since we got away from Constitutional law back at the turn of the last century, and have what is called "Precedent Law" where other case rulings have more weight than the Constitution. (This was so the Progressives could slowly change the Constitution)

Precedent has already been set but the courts.

In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- you read that right, the Ninth Circuit -- concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.”


In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”


Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”


In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘ to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”


In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.


In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.


In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage."


In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."


In 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.


In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 05:41 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,314,353 times
Reputation: 8606
Response to BentBow (didn't want to quote you, its to long)

I absolutely agree that the "interpretation" of the constitution has gone way to far.

There are certain stipulations, according to the news I've been watching, that throw its constitutionality into question.

I fully expect the Supreme court to get this case. I leave it up to minds that know more about legal matters than I do.

I ended my objections to the bill, when they amended it, and stated what "legal contact" was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 06:00 PM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,744,233 times
Reputation: 4000
What are the chances that the law never goes into effect at all? Given mounting poltical and economic pressures, maybe the governor issues an executive order instructing police officers not to enforce the law until legal and other issues surrounding its enforcement can be clarified and resolved, and then nothing is ever heard of it again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Texas
2,847 posts, read 1,851,520 times
Reputation: 1741
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
What are the chances that the law never goes into effect at all? Given mounting poltical and economic pressures, maybe the governor issues an executive order instructing police officers not to enforce the law until legal and other issues surrounding its enforcement can be clarified and resolved, and then nothing is ever heard of it again.
wrong

Brewers statement:
The law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

The follow-on bill signed by Brewer makes a number of changes that she said should lay to rest concerns of opponents.

"These new statements make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona," she said in a statement.
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
Similar Threads
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