Report: Feds lawsuit against SB 1070 protects human rights (health care, certificate, driver license)
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.
Arizona knew the law was unconstitutional, they knew the courts would eventually disallow it, yet Arizona went and wrote the law anyway. People keep defending the law stating it mirrors federal law. Really? Then why spend money writing such a law in the first place?
Arizona Republicans chose to write the law this year as opposed to when Bush was in office. It was a political ploy on an election year. Now that Obama chooses to play politics right back at the Republicans, they cry foul.
Arizona knew the law was unconstitutional, they knew the courts would eventually disallow it, yet Arizona went and wrote the law anyway. People keep defending the law stating it mirrors federal law. Really? Then why spend money writing such a law in the first place?
Arizona Republicans chose to write the law this year as opposed to when Bush was in office. It was a political ploy on an election year. Now that Obama chooses to play politics right back at the Republicans, they cry foul.
That's just rich.
What's really rich is the fact that laws really don't mean anything anymore in this country. I guess you're a supporter of that idea, huh?
Arizona knew the law was unconstitutional, they knew the courts would eventually disallow it, yet Arizona went and wrote the law anyway. People keep defending the law stating it mirrors federal law. Really? Then why spend money writing such a law in the first place?
Arizona Republicans chose to write the law this year as opposed to when Bush was in office. It was a political ploy on an election year. Now that Obama chooses to play politics right back at the Republicans, they cry foul.
That's just rich.
That’s right; Arizona never attempted to address the issue of illegal immigration until Obama became president. In fact, none of the states were even remotely concerned. It’s all a political ploy in an election year.
Quote:
By: JACQUES BILLEAUD - Associated Press North County Times - Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2005 12:00 am
PHOENIX — Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed two proposals Friday aimed at confronting the state's problems with illegal immigration, saying one proposal would do nothing to ease difficulties along the busiest illicit entry point on the nation's porous southern border.
Everything you need to know about the new employer-sanctions law. Nov. 28, 2007 01:34 PM
The sanctions law, known as the Legal Arizona Workers Act, is intended to ensure that no businesses in Arizona knowingly or intentionally hire or employ illegal immigrants.
According to an August report by the National Conference of State Legislatures, in 2007 the 50 states had introduced 1,404 pieces of immigration-related legislation in their home legislatures – roughly two and a half times more bills in 2007 than in 2006. In the first half of the year, 170 of these bills became law in 41 states – more than double the total number of 2006 enactments (84).This record number of state immigration laws and bills cover a wide variety of issues affecting both legal and undocumented immigrants including employment, health care, law enforcement, public benefits, education, and driver license identification requirements.
That’s right; Arizona never attempted to address the issue of illegal immigration until Obama became president. In fact, none of the states were even remotely concerned. It’s all a political ploy in an election year.
You just gave examples of laws that pass constitutional muster. SB1070 is a lot different. They knew it would be knocked down, which in my opinion makes it seem like a political ploy. Also, it doesn't help when your state becomes the only one to require a birth certificate to run for president.
Why didn't they try to pass this in 2005, 2006 or 2007?
last time I checked a question on the citizenship test actually asks if a person wishing to run for President needs to be a Native born citizen. The answer of course was yes.
You need a Birth certificate to get a passport, enlist in the military, so why not to become comander and chief of the military. Really faultin a state for requiring the same things as they would for anyone else is hardly unfair.
You just gave examples of laws that pass constitutional muster. SB1070 is a lot different. They knew it would be knocked down, which in my opinion makes it seem like a political ploy. Also, it doesn't help when your state becomes the only one to require a birth certificate to run for president.
Why didn't they try to pass this in 2005, 2006 or 2007?
Pro-illegals opposed those laws as well. In fact, Napolitano vetoed some. The only political posturing I see is from the White House.
So, the fact that they didn’t try to pass SB 1070 during the Bush Administration proves it’s a political ploy? Should we wait until the next administration to resolve this issue? Should we have also waited until the next administration to withdraw our troops from Iraq? Please.
BTW, SB 1070 has not yet been declared unconstitutional.
I am still trying to understand how its a human rights issue. How is requiring someone stopped for violating a law to show ID a human rights issue?
Beats me also.
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.
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.
