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.
That is what Obama and Holder is doing now, refusing to enforce laws, and giving people waivers so they don't have to obey other laws.
This a lawless administration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
DHS "interprets" the law and if you're not a felon you can stay.
Yes and that's why I asked the question. Since the federal gov't is not upholding the law, what can the states do to force the federal gov't to do its job? After all, there is an obligation to the states for the federal gov't to uphold the law.
Drug laws are illegal at federal levels, and if states cant duplicate, nor enforce federal laws, then wouldnt this rule all state drug laws unconstitutional?
There are basically 3 categories of laws (powers): A) those exclusively delegated to the Federal government, B) those were there is some overlap between the Federal government and the States and C) everything else is left to the states. This supreme court appears to be ruling that this particular section of SB 1070 delved into areas delegated to the Federal Government. There is conflict between the Federal government and the States over drug laws. Where the Federal Governments authority over drug laws is clear the Federal laws will also trump the State laws.
No, that is a different part. The controversial part allowed people to be arrested just for looking hispanic.
This is the past which was upheld:
"The part of the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government."
Confusion and ignorance runs deep on this thread.
Believing the lie until the end, eh?
The president said, “you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, unquote look like illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is that local officials are allow to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers — but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”
What is wrong with asking a person who is legally stopped by police for a potential crime or traffic violation for a driver's license, and if the license says the person is here on a visa, what is wrong with asking for a passport or other such papers?
If a driver's license checks out, and it does not indicate the person is a visiting foreign national, then the laws states the police cannot demand to see a passport.
Alito's dissent is spot on the president doesn't enforce the law than objects when the states wants to enforce the law. Seems to me Obama's willy nilly amnesty may come under review as well.
While it would have been great for all aspects of law being upheld this is a good day for immigration enforcement proponents.
The president said, “you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, unquote look like illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is that local officials are allow to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers — but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”
What is wrong with asking a person who is legally stopped by police for a potential crime or traffic violation for a driver's license, and if the license says the person is here on a visa, what is wrong with asking for a passport or other such papers?
If a driver's license checks out, and it does not indicate the person is a visiting foreign national, then the laws states the police cannot demand to see a passport.
You still don't get
What Obama said is accurate, and he was referring to the part which was struck down, while you still continue to confuse it to the part which was left in place.
You ask: "What is wrong with asking a person who is legally stopped by police for a potential crime"
I say: "Nothing. That refers to the part which was not struck down. The controversial part which was struck down, authorized the police to arrest people without warrants who were NOT stopped for potential crime. "
LOL. That's because it is not there, and that is why the section was dtruck down. The only part of the law which remains in place requires the cops to make a lawful stop before demanding IDs, and that's cool. The whole controvercy was about the part which I highlighted which gave the cops the authority to arrest anyone without warrant or any other reason other than the suspect looking hispanic. That was struck down.
Maybe it is slowly starting to sink in.
You are so misinformed about the decision that was upheld and what it means as to what the actual law was intended to do it is truly baffling. Why do you keep playing the Hispanic card?
I would say the key part, and coincidentally, the part that Obama complained about the most, was upheld today. If someone is stopped for a speeding ticket, red light etc, the LE can check on their legal status. If you recall, that's the part that the Obama administration said would lead to racial profiling. Guess the Supreme Court didn't buy that argument from the Obama administration.
You're right on! During the enforcement of any law there is always the "potential" for racial profiling by those cops few who don't follow the rules. Should we then stop enforcing all of our laws because of that? It was a lame argument in the immigration issue by those who had an ethnocentric interest in all of this. They objected because they didn't want their illegal amigos detected and deported. We weren't born yesterday, you know.
You are so misinformed about the decision that was upheld and what it means as to what the actual law was intended to do it is truly baffling. Why do you keep playing the Hispanic card?
The Hispanic card??
You don't have a clue about what was struck down and was was not struck down. I am fine with the part which was left in place, but the other part which authorized cops to arrest people just for being hispanic had to be struck down. Those kinds of laws are downright scary, and horribly unamerican.
Yes, there was such part, and it was struck down. No, I am not missing anything.
Nope, wrong again! How many times do you wish to be wrong about this?
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.
