Jump to content


AZ Immigration law


Jamie_B

Recommended Posts

Posted
[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='01 May 2010 - 09:30 AM' timestamp='1272720653' post='885395']
[color="#FF0000"]If there is nothing in the bill that is racist then I do not care.[/color]


They did not write the entire law.....


Most of the law was already written at the federal level.
[/quote]


Thats all I asked.
Posted
As to the constitutionality of this...

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/23/law-profs-on-arizona-immigration-bill-its-unconstitutional/tab/article/

[quote]By now you may have heard about a controversial immigration law passed in Arizona that makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally.

The law grants police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal. The measure was criticized Friday by President Barack Obama, who asked the Justice Department to research the law.

It sounded to the Law Blog like we were heading toward a big federalism showdown. So we turned to Karl Manheim of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Irvine Law to pregame it for us. Their response: the law is DOA.

The Arizona law appears to be “facially unconstitutional,” Manheim said. “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.”

States have long attempted to regulate immigration and in some instances the federal government successfully challenged state laws in court, including in the 1800s, Manheim said.

But federal governments often stay out of the fight. In 1994, for example, California voters passed a law designed to deny social services to undocumented aliens. The law was challenged by private litigants and struck down by a federal court.

Manheim said the Obama Administration, which is in the midst of trying to pass a federal immigration reform law, would likely rely on private litigants to challenge the controversial Arizona law. Challenging the law directly “might create a political conflict” for the administration, he said.

If private litigants sue Arizona over the new law, the Justice Department also could file a so-called friend-of-the-court brief in support of the challenge, he said.[/quote]
Posted
[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='01 May 2010 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1272720061' post='885389']
I really don't know anything about who introduced this bill.....nor do I care.

If it makes sense...it makes sense.


Something is going to have to be done about illegal immigration. Period. Otherwise just say fuck it and open the borders.


Why have an unenforceable law?

If individual police officers abuse probable cause then punish the police officers not the law.
[/quote]

This is exactly right. If you're going to have the law, then you need to enforce it.
Posted
Article 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution gives the power of naturalization (and therefor immigration, as ruled by the Supreme Court) to Congress. Not to the states.
Posted
[url]http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/26/arizona-s-immigration-law-likely-doomed-in-court/[/url]

[quote]Arizona's Immigration Law Likely Doomed in Court

As an expression of popular anger in Arizona, the state's dramatic new anti-immigration law is loud and clear. As an expression of constitutionally permissible law, it is thoroughly flawed. If you are into that sort of thing, better enjoy the white-hot coverage of the immigration "showdown" now because in a few weeks, or maybe even a few days, the effect of the state law is likely to be stayed by the federal courts. And then the debate will go back to where it belongs, onto Capitol Hill and away from the courts, at least for the time being.

Probably selected at random through an internal docket lottery, or perhaps discretely assigned to the chief trial judge, the first federal jurist to review the law will be quickly asked to balance the alleged harm (to the illegal immigrants) of allowing its enforcement pending judicial review against the purported harm (to the rest of the population) of stopping its enforcement immediately until a final court ruling is issued. The judge also will have to evaluate right from the start whether the Arizona legislation is likely to pass constitutional muster when its terms are evaluated on their merits following trial.
Get the new
PD toolbar!

Under the new law, Arizona police now are required to stop and question anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being undocumented. It will be a crime to hire "day laborers" or to transport them to their jobs. Government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws will be made more vulnerable to civil litigation by state residents. The illegal immigrants who are picked up will be fined. Legal immigrants and/or native-born Americans who are caught up in the sweep, on the other hand, will be unable to successfully sue for the deprivation of their rights because of the governmental immunity that attaches to most police functions.

The candid mantra of the legislation is "attrition through enforcement" and the key question will be how far state and local authorities may go in using enforcement to reduce the number of illegal immigrants here already. Supporters of the measure will say it's less about immigration -- after all the people to be stopped and rounded up already are in Arizona -- and more about local law enforcement, an area of traditional state authority to which the federal courts are routinely deferential. Critics of SB 1070 will say that any local effort to deprive illegal immigrants of certain federal rights plainly violates not just federal policy but the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The folks who believe the Arizona measure will quickly be struck down as unconstitutional point to the federal government's preeminence over immigration issues. And they point particularly to California's ill-fated Proposition 187, a ballot initiative in 1994 that would have denied health care, education and welfare benefits to illegal immigrants. The federal courts wouldn't let most of Prop 187 through and eventually, five years later, the state's leaders reached a settlement that better protected the immigrants.

You could look at Prop 187's history two ways. Supporters of SB 1070 will rightly say there was no definitive Supreme Court ruling (or 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling) that explicitly declared the states could not enact immigration policies that contradict federal ones. Opponents of Arizona's measure will counter that the legal case against the current legislation is even stronger than was the case against Prop 187. The latter sought only to deny affirmative benefits; the former seeks to seize the liberty and property of illegal immigrants.

For all these reasons and many more, it's hard to see any judge, especially a life-tenured federal one, allowing Arizona's Hispanic population (and anyone else who might "look" like an illegal immigrant) to endure the type of "enforcement" contemplated by SB 1070. This is especially so since it will likely take years before the matter is heard and definitively resolved on the merits before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court or the United States Supreme Court. In other words, the balance of harm calculation clearly favors those who will challenge the measure and not those who seek to implement it. The law simply won't stand.

It's been a long, long time -- maybe as far back as the Terri Schiavo fiasco in 2005 -- since so much sturm und drang was spent on such a legally untenable legislative effort. I suppose it's possible that some long-term good on immigration will come out of the fact that Arizona now has grabbed everyone's attention. But in this election year I sure wouldn't bet on it.[/quote]

Republicans weigh in on this as well..


[quote]On Tuesday, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush became the first top national Republican figure to oppose the law.

"I think it creates unintended consequences," he told Politico. "It's difficult for me to imagine how you're going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well."[/quote]

[quote]Ex-homeland chief uncomfortable with Arizona law

The Associated Press
Tuesday, April 27, 2010; 11:57 PM

DENVER -- Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge says he's uncomfortable with Arizona's new immigration law, saying it allows police to question people without probable cause.

But Ridge also faults both major parties for failing to come up with a national policy and opening the door for state laws like Arizona's.

Ridge spoke Tuesday in an interview with The Associated Press in Denver before appearing at a public discussion on terrorism.

He says Congress should "legitimize" the status of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country but not grant them citizenship.

He also advocates "brutal" penalties for employers who hire illegal workers and says the U.S. should push Mexico to help control immigration.[/quote]

And the Great Satan himself...

[quote]Karl Rove on the AZ immigration issue... "I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill," Rove reportedly said at a senior community center in The Villages, Forida, where he made a stop on his book tour. "I wished they hadn't passed it."[/quote]
Posted
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='01 May 2010 - 09:45 AM' timestamp='1272721500' post='885399']
Article 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution gives the power of naturalization (and therefor immigration, as ruled by the Supreme Court) to Congress. Not to the states.
[/quote]

Who does it give the power to enforce federal law?
Posted
[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='01 May 2010 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1272722316' post='885403']
Who does it give the power to enforce federal law?
[/quote]


Depends on the department and if there is a federal enforcement agency.
Posted
[quote name='Bunghole' date='01 May 2010 - 11:24 AM' timestamp='1272727458' post='885410']
Well shit, if Karl Rove doesn't like it then what could be wrong with it?
[/quote]


Believe me my stomach turned at the idea of being on the same side of an issue that he is.


btw, I am for doing what Regan did (crap maybe I am getting more conservative as I get old.)
Posted
I'd rather deport all the lazy ass welfare leaches of society of the other two main races (white, black) and let the hardworking Central Americans stay and pay taxes. But thats a whole different story I guess.

Although, I guess if we got rid of all the lazy bums we'd inevitably lose the democratic party, and a one party system is worse than the current two party sham.
Posted
[quote name='big_dish' date='01 May 2010 - 11:52 PM' timestamp='1272772334' post='885464']
I'd rather deport all the lazy ass welfare leaches of society of the other two main races (white, black) and let the hardworking Central Americans stay and pay taxes. But thats a whole different story I guess.

Although, I guess if we got rid of [color="#FF0000"]all the lazy bums we'd inevitably lose the democratic party[/color], and a one party system is worse than the current two party sham.
[/quote]


riiiight
Posted
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='02 May 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272773179' post='885465']
riiiight
[/quote]

Well, if they weren't taking from those that work to give to those that dont want to, then for what reason would people vote for them? I mean, their major platform is to create a dependency in the system by enabling laziness and not encouraging hard work. Soooo... If almost everyone in the country actually earned their own way, then there would be very little to no need for social programs that are currently propping up the livelihood of the voting base for the democratic party.

Just like saying if you got rid of everyone who worked hard and demanded responsibility and personal accountability in providing for yourself/family, there likely wouldnt be a Republican party anymore either. Their base would be gone.
Posted
[quote name='big_dish' date='02 May 2010 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1272774456' post='885466']
Well, if they weren't taking from those that work to give to those that dont want to, then for what reason would people vote for them? I mean, their major platform is to create a dependency in the system by enabling laziness and not encouraging hard work. Soooo... If almost everyone in the country actually earned their own way, then there would be very little to no need for social programs that are currently propping up the livelihood of the voting base for the democratic party.

Just like saying if you got rid of everyone who worked hard and demanded responsibility and personal accountability in providing for yourself/family, there likely wouldnt be a Republican party anymore either. Their base would be gone.
[/quote]


what a bunch of ignorance
Posted
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='02 May 2010 - 12:36 AM' timestamp='1272775019' post='885467']
what a bunch of ignorance
[/quote]

Dude if you don't see that a few of the major draws for each party are social service giveaways (or whatever term you choose) for Dems, and personal responsibility/achieving the American Dream for Repubs, then I don't know what to tell you. Each of them have other good/bad ideas as well. And, if you dont think part of the democrats plan is to keep their voters in their corner by giving out more freebies, then common sense may not be your forte. Its politics pure and simple. Neither party really gives a shit about any of us anyway.

Besides, nothing like this will be happening anytime soon, just a far off scenario.
Posted
[quote name='big_dish' date='01 May 2010 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1272772334' post='885464']
I'd rather deport all the lazy ass welfare leaches of society of the other two main races (white, black) and let the hardworking Central Americans stay and pay taxes. But thats a whole different story I guess.

Although, I guess if we got rid of all the lazy bums we'd inevitably lose the democratic party, and a one party system is worse than the current two party sham.
[/quote]

I like it... like EPL soccer.... poor humans get relegated to Nicaragua or some other shitty country, humans with good potential are called up to the big time (US and A).
Posted
[quote name='big_dish' date='02 May 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1272775970' post='885471']
Dude if you don't see that a few of the major draws for each party are social service giveaways (or whatever term you choose) for Dems, and personal responsibility/achieving the American Dream for Repubs, then I don't know what to tell you. Each of them have other good/bad ideas as well. And, if you dont think part of the democrats plan is to keep their voters in their corner by giving out more freebies, then common sense may not be your forte. Its politics pure and simple. Neither party really gives a shit about any of us anyway.

Besides, nothing like this will be happening anytime soon, just a far off scenario.
[/quote]


I dont even know where to start

your premise is that dems win because they give stuff away

but repubs are all about personal responsibility and the american dream

the strawmen arguements are so silly that i would laugh but i think you actually believe them


democrats are the party of the little guy (or at least they used to be)

republicans are the party of big business

when democrats make policy its to trickle up the economy by making sure the common man can take care of himself so that he can purchase the goods of the rich (or again thats what they are supposed to stand for, as of the past few decades thats not so much true)

when republicans make policy its about trickle down economics saying that if we dont put a burden on the rich that they will give back to the rest of us by proving jobs

democrats are for things like, living wages, public health care, strong regulations to keep business honest, unionized labor to protect the rights of the workers (or at least they are supposed to be)

calling democrats lazy is just ignorant
Posted
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='02 May 2010 - 01:06 AM' timestamp='1272776788' post='885473']
I dont even know where to start

your premise is that dems win because they give stuff away

but repubs are all about personal responsibility and the american dream

the strawmen arguements are so silly that i would laugh but i think you actually believe them


democrats are the party of the little guy (or at least they used to be)

republicans are the party of big business

when democrats make policy its to trickle up the economy by making sure the common man can take care of himself so that he can purchase the goods of the rich (or again thats what they are supposed to stand for, as of the past few decades thats not so much true)

when republicans make policy its about trickle down economics saying that if we dont put a burden on the rich that they will give back to the rest of us by proving jobs

democrats are for things like, living wages, public health care, strong regulations to keep business honest, unionized labor to protect the rights of the workers (or at least they are supposed to be)

calling democrats lazy is just ignorant
[/quote]

I didnt call democrats lazy, I called the people who collect from social programs (notably welfare type systems) lazy. And its those people who the democrats have allowed/hoped to become dependent on government for their well being so as to keep them in an eternal loop of support. I lived in England for a few years and this is always amusing/sadly true:
[i]
A woman in the UK was detected collecting welfare while simultaneously working for money "under the table." Psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple asked her what she was going to do about this "problem." She gave him a look ("Are you daft?") and replied, "Well, I'll have to quit working, of course."[/i]

The only way to make sure the "common man" can take care of himself, is to teach him to take car of himself, and barring mental/physical issues, force him to take care of himself. Handouts and welfare are sure as shit not working. Not only does it not work, but it encourages sloth and laziness, because people know they never have to work to succeed, dont need to bother with education, dont need to restrict the amount of children they have, dont have to eat healthy and exercise, dont need to do anything but collect a check and complain about everything else. Why? Because the liberal social programs allow it and encourage it. We now have "families" that are comprised of three generations of welfare mothers and their children. Welfare is demoralizing and creates the current product we see now with the poor, and they are only getting more poor because there is no benefit for them to work or try to get ahead. They are already rewarded for doing nothing.

And if you take away higher wages for the more successful businessmen, then where is their drive going to come from? That doesnt make any sense whatsoever. Yeah, lets make sure the people who have busted their asses to get ahead of the pack dont receive compensation for it. That'll really stimulate the USA and help stoke the ol' entreprenurial fires, thus creating more jobs for everyone. Pffft. Come on man.

This country has been built up by people who busted their asses to get ahead and make a little bit more money. You want to take it from them and give to people who havent earned it, just so you can say we are all equal financially. Who in their right mind would bother working at all???
Posted
[quote name='big_dish' date='02 May 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1272778751' post='885475']
I didnt call democrats lazy, I called the people who collect from social programs (notably welfare type systems) lazy. And its those people who the democrats have allowed/hoped to become dependent on government for their well being so as to keep them in an eternal loop of support. I lived in England for a few years and this is always amusing/sadly true:
[i]
A woman in the UK was detected collecting welfare while simultaneously working for money "under the table." Psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple asked her what she was going to do about this "problem." She gave him a look ("Are you daft?") and replied, "Well, I'll have to quit working, of course."[/i]

The only way to make sure the "common man" can take care of himself, is to teach him to take car of himself, and barring mental/physical issues, force him to take care of himself. Handouts and welfare are sure as shit not working. Not only does it not work, but it encourages sloth and laziness, because people know they never have to work to succeed, dont need to bother with education, dont need to restrict the amount of children they have, dont have to eat healthy and exercise, dont need to do anything but collect a check and complain about everything else. Why? Because the liberal social programs allow it and encourage it. We now have "families" that are comprised of three generations of welfare mothers and their children. Welfare is demoralizing and creates the current product we see now with the poor, and they are only getting more poor because there is no benefit for them to work or try to get ahead. They are already rewarded for doing nothing.

And if you take away higher wages for the more successful businessmen, then where is their drive going to come from? That doesnt make any sense whatsoever. Yeah, lets make sure the people who have busted their asses to get ahead of the pack dont receive compensation for it. That'll really stimulate the USA and help stoke the ol' entreprenurial fires, thus creating more jobs for everyone. Pffft. Come on man.

This country has been built up by people who busted their asses to get ahead and make a little bit more money. You want to take it from them and give to people who havent earned it, just so you can say we are all equal financially. Who in their right mind would bother working at all???
[/quote]



With all due respect you couldnt be more wrong.

This is elizabeth warren, a professor at harvard and a bankruptcy lawyer. She once thought as you did that the poor are cheating the system and set out to prove it, what she found was a very different reality than what her bias said and since has changed her belief on that.

As to the taking away from the "more successful business man", this current economic collapse was caused by not good businessmen but some of the most evil businessmen that took the money of those hardworking people and gambled it on wall street. Nobody has said punish successful businessmen they have said that FRAUD is wrong and those engaged it in should be punished but further than that we should be setting up systems of goverment to try to prevent that.


It's long but its worth it.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1Uk-DwUvJw[/media]
Posted
States dont have the constitutional right to make laws dealing with immigration, that is the role of the federal goverment.


This will get defeated.
Posted
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='02 May 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1272841350' post='885559']
States dont have the constitutional right to make laws dealing with immigration, that is the role of the federal goverment.


This will get defeated.
[/quote]

The law is already set by the federal govt.

They dont have nearly enough people enforcing it, which is where this bill comes in.
Posted
[quote name='big_dish' date='02 May 2010 - 08:09 PM' timestamp='1272845352' post='885566']
The law is already set by the federal govt.

They dont have nearly enough people enforcing it, which is where this bill comes in.
[/quote]


Then the wouldn't have needed to write the law in the first place if there is already a federal version.
Posted
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='02 May 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1272846487' post='885569']
Then the wouldn't have needed to write the law in the first place if there is already a federal version.
[/quote]

They copied the federal version....

....all they did was expand who could enforce it.


Now it is not just border agents.....it is every police officer in the state. This is not a newly written law.

@fear mongering.
Posted
[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='02 May 2010 - 08:45 PM' timestamp='1272847550' post='885579']
They copied the federal version....

....all they did was expand who could enforce it.


Now it is not just border agents.....it is every police officer in the state. This is not a newly written law.

@fear mongering.
[/quote]


The legal question becomes do they have the right to expand on the federal version?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...