Ohio Chatter DEV

jhay78

gibby08;434799 wrote:Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law
A federal judge has blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect Thursday, handing the Obama administration and other opponents of the law a major legal victory, the New York Times reports.

And handing the American people a swift kick in the teeth . . .

QuakerOats

gibby08;434799 wrote:Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law
A federal judge has blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect Thursday, handing the Obama administration and other opponents of the law a major legal victory, the New York Times reports.

"The parts of the law that the judge blocked included the sections that called for officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times."

Liberals can only run to the courts and liberal judges, because their ideas are a fail with the populace. It always reminds me of the pantywaists who ran to the principal every time there was an issue on the playground.

Not to worry though ---- this will be rather meaningless in short order.

QuakerOats

As I've said many times --- we have elected the enemy ..........

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70324

And then there's this: http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/mexican-drug-cartel-sheriff-arpaio-07292010

Stunning ! ............ Change we can believe in .....................

I Wear Pants

gibby08;434799 wrote: "The parts of the law that the judge blocked included the sections that called for officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times."

For the people who like this law: Do you think every immigrant should be required to have their papers on them at all times?

majorspark

I Wear Pants;439217 wrote:For the people who like this law: Do you think every immigrant should be required to have their papers on them at all times?

Federal law requires every non citizen in this country to carry documentation that they are in the country legall at all times.

Section 264 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states, "Every alien in the United States . . . shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations . . "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him . . .. Any alien who fails to comply with [these provisions] shall be guilty of a misdemeanor..."

Under federal law you could be here legally and yet be charged with a misdemeanor for not carrying your papers.

fish82

Never mind...Spark beat me to it.

I Wear Pants

majorspark;439242 wrote:Federal law requires every non citizen in this country to carry documentation that they are in the country legall at all times.

Section 264 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states, "Every alien in the United States . . . shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations . . "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him . . .. Any alien who fails to comply with [these provisions] shall be guilty of a misdemeanor..."

Under federal law you could be here legally and yet be charged with a misdemeanor for not carrying your papers.

I meant citizens who immigrated hear/appear of foreign origin.

majorspark

I Wear Pants;439257 wrote:I meant citizens who immigrated hear/appear of foreign origin.

No most will have their drivers license. If not every legal citizen has a SS#, most have it committed to memory. Citizenship can be cleared up fairly quickly.

gibby08

QuakerOats;439195 wrote:As I've said many times --- we have elected the enemy ..........

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70324

And then there's this: http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/mexican-drug-cartel-sheriff-arpaio-07292010

Stunning ! ............ Change we can believe in .....................

Will you please please shut your mouth

majorspark

gibby08;439270 wrote:Will you please please shut your mouth

Quaker or the Sheriff?

QuakerOats

gibby08;439270 wrote:Will you please please shut your mouth

Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue. bg

jhay78

gibby08;439270 wrote:Will you please please shut your mouth

Yeah Quaker- stop with all those facts and logic- too much for the libs.

Gibby- do you mean to tell us that you're perfectly OK with our federal govt having more in common with drug cartels and Mexican street thugs and their government than freaking law enforcement officials in Arizona, who are charged with keeping people safe and apprehending criminals in their own state?

Both men said they believe the outcome of the case has national significance.“For us, this is a public safety matter and a national security threat,” Babeu said.

Of course it is. Dems are on the wrong side of this issue (per usual) and there will be hell to pay in November.

I Wear Pants

majorspark;439269 wrote:No most will have their drivers license. If not every legal citizen has a SS#, most have it committed to memory. Citizenship can be cleared up fairly quickly.

Yeah but unless I'm driving my car down the road I don't ever have to show the cops anything. I must tell them my name but no more (at least that's what I've been told). If I'm of Spanish/Mexican decent and live in Arizona I can essentially no longer just tell them my name even if I'm doing nothing wrong and just walking down the sidewalk.

Correct me if I'm wrong about that please.

gibby08

jhay78;439302 wrote:Yeah Quaker- stop with all those facts and logic- too much for the libs.

Gibby- do you mean to tell us that you're perfectly OK with our federal govt having more in common with drug cartels and Mexican street thugs and their government than freaking law enforcement officials in Arizona, who are charged with keeping people safe and apprehending criminals in their own state?

Of course it is. Dems are on the wrong side of this issue (per usual) and there will be hell to pay in November.

No.1-We ARE NOT on the wrong side,that would be people who support this discriminatory law in Arizona. You do realize that Republicans need the Latino vote to win major national elections right?? And who is this law pissing off?? That's the right,Latino voters

2.I'm not refering to Quaker providing what he thinks are facts,I'm tired of him in every post saying "We have elected the enemy" and "More Change We Can Believe in". It gets old when it's in every post

believer

gibby08;439325 wrote:I'm not refering to Quaker providing what he thinks are facts,I'm tired of him in every post saying "We have elected the enemy" and "More Change We Can Believe in". It gets old when it's in every post

No less old than seeing your Obama Kool Aid bumper sticker avatar with every one of your posts.

gibby08

believer;439336 wrote:No less old than seeing your Obama Kool Aid bumper sticker avatar with every one of your posts.

Not even close to being the same thing

majorspark

I Wear Pants;439307 wrote:Yeah but unless I'm driving my car down the road I don't ever have to show the cops anything. I must tell them my name but no more (at least that's what I've been told). If I'm of Spanish/Mexican decent and live in Arizona I can essentially no longer just tell them my name even if I'm doing nothing wrong and just walking down the sidewalk.

Correct me if I'm wrong about that please.

From what I understand of the law one has to be detained legally. That means officers just can't walk up to you and ask for your papers. You have to be in public and be suspected off some sort of public offense. It demands state wide compliance with federal law. Prior to this law it was up to local authorities to decide whether they would enforce federal law. It also specifially forbids detaining anyone because of how they look.

Just like the warrant system. Local authorites on not randomly stoping citizens on the street checking to see if they are legally walking the streets. You commit a public offense and they run a check on you. If it shows you have a warrant you will be taken into custody.

You can read it yourself.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

QuakerOats

gibby08;439325 wrote:2.I'm not refering to Quaker providing what he thinks are facts,I'm tired of him in every post saying "We have elected the enemy" and "More Change We Can Believe in". It gets old when it's in every post

Better get used to it.

believer

QuakerOats;439370 wrote:Better get used to it.

That's "better get used to it. Change we can believe in........"

Get it right!

majorspark

gibby08;439325 wrote:No.1-We ARE NOT on the wrong side,that would be people who support this discriminatory law in Arizona.

Its not discriminatory. Requires all AZ state law enforcement agencies to enforce federal law. It it expressly forbids it. I posted a link to the actual law. I read it myself. You might learn something

gibby08;439325 wrote:You do realize that Republicans need the Latino vote to win major national elections right?? And who is this law pissing off?? That's the right,Latino voters

Now your on to something. Its not about enforcement of law. Its not about protecting our citizens. Its not about discrimination. Its about politics. I got to hand it to the democrat party on this one. The have put the preservation of their party's rule over, federal law, the will of our citizens, and the protection and safety of our citizens.

jhay78

majorspark;439419 wrote: Now your on to something. Its not about enforcement of law. Its not about protecting our citizens. Its not about discrimination. Its about politics. I got to hand it to the democrat party on this one. The have put the preservation of their party's rule over, federal law, the will of our citizens, and the protection and safety of our citizens.

You hit the nail on the head there, and the majority of Americans have figured it out. "Racism" and "discrimination" only work so many times, and the Dems have worn it out in this case.

BoatShoes

majorspark;439419 wrote:Its not discriminatory. Requires all AZ state law enforcement agencies to enforce federal law. It it expressly forbids it. I posted a link to the actual law. I read it myself. You might learn something

Now your on to something. Its not about enforcement of law. Its not about protecting our citizens. Its not about discrimination. Its about politics. I got to hand it to the democrat party on this one. The have put the preservation of their party's rule over, federal law, the will of our citizens, and the protection and safety of our citizens.

On it's face this law is not discriminatory. There's a chance it could be "as applied" but that remains to be seen...But I don't know...I feel like the same thing could be said about the federal law...

I don't know, I mean what's a reasonable suspicion? I don't envy the shoes of law enforcement (perhaps why I wear my boatshoes). Suppose I see a man with tan skin, dark features...he appears to be of mexican descent, his eyes are wide, he looks tired, perhaps even acting strangely in the presence of me, a white sheriff's deputy...I ask him for his papers suspecting he might be an illegal immigrant based upon, what seems to me might be reasonable epistemological tools to justify a belief about whether or not someone may or may not be a part of a certain class based on experience...it's a misdemeanor if he's an immigrant and doesn't present them...if he's a U.S. citizen he could refuse me if he's not doing anything...and then maybe he gets mad at me for suspecting him to be an illegal immigrant and sues the state for applying the law in an unconstitutional way...I don't know, it seems like it will get hairy.

fwiw it worth I don't think it's an "evil law" and it was willed through the representation of the Arizona legislature, reasonable, educated U.S. citizens just like those of us in the other states, and it'll be interesting to see what comes out of the legal process.

at the very least it seems to have set immigration reform into motion when it was stagnant and a huge issue, regardless of your politics.

BGFalcons82

Some questions for anyone:

1. Why can't the current Commander In Chief control the sovereignty of the U.S.A.?
2. Isn't having a safe and secure country part of the Commander In Chief's Constitutional duties?
3. Didn't the current Commander in Chief take an oath on 1-20-2009 stating he would protect the USA from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?
4. Do terrorists come across our borders and thus, by the definition of "terrorists", become a threat to everyone's safety and security?
5. Why is it so hard to build a fence that no one can cross? Don't we have sufficient technological advances (infra red, night vision goggles, cameras, etc.) to monitor the fence line?
6. Why not use stimulus money to buy and build more fence? I think that would put hundreds, if not thousands, of people to work in our Summer of Recovery, don't you?
7. If you were an alien that took the time, spent the money, and went through a legal naturalization process, wouldn't you be mad as hell at the idea of blanket amnesty for anyone that didn't spend the time, effort, nor dollars to become a citizen the correct way? Wouldn't you want a refund at the very least?
8. Per the recent court ruling - If state deputies and local law enforcement are overburdened to arrest and detain illegal aliens, then aren't they also overburdened to enforce all federal regulatory statutes? Why is this one state law the proverbial straw that breaks their back? Did the judge do a time study to determine exactly how much time a sheriff or local law enforcement entity has to do their job?
9. Didn't the same judge call all Arizona law enforcement officials racists for stating that they will perform racial profiling if the law is allowed to take effect? In other words, didn't she say all Arizona law enforcement officials are guilty of a hate crime? If a hate crime is committed, isn't that a violation of federal law? If so, how will they enforce it if they are already overburdened?

majorspark

BoatShoes;439651 wrote:On it's face this law is not discriminatory. There's a chance it could be "as applied" but that remains to be seen...But I don't know...I feel like the same thing could be said about the federal law...

I don't know, I mean what's a reasonable suspicion? I don't envy the shoes of law enforcement (perhaps why I wear my boatshoes). Suppose I see a man with tan skin, dark features...he appears to be of mexican descent, his eyes are wide, he looks tired, perhaps even acting strangely in the presence of me, a white sheriff's deputy...I ask him for his papers suspecting he might be an illegal immigrant based upon, what seems to me might be reasonable epistemological tools to justify a belief about whether or not someone may or may not be a part of a certain class based on experience...it's a misdemeanor if he's an immigrant and doesn't present them...if he's a U.S. citizen he could refuse me if he's not doing anything...and then maybe he gets mad at me for suspecting him to be an illegal immigrant and sues the state for applying the law in an unconstitutional way...I don't know, it seems like it will get hairy.

fwiw it worth I don't think it's an "evil law" and it was willed through the representation of the Arizona legislature, reasonable, educated U.S. citizens just like those of us in the other states, and it'll be interesting to see what comes out of the legal process.

at the very least it seems to have set immigration reform into motion when it was stagnant and a huge issue, regardless of your politics.

For the most part I do not disagree with your post. Many laws out there have the potential for initiation of legal contact being based on ones appearance. We rely on the honesty and integrity of our law enforcement officials to put their prejudices aside and follow the rule of law. Not always an easy thing to do. We all have been judging people by their appearance since we were children.

I mean really what is reasonable doubt? Yet that's the guidance our judicial process lays upon a jury of our peers. Its the same reason we grant our law enforcement personnel. Personal judgment based on their honest and logical interpretation of what reasonable is.

Law enforcement will do their best to reasonably discern the law in the field. There will be due process in the courts for any individual who feels the law was unjustly applied. Like you said some encounters will be hairy. Like they are with any law. Those that are hairy will be passed on to the judiciary to ensure the law was followed in full. That is why nearly all forms of governance in this land have a process of adjudication. To judge whether a law or rule is applied justly.

majorspark

Something else to think about there is legal precedence for local and state enforcement of federal law through out our history. Some that come to mind. Enforcement of federal law in relation to bank robberies, drugs laws, regulation of firearms, etc. Don't forget prohibition. The federal government relied heavily on local and state authorities.

I know most of you are not old enough to remember the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that prohibited speed limits higher than 55 mph. I remember when my Dad was pulled over for speeding it was not by the FBI or a Federal Marshall. The law was modified in 1987 to allow 65 mph on certain roads in 1987. In 1995 it was repealed constitutionally returning regulation of speed limits to the states.

I may not agree with the constitutionality of all federal laws, but historical legal precedence has relied on local and state authorities to aid in enforcement of federal law. The federal government has never possessed the manpower to enforce their laws through out the nation. Nor would we ever want them to possess such a force.

If the state of Arizona through the appeals process lost this case, maybe the state should refuse to enforce any violations of federal law within the state of Arizona. Let the feds pony up the money and man power. I know it is unrealistic and would be counter productive. And would cause direct harm to the state of AZ.

Or maybe they should just tell the feds to go pound sand. If the federal government is not able to meet the very basic tenants of the contract governing the union between the states and the federal government, that of providing a common defense, in this case against an illegal invasion of foreign entities. Perhaps the state of Arizona should just part ways and assume those natural responsibilities of a state themselves.

The federal government needs to step up and cooperate with our fellow countrymen in AZ. Not sue them for trying to defend themselves. The citizens of AZ are more than willing to be partners with the feds and aid them in enforcing federal law. This could easily be worked out. But political ground is perceived to be hoed. History will repeat itself and politicians will reap what the have sown. It is only a matter of time before the death and violence that exists just across the border spills over. There is a lot more to what is going on in the American Southwest than many realize.

Archive

Fed to sue Arizona over immigration law