Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law

[Ravi]

The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless. There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.

The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.

Let's not kid ourselves. The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable. In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.

What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?

It really is insane. Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.

Why should local police officers be mandated to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?

Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.

 

[OCA]

I wonder how many of these people protesting are illegals... Pretty crazy that we have laws making illegal immigration illegal and then don't enforce them.

Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News

Wanna know why?

 

[Tech_Esq]

The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless. There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.

The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.

Let's not kid ourselves. The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable. In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.

What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?

It really is insane. Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.

Why should local police officers be mandated to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?

Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.

I'll leave someone else your second point, but as to the first, you are clearly incorrect.

The AZ law is not federal law. The AZ law mirrors the federal law in its requirements, but it is a state law, that's why we're referring to it as the Arizona law, not the federal law.

But, even if it were federal law, local law enforcement can enforce federal law with the proper training. Here in Prince William county we've been doing it for 3 years now. Not one single substantiated case of racial profiling. If someone is arrested, their immigration status is checked. Period. End of story. If you are here illegally, we call the paddy wagon at ICE and haul your ass back to where you came from.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Immigration is not on my top ten list.
It's my opinion that republicans or Bush didn't deport many illegals or we wouldn't have 20 million here. If he did show me, otherwise fuck all you wingnuts complaining to Obama that we have illegals.

It's a wedge issue. Instead of enacting unconstitutional laws, Arizona should deploy their national guard to the border if they are so worried about the drug traffic. That they haven't just proves immigration is nothing but a wedge issue.

Nope, wrong again. But keep tryin'.

 

[Ravi]

The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless. There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.

The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.

Let's not kid ourselves. The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable. In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.

What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?

It really is insane. Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.

Why should local police officers be mandated to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?

Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.

I'll leave someone else you second point, but as to the first, you are clearly incorrect.

The AZ law is not federal law. The AZ law mirrors the federal law in its requirements, but it is a state law, that's why we're referring to it as the Arizona law, not the federal law.

But, even if it were federal law, local law enforcement can enforce federal law with the proper training. Here in Prince William county we've been doing it for 3 years now. Not one single substantiated case of racial profiling. If someone is arrested, their immigration status is check. Period. End of story. If you are here illegally, we call the paddy wagon at ICE and haul your ass back to where you came from.

You're confused. There is a big difference between CAN and HAVE TO. The injunction is against the MANDATING of the local officers enforcing immigration law...state or federal. And I said federal because clearly a state has no jurisdiction over deciding US citizenship.

Your county's actions are different in that it is their choice as a county to do it...no one is mandating they do it except the perhaps the citizens of the county.

 

[Avorysuds]

Immigration is not on my top ten list.
It's my opinion that republicans or Bush didn't deport many illegals or we wouldn't have 20 million here. If he did show me, otherwise fuck all you wingnuts complaining to Obama that we have illegals.

It must always be 4:20 where you live. Otherwise you'd be able to make sense.

blow me, you added nothing

that said when I retire it will be 4:20 all day you tool

Attack, the admit he is right... Clever.

The question you should ask is what do you bring to the debate? You keep tossing out Bush as if in any way he was representing a majority of conservatives out there. What was his approval ratting, 31% or something? Do you have any idea how few conservatives/Republicans supported him in the end? Even if conservatives were 25% of that 31% number that's absolute crap support from someone’s "base."

Get over yourself, or don’t and get back to smoking your life away. Remember smoking pot is cool as fuck, when you’re 13… so why stop now =D.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Why should local police officers be mandated to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?

Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.

I'll leave someone else you second point, but as to the first, you are clearly incorrect.

The AZ law is not federal law. The AZ law mirrors the federal law in its requirements, but it is a state law, that's why we're referring to it as the Arizona law, not the federal law.

But, even if it were federal law, local law enforcement can enforce federal law with the proper training. Here in Prince William county we've been doing it for 3 years now. Not one single substantiated case of racial profiling. If someone is arrested, their immigration status is check. Period. End of story. If you are here illegally, we call the paddy wagon at ICE and haul your ass back to where you came from.

You're confused. There is a big difference between CAN and HAVE TO. The injunction is against the MANDATING of the local officers enforcing immigration law...state or federal. And I said federal because clearly a state has no jurisdiction over deciding US citizenship.

Your county's actions are different in that it is their choice as a county to do it...no one is mandating they do it except the perhaps the citizens of the county.

The police in this county are MANDATED to determine immigration status of those arrested. Sorry I used the permissive in my response, I didn't realize that was your point. Likewise, under the AZ law, AZ police officers would be mandated to determine status after making a stop for another crime or traffic infraction.

 

[WillowTree]

let's all hear a big giant assed crow or cheer from the no borders crowd. ding ding ding.

 

[Yurt]

imo...the law will be upheld.....

Although there is quite a bit of debate with respect to state and local law enforcement officers’
authority to enforce immigration law (see discussion below), as a matter of practice, it is
permissible for state and local law enforcement officers to inquire into the status of an immigrant
during the course of their normal duties in enforcing state and local law. This practice allows state
and local law enforcement officers to play an indirect role that is incidental to their general
criminal enforcement authority.
For example, when state or local officers question the immigration status of someone they have
detained for a state or local violation, they may contact an ICE agent at the Law Enforcement
Support Center (LESC).5 The federal agent may then place a detainer on the suspect, requesting
the state official to keep the suspect in custody until a determination can be made as to the
suspect’s immigration status. However, the continued detention of such a suspect beyond the
needs of local law enforcement designed to aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws
may be unlawful.6

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32270.pdf

The general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948); United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948). Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized. Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963). Therefore, federal regulation of a particular field should not be presumed to preempt state enforcement activity "in the absence of persuasive reasons--either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained." De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356, 96 S.Ct. 933, 936, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 (1976) (quoting Florida Avocado Growers, 373 U.S. at 142, 83 S.Ct. at 1217).
14
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. De Canas, 424 U.S. at 354-55, 96 S.Ct. at 935-36. The plaintiffs' reference to exclusive federal authority over immigration matters thus does not resolve this question. Instead, we must define precisely the challenged state enforcement activity to determine if "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion."

The Immigration and Naturalization Act was considered by the second session of the 82nd Congress. The version of section 1324 passed by the House made no reference to arrest authority. Id., 81 Cal.App.3d at 1006, 147 Cal.Rptr. at 198. The version of section 1324 passed by the Senate authorized enforcement by "all other officers of the United States whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws." Conf.Rep. No. 1505, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1952 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1358, 1360, 1361. As the Barajas court concluded, the clear implication of that version of the statute was that the enforcement of section 1324 was limited, but that of sections 1325 and 1326 was not. As a compromise, however, the conferees agreed to adopt an amendment to section 1324(c) proposed by the House. According to the Conference Report, the amendment "struck out the words 'of the United States,' so that other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws would have authority to make an arrest for a violation of a provision of the act." Id. The amendment thus removed the limitations on enforcement authority in section 1324(c). This expansion of authority cannot be read as an implied limitation of sections 1325 and 1326. Instead, it implicitly made the enforcement authority as to all three statutes identical.
23
We therefore hold that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the Act.

Gonzales v. City of Peoria 722 F. 2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983)

 

[007]

 

[Luissa]

The judges ruling was more or less a washing of the hands of the issue, but the stay was on making it a requirement to check status. However that does not mean an officer cannot check status if that person has not been arrested, if this was so then the entire ICE database that the Federal Govt. shares with state and local law enforcement would have to be dismantled. The other portion that was stayed was the portion that required documentation. Basically SB-1070 has been rendered mute as a result of this of this stay for the time being leaving Arizona back where it started, where the Federal Govt. looks the other way, while the drugs, traffic in human beings, murder, and American job loss continues.

Isn't crime down in Arizona and Texas? I saw one report done about a border town in Texas who said crime was down and the number of illegals crossing the border was down due to more border patrol.
People keep saying we need to do something, but it seems we are.

 

[Luissa]

You are such a moron!

 

[WillowTree]

The judges ruling was more or less a washing of the hands of the issue, but the stay was on making it a requirement to check status. However that does not mean an officer cannot check status if that person has not been arrested, if this was so then the entire ICE database that the Federal Govt. shares with state and local law enforcement would have to be dismantled. The other portion that was stayed was the portion that required documentation. Basically SB-1070 has been rendered mute as a result of this of this stay for the time being leaving Arizona back where it started, where the Federal Govt. looks the other way, while the drugs, traffic in human beings, murder, and American job loss continues.

Isn't crime down in Arizona and Texas? I saw one report done about a border town in Texas who said crime was down and the number of illegals crossing the border was down due to more border patrol.
People keep saying we need to do something, but it seems we are.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgKp8sQVis]YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT![/ame]







listen and weep or NOT.

 

[WillowTree]

We don't need no fucking ID either.

 

[Luissa]

The judges ruling was more or less a washing of the hands of the issue, but the stay was on making it a requirement to check status. However that does not mean an officer cannot check status if that person has not been arrested, if this was so then the entire ICE database that the Federal Govt. shares with state and local law enforcement would have to be dismantled. The other portion that was stayed was the portion that required documentation. Basically SB-1070 has been rendered mute as a result of this of this stay for the time being leaving Arizona back where it started, where the Federal Govt. looks the other way, while the drugs, traffic in human beings, murder, and American job loss continues.

Isn't crime down in Arizona and Texas? I saw one report done about a border town in Texas who said crime was down and the number of illegals crossing the border was down due to more border patrol.
People keep saying we need to do something, but it seems we are.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgKp8sQVis]YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT![/ame]







listen and weep or NOT.

Did I say it was safe? No, I said crime was down. And so is illegal immigration.
This new law will do nothing for the drug crimes.

All that is going to happen is Phoenix and Arizona is going to become even bankrupt than it already is, and drug trafficking will continue. If Arizona really wanted to do something worth while, they would legalize marijuana, tax it, because we all know they need the money, and it would cut down on crime probably by a large margin. Colorado is a prime example of why this would work, legal marijuana businesses are putting drug dealers out of business. Most of you need to learn how to think outside of the box.

 

[Liability]

The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless. There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.

The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.

Let's not kid ourselves. The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable. In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.

What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?

It really is insane. Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.

Why should local police officers be mandated to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?

Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.

Wrong. they don't "clearly" run up the Constitution. They don't run up against the constitution at all.

Local Law enforcement is mandated by the laws of their respective states to do lots of things. Why the fuck should a state not have the authority and power to direct the cops to check the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens when they have been stopped for other reasons?

And nobody is required by the AZ law to carry I.D. That's an invalid attempt to score a cheap debate point. If you happen to come under suspicion after a traffic stop etc., but you also happen to be here legally (or, perhaps, you are a by-God citizen), you may get verbally challenged. Your answers may suffice to assist you, but perhaps not. Ooops. You might get detained until you are cleared. Gee. That's oh so sucky.

But just think about it. That minor inconvenience weighed against isolating and identifying someone here illegally COULD turn out to be a life saver. There are some "bad guys" out there trying to get in for nefarious purposes. It would be wonderful if this program happens to intercept an al qaeda piece of shit.

You guys get your panties in a wad like WAY too easily.

 

[WillowTree]

Isn't crime down in Arizona and Texas? I saw one report done about a border town in Texas who said crime was down and the number of illegals crossing the border was down due to more border patrol.
People keep saying we need to do something, but it seems we are.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgKp8sQVis]YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT![/ame]







listen and weep or NOT.

Did I say it was safe? No, I said crime was down. And so is illegal immigration.
This new law will do nothing for the drug crimes.

All that is going to happen is Phoenix and Arizona is going to become even bankrupt than it already is, and drug trafficking will continue. If Arizona really wanted to do something worth while, they would legalize marijuana, tax it, because we all know they need the money, and it would cut down on crime probably by a large margin. Colorado is a prime example of why this would work, legal marijuana businesses are putting drug dealers out of business. Most of you need to learn how to think outside of the box.

quit whining asswipe, you won a major victory today, brown people ain't gotta follow no laws or show no damn Id'd they is free azzz birds

 

[Yurt]

The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless. There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.

The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.

Let's not kid ourselves. The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable. In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.

What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?

It really is insane. Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.

Why should local police officers be mandated to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?

Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.

please point out where in the constitution these two things run up against....

thanks

 

[Yurt]

Isn't crime down in Arizona and Texas? I saw one report done about a border town in Texas who said crime was down and the number of illegals crossing the border was down due to more border patrol.
People keep saying we need to do something, but it seems we are.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgKp8sQVis]YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT![/ame]






listen and weep or NOT.

Did I say it was safe? No, I said crime was down. And so is illegal immigration.
This new law will do nothing for the drug crimes.

All that is going to happen is Phoenix and Arizona is going to become even bankrupt than it already is, and drug trafficking will continue. If Arizona really wanted to do something worth while, they would legalize marijuana, tax it, because we all know they need the money, and it would cut down on crime probably by a large margin. Colorado is a prime example of why this would work, legal marijuana businesses are putting drug dealers out of business. Most of you need to learn how to think outside of the box.

why would AZ go bankrupt?

i agree about marijuana

 

[Yurt]

The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless. There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.

The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.

Let's not kid ourselves. The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable. In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.

What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?

It really is insane. Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.

Why should local police officers be mandated to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?

Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.

Wrong. they don't "clearly" run up the Constitution. They don't run up against the constitution at all.

Local Law enforcement is mandated by the laws of their respective states to do lots of things. Why the fuck should a state not have the authority and power to direct the cops to check the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens when they have been stopped for other reasons?

And nobody is required by the AZ law to carry I.D. That's an invalid attempt to score a cheap debate point. If you happen to come under suspicion after a traffic stop etc., but you also happen to be here legally (or, perhaps, you are a by-God citizen), you may get verbally challenged. Your answers may suffice to assist you, but perhaps not. Ooops. You might get detained until you are cleared. Gee. That's oh so sucky.

But just think about it. That minor inconvenience weighed against isolating and identifying someone here illegally COULD turn out to be a life saver. There are some "bad guys" out there trying to get in for nefarious purposes. It would be wonderful if this program happens to intercept an al qaeda piece of shit.

You guys get your panties in a wad like WAY too easily.

i hope you're not expecting ravi to substantiate her claims....

you are right though...i laid out the law in post 89

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2555465-post89.html