Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law

[Luissa]

YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT!







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]

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 only person confused is you...you're confusing the FEDS forcing STATES to enforce immigration laws

that is not the case here

care to try again? and i wonder if you will ever point specifically in the constitution where you believe you are correct....

 

[Luissa]

YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT!






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

Oh! I don't know, maybe their failing housing market.

 

[Yurt]

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

Oh! I don't know, maybe their failing housing market.

oh, so it has nothing to do with the immigration law...i thought you were trying to correlate the two

my bad

 

[Liability]

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

Yes. I meant to give you props on that. Nicely done. I am not confident that the courts will bother worrying, now, about trivial thins like stare decisis, however. Tis a shame. They too frequently rule based on political partisan beliefs rather than relying on neutral principles of law.

But, maybe we'll get lucky. Who knows?

 

[Luissa]

YouTube - Janet Napolitano Border is as Secure as Ever-NOT!






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

Arizona completed $735 million in sale and lease-back deals for public buildings and state properties, including several prison facilities, as lawmakers attempt to close the state’s multibillion-dollar budget deficit.

The state sold $735 million of certificates of participation on the municipal bond market to help close Arizona’s $3.2 billion shortfall, according to the Department of Administration.

Six buildings at the state prison complex in Florence and the state police headquarters were among some of the notable properties included in the offering, which also includes the tower that houses the governor’s office.Ariz. Prison Sell-Off | Correctional News

I got this off of a blog, but there were a few stories about it. I think this part is interesting.

Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA, holds the federal contract to house detainees in Arizona. The company bills $11 million per month. CBS 5 Investigates has learned that two of Brewer’s top advisers have connections to CCA.

Paul Senseman is the governor’s deputy chief of staff. He is also a former lobbyist for CCA. His wife is listed as a current lobbyist for the company.

Chuck Coughlin is one of the governor’s policy advisers and her campaign chairman. Coughlin’s company, HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, currently lobbies for CCA.Is Governor Jan Brewer Under Investigation For Private Prisons | wrightandleftreport.com

This is why I have a problem with the law.

 

[WillowTree]

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

Arizona completed $735 million in sale and lease-back deals for public buildings and state properties, including several prison facilities, as lawmakers attempt to close the state’s multibillion-dollar budget deficit.

The state sold $735 million of certificates of participation on the municipal bond market to help close Arizona’s $3.2 billion shortfall, according to the Department of Administration.

Six buildings at the state prison complex in Florence and the state police headquarters were among some of the notable properties included in the offering, which also includes the tower that houses the governor’s office.Ariz. Prison Sell-Off | Correctional News

I got this off of a blog, but there were a few stories about it. I think this part is interesting.

Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA, holds the federal contract to house detainees in Arizona. The company bills $11 million per month. CBS 5 Investigates has learned that two of Brewer’s top advisers have connections to CCA.

Paul Senseman is the governor’s deputy chief of staff. He is also a former lobbyist for CCA. His wife is listed as a current lobbyist for the company.

Chuck Coughlin is one of the governor’s policy advisers and her campaign chairman. Coughlin’s company, HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, currently lobbies for CCA.Is Governor Jan Brewer Under Investigation For Private Prisons | wrightandleftreport.com

This is why I have a problem with the law.

quit whining, you won brown people don't need no fucking id and they don't gotta follow no law either. what else ya want?

 

[Yurt]

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

Arizona completed $735 million in sale and lease-back deals for public buildings and state properties, including several prison facilities, as lawmakers attempt to close the state’s multibillion-dollar budget deficit.

The state sold $735 million of certificates of participation on the municipal bond market to help close Arizona’s $3.2 billion shortfall, according to the Department of Administration.

Six buildings at the state prison complex in Florence and the state police headquarters were among some of the notable properties included in the offering, which also includes the tower that houses the governor’s office.Ariz. Prison Sell-Off | Correctional News

I got this off of a blog, but there were a few stories about it. I think this part is interesting.

Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA, holds the federal contract to house detainees in Arizona. The company bills $11 million per month. CBS 5 Investigates has learned that two of Brewer’s top advisers have connections to CCA.

Paul Senseman is the governor’s deputy chief of staff. He is also a former lobbyist for CCA. His wife is listed as a current lobbyist for the company.

Chuck Coughlin is one of the governor’s policy advisers and her campaign chairman. Coughlin’s company, HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, currently lobbies for CCA.Is Governor Jan Brewer Under Investigation For Private Prisons | wrightandleftreport.com

This is why I have a problem with the law.

what does that have to do with the AZ law?

 

[SFC Ollie]

why would AZ go bankrupt?

i agree about marijuana

I got this off of a blog, but there were a few stories about it. I think this part is interesting.

Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA, holds the federal contract to house detainees in Arizona. The company bills $11 million per month. CBS 5 Investigates has learned that two of Brewer’s top advisers have connections to CCA.

Paul Senseman is the governor’s deputy chief of staff. He is also a former lobbyist for CCA. His wife is listed as a current lobbyist for the company.

Chuck Coughlin is one of the governor’s policy advisers and her campaign chairman. Coughlin’s company, HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, currently lobbies for CCA.Is Governor Jan Brewer Under Investigation For Private Prisons | wrightandleftreport.com

This is why I have a problem with the law.

what does that have to do with the AZ law?

About as much as the cost of eggs in China has to do with it.

 

[Biggles]

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)

Yes. I agree it should be upheld. Unfortunately, it will take going from AZ Court to the Liberal 9Th Circuit Court of Appeals to the US Supreme Court. I am sure it will be fast tracked, but what a waste of time and taxpayer money. Well, I guess that is the BO Agenda, isn't it?

 

[SFC Ollie]

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 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)

Yes. I agree it should be upheld. Unfortunately, it will take going from AZ Court to the Liberal 9Th Circuit Court of Appeals to the US Supreme Court. I am sure it will be fast tracked, but what a waste of time and taxpayer money. Well, I guess that is the BO Agenda, isn't it?

He needs to keep it tied up until he can get amnesty passed.

 

[Charles_Main]

All I have to say is this.

To Those Opposed to this law. Do not get all excited, this was one Judge, Appointed by a democrat, Arizona will no doubt appeal. I suspect this was always destined for the Supreme court.

I would also not be to excited as a Democrat, and Obama supporter as with over 70% of people in favor of this law, this might be a legal victory, but it could be a political defeat.


To supporters of this law, I say. What, did you expect anything less from a Liberal Democrat Appointee? Don't let it get you down, there will be an appeal, and this is going to cost the Dems more votes. They just thumbed their noses at 77% of the American people, and are admittedly celebrating doing it. Obama won a victory for the Status Quo, DOING NOTHING. This will not play well for him with Independents at all.

Nuff said, I await the Appeal.

 

[Zona]

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

Conhog is in arizona for the week and this week this thing gets shot down....I see something fishy here.

 

[Zona]

By the way 1070 supporters and racist assholes .....neener neener. I told you this thing wouldn't go through and if it does, it will bankrupt this state.

 

[Yurt]

By the way 1070 supporters and racist assholes .....neener neener. I told you this thing wouldn't go through and if it does, it will bankrupt this state.

hey half nickel brain....see post 89 if you want to actually discuss issues and not jizz your spam all over the place

 

[topspin]

I'm gonna pass on yurt the fake lawyers call on this. Obama needed this he had two straight losses in court vs oil.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I have full confidence that in a year or two it will make it's way to the Supreme court where the law will be kicked back to a lower court because it is no longer relevant after the Dems get their new voters. Er I mean after amnesty.

It is not too early to start lobbying against amnesty people, start emailing your congressmen and senators now.

 

[Zona]

By the way 1070 supporters and racist assholes .....neener neener. I told you this thing wouldn't go through and if it does, it will bankrupt this state.

hey half nickel brain....see post 89 if you want to actually discuss issues and not jizz your spam all over the place

Half nickel brain?

Who said ..."obama's daughters are whores" 7/16/10 Yurt.

A half nickel brain?

 

[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 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)

Yes. I agree it should be upheld. Unfortunately, it will take going from AZ Court to the Liberal 9Th Circuit Court of Appeals to the US Supreme Court. I am sure it will be fast tracked, but what a waste of time and taxpayer money. Well, I guess that is the BO Agenda, isn't it?

i would be surprised if the 9th actually upheld it based on their prior rulings, the 9th is very political and leans far left. they are the most overturned court in the nation, so i don't hold out hope the 9th will uphold this based on their prior rulings...

as to obama wasting time and money, i mostly disagree. i don't think it matters who is in office, this issue is ripe for scotus. i think bush would have challenged this as well. it is a federal vs. state issue and is all about power. the feds want sole power over immigration, which case history suggests they have plenary power over creating the law regarding immigration, however, there is little scotus precedent to guide us in determining if AZ's law is constitutional.

i agree that obama did not need to bring this, but, i think any president would have.

 

[topspin]

Yurt also said he was a lawyer then said he wasn't. That said righty faux outrage that was silent as a pin drop under bush is fucking hilarious.