Sanctuary City Question Leaves Gibbs Stammering

[Ravi]

Where in the constitution does it say cities must enforce Federal immigration policy?

The same place where it says cities must enforce federal housing policies, and federal civil rights policies.

It's not the same thing.

 

[Ravi]

Where in the constitution does it say cities must enforce Federal immigration policy?

I like this line of thought.

Using this logic the states don't have to enforce federal law. I really like this ravi now your thinking like states rights people, Kudos girl!!!

They don't do they? That's why we have the FBI, the ATF and the DEA. And ICE.

 

[Ravi]

States aren't required to enforce Federal immigration policy. States aren't free to enact laws that allow them to arrest people for violating federal immigration policy.

Not sure where the confusion lies...but obviously many of you are confused.

The confusion lies in your head.

Federal law allows state and local law enforcement to assist in enforcing immigration law. Arizona is not trying to enforce policy, and the portions of the law requiring employers to check the immigration status of the people they hire are actually required by federal law, Arizona just imposes harsher penalties on employers who violate it. The feds routinely argue that states have the right to make laws that are tougher than federal laws, even if those laws actually affect producers on a national level. They will happily file a brief in favor of California's new requirement that all eggs sold in their state come from hens with enough room to move around, even if those eggs come from outside the border of California.

Believe it or not, this is entirely a partisan and politically motivated suit, one that is opposed even by the current Democratic candidate for the governor of Arizona. If you want to maintain your reputation as a partisan hack, feel free to keep posting in favor of the suit against Arizona.

Torn in Two Different Directions - Video - FoxNews.com

Oh, Jesus...FoxNews.

A state doesn't have the jurisdiction to arrest people that are breaking federal law. They also don't have the jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence them.

They MAY assist the Feds but they cannot write laws that give them the power to implement Federal laws in this manner.

 

[Valerie]

Feds vs. state again in suit against Arizona law
BOB CHRISTIE
From Associated Press
July 07, 2010 9:35 AM EDT

PHOENIX (AP) — The federal lawsuit against Arizona's tough new immigration law focuses heavily on a question that has been in the spotlight repeatedly the past decade and dates to the Founding Fathers: The right of the government to keep states from enacting laws that usurp federal authority.

The lawsuit filed in Phoenix federal court on Tuesday sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that don't belong in a legal challenge brought by the White House to get the measure struck down.

Instead, the suit lays out why the government believes that immigration laws passed by Congress and enforced by a range of federal agencies must take precedence to any passed by a state Legislature.

The Arizona law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally, such as speaking poor English, traveling in an overcrowded vehicle or hanging out in an area where illegal immigrants typically congregate.

The law also makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents.

Backers of the law say the crackdown is a necessary tool to keep illegal immigrants out of Arizona and combat problems such as drug trafficking, murders and violent kidnappings that have become so common in a state that is home to an estimated 460,000 undocumented residents.

The federal government will ask a judge to grant an injunction to block the law from taking effect on July 29.

The arguments will focus on a core constitutional concern — balancing power between the states and the federal government. More specifically, the issue centers on the long-running "pre-emption" legal argument that says federal law trumps state law.

"The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit goes on to say that a "state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country."

Backers of the law say that Arizona will have some strong arguments in its favor in fighting the lawsuit.

EarthLink - Top News

 

[Charles_Main]

also while you are right Arizona law does try to regulate immigration. It does so by mimic Federal law. Which there is Legal precedent already telling us is ok.

No, there is not a legal precedent saying that. You just made that one up. And no, Arizona's law does not mimic federal law. Anyone who says that has not read the law itself.

Wrong courts have already ruled in similar situations saying if the State law does not seek to change or make new law, it is legal.

more than once

 

[Charles_Main]

Funny how states rights theorists believe in states rights but only as long as they think the states are right, isn't it?

Who are you talking about. Because I will support a states rights over the Fed even if I think the State is wrong, or the law stupid. On purely constitutional grounds. Just one example is my support for Gay marriage laws around the country. I personally do not think to highly of Gay marriage, however It is not a power of the Fed to say anything about it. If one state wants to allow them, and one wants to Ban them. I support them both, and will rail against any Federal Attempt to intervene.

 

[Charles_Main]

States aren't required to enforce Federal immigration policy. States aren't free to enact laws that allow them to arrest people for violating federal immigration policy.

Not sure where the confusion lies...but obviously many of you are confused.

Mirror, Ravi. Ravi, mirror.

No you are confused, the supreme court has already ruled in similar situations that as long as the state law does not change or make any new law. It is Legal.

I am not going to dig up any links for you on this, you look it up. You libs always act like you know so much about our courts and their rulings, yet you are all ignoring or Denying the fact that there has already been precedent for a case like this.

 

[Charles_Main]

also while you are right Arizona law does try to regulate immigration. It does so by mimic Federal law. Which there is Legal precedent already telling us is ok.

No, there is not a legal precedent saying that. You just made that one up. And no, Arizona's law does not mimic federal law. Anyone who says that has not read the law itself.

Guess AP didn't bother to read the laws before THEY commented?

No Brubricker Has never read it, and is relying on what Libs tell him is in it. I on the other hand have read it more than once.

Here Brubricker http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf Educate yourself and stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[Charles_Main]

It's terrible that this has become a race issue & about law, when in fact it's a drug cartel issue who has taken over a part of the United State's !!!!!
They have taken over that part of AZ. because hwy. 8 goes right to San Diego and drugs can then be distributed thoughout the U.S.!

The DOJ's case against arizona does NOT mention race.

Yep not even once, It does not claim anything about Civil Rights abuses, or Profiling Either. The Governments entire case is based the Supremecy clause of the Constitution, claiming Arizona's Law may impede the Feds ability to enforce Immigrations law. Which is of course a joke, since it would actually help, and the Fed IS NOT enforcing the law fully right now anyways.

That is the real reason Obama and the Libs are against the law. All the hype about Racism and Profiling is just window dressing for the idiots who watch Liberal Media. Their real problem they have with the Arizona law is it might lead to immigration laws Actually being enforced.

 

[Charles_Main]

States aren't required to enforce Federal immigration policy. States aren't free to enact laws that allow them to arrest people for violating federal immigration policy.

Not sure where the confusion lies...but obviously many of you are confused.

The confusion lies in your head.

Federal law allows state and local law enforcement to assist in enforcing immigration law. Arizona is not trying to enforce policy, and the portions of the law requiring employers to check the immigration status of the people they hire are actually required by federal law, Arizona just imposes harsher penalties on employers who violate it. The feds routinely argue that states have the right to make laws that are tougher than federal laws, even if those laws actually affect producers on a national level. They will happily file a brief in favor of California's new requirement that all eggs sold in their state come from hens with enough room to move around, even if those eggs come from outside the border of California.

Believe it or not, this is entirely a partisan and politically motivated suit, one that is opposed even by the current Democratic candidate for the governor of Arizona. If you want to maintain your reputation as a partisan hack, feel free to keep posting in favor of the suit against Arizona.

Torn in Two Different Directions - Video - FoxNews.com

It is opposed by Nearly every Democrat State Senator and congressperson in Arizona as well. It is Opposed by 75% of Americans and a large Majority of Hispanics in the SW.

Yet these fools still believe the Lies Obama is peddling.

 

[Charles_Main]

States aren't required to enforce Federal immigration policy. States aren't free to enact laws that allow them to arrest people for violating federal immigration policy.

Not sure where the confusion lies...but obviously many of you are confused.

The confusion lies in your head.

Federal law allows state and local law enforcement to assist in enforcing immigration law. Arizona is not trying to enforce policy, and the portions of the law requiring employers to check the immigration status of the people they hire are actually required by federal law, Arizona just imposes harsher penalties on employers who violate it. The feds routinely argue that states have the right to make laws that are tougher than federal laws, even if those laws actually affect producers on a national level. They will happily file a brief in favor of California's new requirement that all eggs sold in their state come from hens with enough room to move around, even if those eggs come from outside the border of California.

Believe it or not, this is entirely a partisan and politically motivated suit, one that is opposed even by the current Democratic candidate for the governor of Arizona. If you want to maintain your reputation as a partisan hack, feel free to keep posting in favor of the suit against Arizona.

Torn in Two Different Directions - Video - FoxNews.com

Oh, Jesus...FoxNews.

A state doesn't have the jurisdiction to arrest people that are breaking federal law. They also don't have the jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence them.

You are half right. They can not enforce Federal Laws, That is why the states make STATE laws that Mimic FEDERAL Law, So they can enforce them. It happens all the time, and Normally the Fed says it is ok. Strange they chose this one to claim it is not.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It's terrible that this has become a race issue & about law, when in fact it's a drug cartel issue who has taken over a part of the United State's !!!!!
They have taken over that part of AZ. because hwy. 8 goes right to San Diego and drugs can then be distributed thoughout the U.S.!

The DOJ's case against arizona does NOT mention race.

Yep not even once, It does not claim anything about Civil Rights abuses, or Profiling Either. The Governments entire case is based the Supremecy clause of the Constitution, claiming Arizona's Law may impede the Feds ability to enforce Immigrations law. Which is of course a joke, since it would actually help, and the Fed IS NOT enforcing the law fully right now anyways.

That is the real reason Obama and the Libs are against the law. All the hype about Racism and Profiling is just window dressing for the idiots who watch Liberal Media. Their real problem they have with the Arizona law is it might lead to immigration laws Actually being enforced.

They have already set a precedence that states can persue their own immigration policies with sanctuary cities.

If Arizona loses this case it will set a new precedence that states can not persue their own immigration policies and will make having sanctuary cities unlawful.

 

[daveman]

Where in the constitution does it say cities must enforce Federal immigration policy?

The same place where it says cities must enforce federal housing policies, and federal civil rights policies.

It's not the same thing.

"That's different. Somehow. It just is. Neener neener!!"

 

[Yurt]

also while you are right Arizona law does try to regulate immigration. It does so by mimic Federal law. Which there is Legal precedent already telling us is ok.

No, there is not a legal precedent saying that. You just made that one up. And no, Arizona's law does not mimic federal law. Anyone who says that has not read the law itself.

you're wrong...i've read a coupe of cases that do give precedence

 

[SFC Ollie]

Haven't we figured this out yet? AZ is doing nothing that they haven't always done if they find an illegal. They turn them over to ICE. Under their new law if they find an Illegal they will again and still turn them over to ICE. (and ICE will probably free them on this side of the border)

The only real change is that AZ will be busting more illegals and ICE will be setting more of them free.

Oh, and the Federal law suit, Obamas DOJ should loose this one easily.

 

[Ravi]

The same place where it says cities must enforce federal housing policies, and federal civil rights policies.

It's not the same thing.

"That's different. Somehow. It just is. Neener neener!!"

States can't limit constitutionally granted rights...see the recent 2nd amendment case.

 

[Ravi]

Haven't we figured this out yet? AZ is doing nothing that they haven't always done if they find an illegal. They turn them over to ICE. Under their new law if they find an Illegal they will again and still turn them over to ICE. (and ICE will probably free them on this side of the border)

The only real change is that AZ will be busting more illegals and ICE will be setting more of them free.

Oh, and the Federal law suit, Obamas DOJ should loose this one easily.

Uh...no...they arrest them and hold them in jail and don't turn them over to ICE. That is the law they made...it is illegal to be in Arizona if you aren't a citizen or have a green card.

Subtle, yet different.

 

[Charles_Main]

It's not the same thing.

"That's different. Somehow. It just is. Neener neener!!"

States can't limit constitutionally granted rights...see the recent 2nd amendment case.

and what illegal immigration is a constitutionally granted right? the Arizona law does not limit any constitutionally granted rights Ravi, Wake the hell up. The Feds case against Arizona makes no such claims either.

 

[Charles_Main]

Haven't we figured this out yet? AZ is doing nothing that they haven't always done if they find an illegal. They turn them over to ICE. Under their new law if they find an Illegal they will again and still turn them over to ICE. (and ICE will probably free them on this side of the border)

The only real change is that AZ will be busting more illegals and ICE will be setting more of them free.

Oh, and the Federal law suit, Obamas DOJ should loose this one easily.

Uh...no...they arrest them and hold them in jail and don't turn them over to ICE. That is the law they made...it is illegal to be in Arizona if you aren't a citizen or have a green card.

Subtle, yet different.

Clearly you need to read the law again. lol

They will only be held until ICE takes them. If Ice refuses to take them, well then who knows lol. That is kinda the whole point of the law. If the Feds were doing their job Arizona would never have passed their law.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Haven't we figured this out yet? AZ is doing nothing that they haven't always done if they find an illegal. They turn them over to ICE. Under their new law if they find an Illegal they will again and still turn them over to ICE. (and ICE will probably free them on this side of the border)

The only real change is that AZ will be busting more illegals and ICE will be setting more of them free.

Oh, and the Federal law suit, Obamas DOJ should loose this one easily.

Uh...no...they arrest them and hold them in jail and don't turn them over to ICE. That is the law they made...it is illegal to be in Arizona if you aren't a citizen or have a green card.

Subtle, yet different.

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf