US Sues Az.

[Brubricker]

I'm no immigration lawyer, but it seems to me that the federal case revolves around the fact that individual states are not the ones to be deciding who or who is not a citizen or who is or is not entitled to be here. US citizenship status is not an issue for states to decide. Where is the legitimate argument against that position?

There isn't one. That's why this will be an open-and-shut case. States have no constitutional authority to regulate immigration. Only the federal government does. No one ever has an answer for that one.

 

[Zona]

I'm no immigration lawyer, but it seems to me that the federal case revolves around the fact that individual states are not the ones to be deciding who or who is not a citizen or who is or is not entitled to be here. US citizenship status is not an issue for states to decide. Where is the legitimate argument against that position?

There isn't one. That's why this will be an open-and-shut case. States have no constitutional authority to regulate immigration. Only the federal government does. No one ever has an answer for that one.

yippers...

 

[Meister]

That all pales in comparison to the "liberation" of Iraq. Want those daily numbers? DAILY NUMBERS....

That's all you have for the "US sues Az" thread?

whether you agree or not, it certainly highlights the hypocrisy of the right's outrage over the "expense" of illegal immigration.

It very well could mean something in its own thread....but, but, but "US sues AZ" thread?

 

[maineman]

That's all you have for the "US sues Az" thread?

whether you agree or not, it certainly highlights the hypocrisy of the right's outrage over the "expense" of illegal immigration.

Really? I'm outraged over the cost both. Why do you only care about "the money Bush spent?"

your "outrage" at the cost of the Bush wars of choice is a bit late, don't you think?

personally, I find the "cost" of the war in Iraq in blood and treasure to be so obscenely over the top that, in my mind, it overshadows anything that this president has done...especially given the fact that republicans on THIS site had Bush's balls resting on their chin throughout the entire war in Iraq and have been hypocriticically outraged at Obama's efforts to try to unfuck the mess he was handed.

 

[Zona]

whether you agree or not, it certainly highlights the hypocrisy of the right's outrage over the "expense" of illegal immigration.

Really? I'm outraged over the cost both. Why do you only care about "the money Bush spent?"

your "outrage" at the cost of the Bush wars of choice is a bit late, don't you think?

personally, I find the "cost" of the war in Iraq in blood and treasure to be so obscenely over the top that, in my mind, it overshadows anything that this president has done...especially given the fact that republicans on THIS site had Bush's balls resting on their chin throughout the entire war in Iraq and have been hypocriticically outraged at Obama's efforts to try to unfuck the mess he was handed.

CDR's are CDR's for a reason...ConHog, pwned, so pwned. School is out dude.

 

[Meister]

I'm no immigration lawyer, but it seems to me that the federal case revolves around the fact that individual states are not the ones to be deciding who or who is not a citizen or who is or is not entitled to be here. US citizenship status is not an issue for states to decide. Where is the legitimate argument against that position?

There isn't one. That's why this will be an open-and-shut case. States have no constitutional authority to regulate immigration. Only the federal government does. No one ever has an answer for that one.

Arizona is not regulating immigration.

 

[Brubricker]

I'm no immigration lawyer, but it seems to me that the federal case revolves around the fact that individual states are not the ones to be deciding who or who is not a citizen or who is or is not entitled to be here. US citizenship status is not an issue for states to decide. Where is the legitimate argument against that position?

There isn't one. That's why this will be an open-and-shut case. States have no constitutional authority to regulate immigration. Only the federal government does. No one ever has an answer for that one.

Arizona is not regulating immigration.

Now THAT'S a good one! You might as well say that laws never regulate anything. It would make just as much sense.

 

[ConHog]

whether you agree or not, it certainly highlights the hypocrisy of the right's outrage over the "expense" of illegal immigration.

Really? I'm outraged over the cost both. Why do you only care about "the money Bush spent?"

your "outrage" at the cost of the Bush wars of choice is a bit late, don't you think?

personally, I find the "cost" of the war in Iraq in blood and treasure to be so obscenely over the top that, in my mind, it overshadows anything that this president has done...especially given the fact that republicans on THIS site had Bush's balls resting on their chin throughout the entire war in Iraq and have been hypocriticically outraged at Obama's efforts to try to unfuck the mess he was handed.

Well, since I wasn't ON this board during Bush's Presidency, you actually have no idea about that, do you?

 

[steeliniraq]

Wouldn't it be cool if one of those innocent cartels killed a police force or better yet an entire town? That would be awesome! Screw those people in Arizona for fearing for their lives! Ok fine strike down what Arizona put forth but then what? Can anyone please answer this?

yea that would be real cool.........i hope you are fucking with us here dude...

Really?!?! You can't tell i am fucking with you? No I dont want them to come over the border and kill anyone but it's already happen and sadly I think its going to take more Americans getting killed before the slow to react and fix government to do something.

 

[steeliniraq]

People I am still waiting for an answer. So the feds sue and get rid of the law but then what? Americans are being harmed in their country by illegal outsiders. Is it not the Federal Governments job to protect Americans? If it is and those people are being harmed by illegals then isn't the Federal Government and it's leadership responsible? I mean the state tried to protect their people and the Federal government is saying no because its the federal govenments job. Sounds like some people should stop playing politics and start protecting the people. Guess its taking a woman to stand up and protect her people because the men sure the hell arent. They are too worried about how big their penis is and how righteous they are.

 

[maineman]

Really? I'm outraged over the cost both. Why do you only care about "the money Bush spent?"

your "outrage" at the cost of the Bush wars of choice is a bit late, don't you think?

personally, I find the "cost" of the war in Iraq in blood and treasure to be so obscenely over the top that, in my mind, it overshadows anything that this president has done...especially given the fact that republicans on THIS site had Bush's balls resting on their chin throughout the entire war in Iraq and have been hypocriticically outraged at Obama's efforts to try to unfuck the mess he was handed.

Well, since I wasn't ON this board during Bush's Presidency, you actually have no idea about that, do you?

Did I misjudge you? Can you tell me that you were AGAINST the invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq? Can you tell me that you were OUTRAGED that Dubya took us to war over WMD's that weren't there and that he implied connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda that were patently false? Can you tell me that you were INFURIATED by a president that SCARED many of us into supporting a war that only served to destabilize the region at an unholy cost to us of blood and treasure? If so, please say so. I'm all ears.

 

[Zona]

your "outrage" at the cost of the Bush wars of choice is a bit late, don't you think?

personally, I find the "cost" of the war in Iraq in blood and treasure to be so obscenely over the top that, in my mind, it overshadows anything that this president has done...especially given the fact that republicans on THIS site had Bush's balls resting on their chin throughout the entire war in Iraq and have been hypocriticically outraged at Obama's efforts to try to unfuck the mess he was handed.

Well, since I wasn't ON this board during Bush's Presidency, you actually have no idea about that, do you?

Did I misjudge you? Can you tell me that you were AGAINST the invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq? Can you tell me that you were OUTRAGED that Dubya took us to war over WMD's that weren't there and that he implied connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda that were patently false? Can you tell me that you were INFURIATED by a president that SCARED many of us into supporting a war that only served to destabilize the region at an unholy cost to us of blood and treasure? If so, please say so. I'm all ears.

Something about "mushroom clouds"!!!!!

 

[Meister]

"US sues Arizona" thread.....word

 

[Againsheila]

I'm no immigration lawyer, but it seems to me that the federal case revolves around the fact that individual states are not the ones to be deciding who or who is not a citizen or who is or is not entitled to be here. US citizenship status is not an issue for states to decide. Where is the legitimate argument against that position?

They aren't deciding citizenship. They are requiring legal residents to carry their documentation with them at all times, a FEDERAL law already. They are arresting illegals and sending them to ICE. The only difference is, they've put it in a state law instead of relying on the federal government to do the job they've been refusing to do for the past 40 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

There isn't one. That's why this will be an open-and-shut case. States have no constitutional authority to regulate immigration. Only the federal government does. No one ever has an answer for that one.

Arizona is not regulating immigration.

Now THAT'S a good one! You might as well say that laws never regulate anything. It would make just as much sense.

Nevertheless, the Arizona law does not regulate immigration in any way. All it does is authorize Arizona law enforcement to enforce existing laws.

That is what makes it so absurd that the Obama administration is fighting this so hard. It is obvious they don't give a damn about immigration enforcement or they would be encouraging all the states to help.

They do care about the Hispanic vote.

 

[ConHog]

your "outrage" at the cost of the Bush wars of choice is a bit late, don't you think?

personally, I find the "cost" of the war in Iraq in blood and treasure to be so obscenely over the top that, in my mind, it overshadows anything that this president has done...especially given the fact that republicans on THIS site had Bush's balls resting on their chin throughout the entire war in Iraq and have been hypocriticically outraged at Obama's efforts to try to unfuck the mess he was handed.

Well, since I wasn't ON this board during Bush's Presidency, you actually have no idea about that, do you?

Did I misjudge you? Can you tell me that you were AGAINST the invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq? Can you tell me that you were OUTRAGED that Dubya took us to war over WMD's that weren't there and that he implied connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda that were patently false? Can you tell me that you were INFURIATED by a president that SCARED many of us into supporting a war that only served to destabilize the region at an unholy cost to us of blood and treasure? If so, please say so. I'm all ears.

Absolutely I was against the invasion of Iraq, and I am on record previously on this board in saying so. IMO we should sent a SF team and killed Sadaam and his sons and told Iraq they could put whomever they wanted in charge but if that dude got out of line, we'd take care of him to.

Was I infuriated about the lies told? No, because bad intel happens,now if it's ever proven that the CIA lied on purpose , I'll be mad at them, but Bush didn't make the intel up, he went off what he was given.

I also have and continue to be outraged that Iraqi oil isn't being sold to pay for at least part of t his war.

And stop with the blood and treasure, you sound like a loon.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps some of our legal eagles could chime in to answer my question here:

The Feds' lawsuit against Arizona is on the grounds that immigration is a Federal concern and the states have no jurisdiction in enforcement of immigration laws. Presumably the states cannot take it upon themselves to make illegal immigration illegal in their state or pass laws to deal with it. So if the Feds don't deal with it, the state is simply out of luck.

But the Federal government has also passed federal laws controlling illegal substances. So why has there been no Federal protest when states have passed and enforced their own laws regarding such substances?

What's the difference?

 

[lawbuff]

Perhaps some of our legal eagles could chime in to answer my question here:

The Feds' lawsuit against Arizona is on the grounds that immigration is a Federal concern and the states have no jurisdiction in enforcement of immigration laws. Presumably the states cannot take it upon themselves to make illegal immigration illegal in their state or pass laws to deal with it. So if the Feds don't deal with it, the state is simply out of luck.

But the Federal government has also passed federal laws controlling illegal substances. So why has there been no Federal protest when states have passed and enforced their own laws regarding such substances?

What's the difference?

The difference IS, Article 1, section 8, states Congress has the power over the Naturalization process, that includes Immigration.

1-8 also states no state can mint coins, so this would be another example of a federal sovereign right.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps some of our legal eagles could chime in to answer my question here:

The Feds' lawsuit against Arizona is on the grounds that immigration is a Federal concern and the states have no jurisdiction in enforcement of immigration laws. Presumably the states cannot take it upon themselves to make illegal immigration illegal in their state or pass laws to deal with it. So if the Feds don't deal with it, the state is simply out of luck.

But the Federal government has also passed federal laws controlling illegal substances. So why has there been no Federal protest when states have passed and enforced their own laws regarding such substances?

What's the difference?

The difference IS, Article 1, section 8, states Congress has the power over the Naturalization process, that includes Immigration.

1-8 also states no state can mint coins, so this would be another example of a federal sovereign right.

But the state isn't making law or minting anything. The state is giving its own people permission to enforce the existing Federal law. And it is not more strenuous, in fact is less so, in enforcement than is the Federal law.

So again, how is that different than the states enforcing drug laws alongside the feds?

 

[lawbuff]

But the state isn't making law or minting anything. The state is giving its own people permission to enforce the existing Federal law. And it is not more strenuous, in fact is less so, in enforcement than is the Federal law.

So again, how is that different than the states enforcing drug laws alongside the feds?

Did you read the complaint linked? That is the basis, at least one, federal preemption.

As a "general" rule, yes, states can enforce federal laws, but the argument here is federal law Controls with no state interference under Article 6's Supremacy Clause.