A Practical Question About the AZ Law

[M14 Shooter]

They're not smart enough to understand the difference between an argument and a discussion apparently... And lol @ the shmucks who think they know more than you do.

Another Jillian groupie, kissing the ring of the Queen Mother. How cute.

 

[Artevelde]

You really are very weak and ignorant.

stop projecting.

you tried to troll the thread with your buddy.

you failed.

get over it and move on.

They're not smart enough to understand the difference between an argument and a discussion apparently... And lol @ the shmucks who think they know more than you do.

It's not the first thread in which I've found she doesn't really have her facts straigth.

 

[Valerie]

They're not smart enough to understand the difference between an argument and a discussion apparently... And lol @ the shmucks who think they know more than you do.

Another Jillian groupie, kissing the ring of the Queen Mother. How cute.

Yeeah, peashooter, your bullshit is wicked cute too. Jillian has a law degree and is infinitely more knowledgeable on the subject than you clowns could ever hope to be... She posed a question for discussion and you are being an idiot cuz assholery is all you have.

 

[M14 Shooter]

stop projecting.

you tried to troll the thread with your buddy.

you failed.

get over it and move on.

They're not smart enough to understand the difference between an argument and a discussion apparently... And lol @ the shmucks who think they know more than you do.

It's not the first thread in which I've found she doesn't really have her facts straigth.

I cannot help but laugh as I recall the time when Queen Mother had to Google "strict scrutiny" and then -still- got it wrong.


Those that believe her claims of a law school degree - heck, a degree past those issued by backwater Mississippian middle schools - only do so because they really do not know any better.

 

[jillian]

They're not smart enough to understand the difference between an argument and a discussion apparently... And lol @ the shmucks who think they know more than you do.

Another Jillian groupie, kissing the ring of the Queen Mother. How cute.

Yeeah, peashooter, your bullshit is wicked cute too. Jillian has a law degree and is infinitely more knowledgeable on the subject than you clowns could ever hope to be... She posed a question for discussion and you are being an idiot cuz assholery is all you have.

that's why i laugh at them when they demand you "debate".

lol..

the question is simple. what, if anything, can AZ expect from the Federal Govt in terms of enforcing ITS law.

The answers might be complicated, but the question isn't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They're not smart enough to understand the difference between an argument and a discussion apparently... And lol @ the shmucks who think they know more than you do.

Another Jillian groupie, kissing the ring of the Queen Mother. How cute.

Jillian has a law degree and is infinitely more knowledgeable on the subject than you clowns could ever hope to be

She does not. When she makes the claim to that effect, she lies. Outright.
Long and short: She's a fraud.

This is verified by the fact that she has yet to post -anything- with a level of content that indicates she has any significant education in -anything- much less the law.

YOU only believe her because YOU don't know any better.

She posed a question for discussion and you are being an idiot cuz assholery is all you have.

If you'll recall, -I- posted a valid, reasonable response to her question and -she- refused to address it.
What's -that- tell you, groupie?

 

[Valerie]

Don't you think it's the duty of the Federal authorities to enforce Federal law and thus to deport illegal alliens?

I don't think it's the place of any state to tell the Federal Government what to do.

The Constitution agrees.

I'll direct your attention to the supremacy clause.

Where in the Arizona law does the State of Arizona tell the Federal authorities what to do. The only thing the law does is facilitate the enforcement of Federal law. How is that against the supremacy clause?

I also notice you didn't answer my question.

Yes she did.


You answered her OP question with a question then you responded to her answer with another question, then hilariously you claim to know more...I'm sure all your confused friends will slap you a high fiver rep for attacking Jill, though.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Another Jillian groupie, kissing the ring of the Queen Mother. How cute.

Yeeah, peashooter, your bullshit is wicked cute too. Jillian has a law degree and is infinitely more knowledgeable on the subject than you clowns could ever hope to be... She posed a question for discussion and you are being an idiot cuz assholery is all you have.

that's why i laugh at them when they demand you "debate".

lol..

the question is simple. what, if anything, can AZ expect from the Federal Govt in terms of enforcing ITS law.

The answers might be complicated, but the question isn't.

Your question was answered.
The fact that you refuse to address that answer proves that you really have no interest in discussing the issue you presented.
As per the norm.

 

[Valerie]

Another Jillian groupie, kissing the ring of the Queen Mother. How cute.

Jillian has a law degree and is infinitely more knowledgeable on the subject than you clowns could ever hope to be

She does not. When she makes the claim to that effect, she lies. Outright.
Long and short: She's a fraud.

This is verified by the fact that she has yet to post -anything- with a level of content that indicates she has any significant education in -anything- much less the law.

YOU only believe her because YOU don't know any better.

She posed a question for discussion and you are being an idiot cuz assholery is all you have.

If you'll recall, -I- posted a valid, reasonable response to her question and -she- refused to address it.
What's -that- tell you, groupie?

**** off peashooter, you know nothing of which you speak.

 

[GHook93]

this isn't actually a discussion about legal vs illegal immigrants or what you think of the 'papers please' provisions. i mean, i could discuss that because the papers please laws don't have anything to do with what you're required to carry when you drive.

True, but one ruling can effect another. Driving without a license just like being in the country illegally, are both illegal. Yet the only easy way to determine either is if an officer asks for identification or proof. Not sure how asking a person to show proof he has a drivers license to show proof he she is legally able to drive is less an injustice that asking a person to provide a driver's license or state ID if he/she is under the suspcion of being in the country illegally. Both are a crime!

but how about this, "hey, you look jewish. show us your papers" or better "why aren't you wearing your yellow star"?

fahrshteit?
That is not an apples to oranges comparison it's a apples to elephants comparison. AZ says proof of citizenship not proof of race or religion. Illegal immigration is a serious issue and needs to be addressed!

anyway, my question concerns what the state can compel the feds to do, if anything...

You recognize the State can and does Act according to it's Police Powers correct! I think that will be the winning arugment in this case!

For people that don't know what a States Police Power is here is some education!

police power (American law) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
U.S. constitutional law grants the police power capacity to the States "to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the general welfare, morals, health, and safety of their inhabitants." Under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, powers not of the Fed go to the State. It has been determined that States posssess the Police Power, which the Fed exception of the military and on Federal Property.

The exercise of police power can be in the form of making laws, compelling obedience to those laws through legal sanctions, physical means, or other forms of coercion and inducements.

Police powers are can are are restricted and granted greater power by state, not the US, constitutions. .

Because the Congress has limited powers granted in the Constitution, the Federal government does not have a general police power, as the states do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Jillian has a law degree and is infinitely more knowledgeable on the subject than you clowns could ever hope to be

She does not. When she makes the claim to that effect, she lies. Outright.
Long and short: She's a fraud.

This is verified by the fact that she has yet to post -anything- with a level of content that indicates she has any significant education in -anything- much less the law.

YOU only believe her because YOU don't know any better.

She posed a question for discussion and you are being an idiot cuz assholery is all you have.

If you'll recall, -I- posted a valid, reasonable response to her question and -she- refused to address it.
What's -that- tell you, groupie?

**** off peashooter, you know nothing of which you speak.

YOU only believe her because YOU don't know any better, groupie.

 

[Navy1960]

Here's the thing , from a practical point of view if the law is upheld look at it like this. Each time Law Enforcement comes across someone that is suspected as being illegal, then the contact is made with Federal authorities. If ICE, refuses to pick them up , or states, let them go, or we don't have the time, then eventually as most of the agencies here in Arizona's funds are already stretched to the limit they will eventually stop enforcing it in several locations. Further, SB-1070 much like a whole host of other laws passed by our state legislature based on unrealistic and not practical views will end up costing the state more money to enforce it. If for example as in the case with Sheriff Joe local Law enforcement detains someone after they have been told by ICE we are not going to pick them up, then that gives rise to another issue with unlawfully detaining an individual. Personally I cannot see how Arizona can make it a misdemeanor to be here illegally subject to Arizona Law with state punishment involved when that clearly is a violation of the Supremacy Clause.


A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:

2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

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

It would seem to me that in so doing the state of Arizona in that case there are little over-stepping their bounds as it provides for remedies for violations of Federal Law.

It doesn't matter however, from a practical standpoint this law depends on ICE willingness to take on the burden of accepting each of the people they arrest and as ICE is stretched thin enough already and with little invetment coming then it all becomes mute other than say perhaps something for a few in the State House to pound their chests over. I would say this though. with the changing demographics in our state, our officials should be careful what they wish for because sooner rather than later I would rather imagine SB-1070 will be a thing of the past.

 

[Valerie]

She does not. When she makes the claim to that effect, she lies. Outright.
Long and short: She's a fraud.

This is verified by the fact that she has yet to post -anything- with a level of content that indicates she has any significant education in -anything- much less the law.

YOU only believe her because YOU don't know any better.


If you'll recall, -I- posted a valid, reasonable response to her question and -she- refused to address it.
What's -that- tell you, groupie?

**** off peashooter, you know nothing of which you speak.

YOU only believe her because YOU don't know any better, groupie.

Wrong again, retard. I KNOW Jillian, and unlike YOU she is not a phony.

 

[M14 Shooter]

**** off peashooter, you know nothing of which you speak.

YOU only believe her because YOU don't know any better, groupie.

Wrong again, retard. I KNOW Jillian, and unlike YOU she is not a phony.

The Queeen Mother remains proud of her useful idiot.
Keep up the good work, groupie!

 

[Ravi]

Here's the thing , from a practical point of view if the law is upheld look at it like this. Each time Law Enforcement comes across someone that is suspected as being illegal, then the contact is made with Federal authorities. If ICE, refuses to pick them up , or states, let them go, or we don't have the time, then eventually as most of the agencies here in Arizona's funds are already stretched to the limit they will eventually stop enforcing it in several locations. Further, SB-1070 much like a whole host of other laws passed by our state legislature based on unrealistic and not practical views will end up costing the state more money to enforce it. If for example as in the case with Sheriff Joe local Law enforcement detains someone after they have been told by ICE we are not going to pick them up, then that gives rise to another issue with unlawfully detaining an individual. Personally I cannot see how Arizona can make it a misdemeanor to be here illegally subject to Arizona Law with state punishment involved when that clearly is a violation of the Supremacy Clause.


A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:

2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

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

It would seem to me that in so doing the state of Arizona in that case there are little over-stepping their bounds as it provides for remedies for violations of Federal Law.

It doesn't matter however, from a practical standpoint this law depends on ICE willingness to take on the burden of accepting each of the people they arrest and as ICE is stretched thin enough already and with little invetment coming then it all becomes mute other than say perhaps something for a few in the State House to pound their chests over. I would say this though. with the changing demographics in our state, our officials should be careful what they wish for because sooner rather than later I would rather imagine SB-1070 will be a thing of the past.

The only reason ICE would be unwilling, IMO, is because they have their own goals, namely deporting the actual criminals, not just your average visa violator or border sneaker.

So unless the states are willing to fund ICE through the federal level this entire law is pretty silly. And makes Arizona look like xenophobes.

 

[Navy1960]

Here's the thing , from a practical point of view if the law is upheld look at it like this. Each time Law Enforcement comes across someone that is suspected as being illegal, then the contact is made with Federal authorities. If ICE, refuses to pick them up , or states, let them go, or we don't have the time, then eventually as most of the agencies here in Arizona's funds are already stretched to the limit they will eventually stop enforcing it in several locations. Further, SB-1070 much like a whole host of other laws passed by our state legislature based on unrealistic and not practical views will end up costing the state more money to enforce it. If for example as in the case with Sheriff Joe local Law enforcement detains someone after they have been told by ICE we are not going to pick them up, then that gives rise to another issue with unlawfully detaining an individual. Personally I cannot see how Arizona can make it a misdemeanor to be here illegally subject to Arizona Law with state punishment involved when that clearly is a violation of the Supremacy Clause.


A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:

2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

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

It would seem to me that in so doing the state of Arizona in that case there are little over-stepping their bounds as it provides for remedies for violations of Federal Law.

It doesn't matter however, from a practical standpoint this law depends on ICE willingness to take on the burden of accepting each of the people they arrest and as ICE is stretched thin enough already and with little invetment coming then it all becomes mute other than say perhaps something for a few in the State House to pound their chests over. I would say this though. with the changing demographics in our state, our officials should be careful what they wish for because sooner rather than later I would rather imagine SB-1070 will be a thing of the past.

The only reason ICE would be unwilling, IMO, is because they have their own goals, namely deporting the actual criminals, not just your average visa violator or border sneaker.

So unless the states are willing to fund ICE through the federal level this entire law is pretty silly. And makes Arizona look like xenophobes.

Well Ravi, my point was from a practical matter this law serves no useful purpose other than to garner votes from one segement of the Arizona population. As we now have a large hispanic population here what it has done is serve the opposite effect. From the standpoint of enforcement alone, this Law depends on ICE to take suspects off the hands of Arizona officials for deportation. As ICE is busy and has limited resources with the border itself and Washington is in a cutting mode, we here in Arizona are going to be stuck with a very large enforcement bill , or as I suspect many will just not enforce it as it becomes to costly to house and detain these folks. In my humble opinion SB-1070 is just an exercise that has cost the state millions more so billions in lost revenue, and at a time when our state is suffering through the worst housing crisis it has ever had and economic conditions that need to be addressed. In the end though if those that put these sorts of bills out do not take a moment to recognize that Arizona like several other Western states has a changing demographic they might find themselves unable to hold the reins of power here one day. So perhaps the best thing to do, is whats best for the whole state of Arizona and not listen to say a Lawyer from Kansas or a Law Professor from there when it comes to Arizona's immigration issues.

 

[Ravi]

Here's the thing , from a practical point of view if the law is upheld look at it like this. Each time Law Enforcement comes across someone that is suspected as being illegal, then the contact is made with Federal authorities. If ICE, refuses to pick them up , or states, let them go, or we don't have the time, then eventually as most of the agencies here in Arizona's funds are already stretched to the limit they will eventually stop enforcing it in several locations. Further, SB-1070 much like a whole host of other laws passed by our state legislature based on unrealistic and not practical views will end up costing the state more money to enforce it. If for example as in the case with Sheriff Joe local Law enforcement detains someone after they have been told by ICE we are not going to pick them up, then that gives rise to another issue with unlawfully detaining an individual. Personally I cannot see how Arizona can make it a misdemeanor to be here illegally subject to Arizona Law with state punishment involved when that clearly is a violation of the Supremacy Clause.


A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:

2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

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

It would seem to me that in so doing the state of Arizona in that case there are little over-stepping their bounds as it provides for remedies for violations of Federal Law.

It doesn't matter however, from a practical standpoint this law depends on ICE willingness to take on the burden of accepting each of the people they arrest and as ICE is stretched thin enough already and with little invetment coming then it all becomes mute other than say perhaps something for a few in the State House to pound their chests over. I would say this though. with the changing demographics in our state, our officials should be careful what they wish for because sooner rather than later I would rather imagine SB-1070 will be a thing of the past.

The only reason ICE would be unwilling, IMO, is because they have their own goals, namely deporting the actual criminals, not just your average visa violator or border sneaker.

So unless the states are willing to fund ICE through the federal level this entire law is pretty silly. And makes Arizona look like xenophobes.

Well Ravi, my point was from a practical matter this law serves no useful purpose other than to garner votes from one segement of the Arizona population. As we now have a large hispanic population here what it has done is serve the opposite effect. From the standpoint of enforcement alone, this Law depends on ICE to take suspects off the hands of Arizona officials for deportation. As ICE is busy and has limited resources with the border itself and Washington is in a cutting mode, we here in Arizona are going to be stuck with a very large enforcement bill , or as I suspect many will just not enforce it as it becomes to costly to house and detain these folks. In my humble opinion SB-1070 is just an exercise that has cost the state millions more so billions in lost revenue, and at a time when our state is suffering through the worst housing crisis it has ever had and economic conditions that need to be addressed. In the end though if those that put these sorts of bills out do not take a moment to recognize that Arizona like several other Western states has a changing demographic they might find themselves unable to hold the reins of power here one day. So perhaps the best thing to do, is whats best for the whole state of Arizona and not listen to say a Lawyer from Kansas or a Law Professor from there when it comes to Arizona's immigration issues.

Amen, brother. When South Florida suffered through the cocaine cowboy period the resulting patrols just pushed them to other states and really, this is the worst of what the border states must deal with.

The immigrants can be absorbed and allowed to become loyal Americans. To me that would be a win/win situation.

 

[Liability]

Some of the judicial inquiry before the Supreme Court yesterday focused on the question of what happens once a State stops and detains someone under the "papers, please" provisions of the AZ law. Since, ostensibly, the law is supposed to effectuate Federal Law, what obligation does the Federal Government have to respond to the State and deal with the people in custody?

I don't think a State can compel the Feds to do anything.... which gives rise to teh question,

ok... you have the law... then what?

I truly don't know the answer to this. I don't think Justice Breyer had an answer for it either. But it's the right question to ask

A cop stops a speeding motorist. "License, registration, insurance card please."

Motorist can't comply fully. Cop asks motorist, "where do you come from?"

Motorist says (for example), "Mexico."

Cop: "Visa? Green Card?"

Motorist: "Ah no. I entered illegally or I overstayed my visa...."

Cop holds the errant motorist and calls ICE. ICE says "We're not interested. Thanks all the same."

The question then becomes WHY won't the ******* feds enforce our immigration laws?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some of the judicial inquiry before the Supreme Court yesterday focused on the question of what happens once a State stops and detains someone under the "papers, please" provisions of the AZ law. Since, ostensibly, the law is supposed to effectuate Federal Law, what obligation does the Federal Government have to respond to the State and deal with the people in custody?

I don't think a State can compel the Feds to do anything.... which gives rise to teh question,

ok... you have the law... then what?

I truly don't know the answer to this. I don't think Justice Breyer had an answer for it either. But it's the right question to ask

A cop stops a speeding motorist. "License, registration, insurance card please."

Motorist can't comply fully. Cop asks motorist, "where do you come from?"

Motorist says (for example), "Mexico."

Cop: "Visa? Green Card?"

Motorist: "Ah no. I entered illegally or I overstayed my visa...."

Cop holds the errant motorist and calls ICE. ICE says "We're not interested. Thanks all the same."

The question then becomes WHY won't the ******* feds enforce our immigration laws?

Yes. The point I was getting at.
If the federal government won't enforce federal law, what's the point of having federal law?

 

[Liability]

Some of the judicial inquiry before the Supreme Court yesterday focused on the question of what happens once a State stops and detains someone under the "papers, please" provisions of the AZ law. Since, ostensibly, the law is supposed to effectuate Federal Law, what obligation does the Federal Government have to respond to the State and deal with the people in custody?

I don't think a State can compel the Feds to do anything.... which gives rise to teh question,

ok... you have the law... then what?

I truly don't know the answer to this. I don't think Justice Breyer had an answer for it either. But it's the right question to ask

A cop stops a speeding motorist. "License, registration, insurance card please."

Motorist can't comply fully. Cop asks motorist, "where do you come from?"

Motorist says (for example), "Mexico."

Cop: "Visa? Green Card?"

Motorist: "Ah no. I entered illegally or I overstayed my visa...."

Cop holds the errant motorist and calls ICE. ICE says "We're not interested. Thanks all the same."

The question then becomes WHY won't the ******* feds enforce our immigration laws?

Yes. The point I was getting at.
If the federal government won't enforce federal law, what's the point of having federal law?

The point, of course, is for our immigration laws to BE enforced. If this Administration wont do it. It's time to get a new Administration.