B-Man Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Oh, I'm quite aware of the stupidity it took to write that. But outside of more stupidity from Congress, how do you get the federal gov't to do it's job? Well, you could hold the Attorney General (and DOJ) in contempt, but that would just be explained by the left as "partisan politics" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 So in other news Arizona law diced up and largely marginalized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 So in other news Arizona law diced up and largely marginalized. Does that = "We Won!" ~Jan Brewer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Does that = "We Won!" ~Jan Brewer LOL Jan Brewer can attempt to spin it anyway she wants. "They" didn't win. They lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 LOL Jan Brewer can attempt to spin it anyway she wants. "They" didn't win. They lost. The big thing is that if a cop pulls you over for a burnt out license plate light... They can ask citizenship/papers... People still can be harassed. My sister-in-law is from Mexico and a few years ago became an American citizen... Her and my brother-in-law are moving to Arizona (his job)... What are the ramifications for them and the children if they keep having to jump through the hoops and nusance just because of how they look? Of course don't do nothing wrong... But the SCOTUS did rule that in the course of enforcing other laws they can check. Does a DUI/safety check point dodge this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 The big thing is that if a cop pulls you over for a burnt out license plate light... They can ask citizenship/papers... People still can be harassed. My sister-in-law is from Mexico and a few years ago became an American citizen... Her and my brother-in-law are moving to Arizona (his job)... What are the ramifications for them and the children if they keep having to jump through the hoops and nusance just because of how they look? Of course don't do nothing wrong... But the SCOTUS did rule that in the course of enforcing other laws they can check. Does a DUI/safety check point dodge this issue? The state provision has three limitations: A detainee is presumed not to be an illegal alien if he or she provides a valid Arizona driver's license or similar identification; officers may not consider race, color, or national origin "except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona Constitution"; and § 2(B) must be "implemented in a manner consistent with federal law regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens." If she's driving she should have a license. If she's profiled it's illegal. And if the check is unreasonable in time it's violative of the constitution as well. It's ok, she'll be fine. And if it's slightly more annoying to be hispanic in Arizona than other states, that's just Arizona. That's America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 The state provision has three limitations: A detainee is presumed not to be an illegal alien if he or she provides a valid Arizona driver's license or similar identification; officers may not consider race, color, or national origin "except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona Constitution"; and § 2(B) must be "implemented in a manner consistent with federal law regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens." If she's driving she should have a license. If she's profiled it's illegal. And if the check is unreasonable in time it's violative of the constitution as well. It's ok, she'll be fine. And if it's slightly more annoying to be hispanic in Arizona than other states, that's just Arizona. That's America. I hear you... Thanks. Yet, it is only a matter of time and how long a person puts up with this stuff that they say: "Enough." Finally haul off (wrong thing to do) and get snotty with the officer... Then the clusterphuck/pissing contest snowballs... See: "Being African-American in America" for examples of "bad blood." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) I hear you... Thanks. Yet, it is only a matter of time and how long a person puts up with this stuff that they say: "Enough." Finally haul off (wrong thing to do) and get snotty with the officer... Then the clusterphuck/pissing contest snowballs... See: "Being African-American in America" for examples of "bad blood." That's true for a lot of white people as well. Cops suck when they are bothering you (and are awesome if they are helping you)...just life. Also...how many check are they really going to do w/ out the other provisions? An Arizona statute known as S. B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State. The United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect. Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; § 5© makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; § 6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person "the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States"; and § 2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person's immigration status with the Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the United States had established a likelihood of success on its preemption claims. Emboldened portions thrown out. If they have reasonable suspicion (not due to prohibition in previous posts) you are an illegal alien, they can check it w/ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on the spot and quickly and then report you if you are but even then you just...walk away...how much police time are they ultimately going to want to waste on this when they can't do the things they wanted to do in the first place as a result of the check? And in any event there some fairly strong language that should prove promising for all foreigners in the opinion regardless of status. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. ... The federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled. Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws. See, e.g., Brief for Argentina et al. as Amici Curiae; see also Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 588-589 (1952). Perceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad. See Brief for Madeleine K. Albright et al. as Amici Curiae 24-30. It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States. .... Immigration policy shapes the destiny of the Nation. On May 24, 2012, at one of this Nation's most distinguished museums of history, a dozen immigrants stood before the tattered flag that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the National Anthem. There they took the oath to become American citizens. The Smithsonian, News Release, Smithsonian Citizenship Ceremony Welcomes a Dozen New Americans (May 24, 2012), online at http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases. These naturalization ceremonies bring together men and women of different origins who now share a common destiny. They swear a common oath to renounce fidelity to foreign princes, to defend the Constitution, and to bear arms on behalf [47] of the country when required by law. 8 CFR § 337.1(a) (2012). The history of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents, and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here. The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law. Edited June 26, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 If there's any doubt the Supreme Court upheld the most substantial elements of Arizona's law to enforce U.S. immigration law, take a look at the scorched-earth response from the Obama administration to punish the state. The Supreme Court voted 8-0 Monday to uphold a key provision of Arizona's S.B. 1070 that requires state troopers to check the immigration status of people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally after they've been caught committing other crimes. That acknowledges the reality that the unlicensed man barreling down a desert highway with 40 people sweltering in his van might just be doing more than driving too fast, and that the bearded man caught with bomb-making tools and al-Qaida literature in his car might have more than chemistry on his agenda. Three other provisions of the Arizona law were thrown out by the court, thereby leaving illegals the "right" to solicit day jobs on public streets, the "right" to not carry the same identification they are required to carry in their home countries and the "right" to not be deported after officers suspect them of crimes here. But after the Obama administration and its media allies crowed that the court ruling was a win, their fury over their loss on the one provision became obvious. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that the administration would cut off ties to Arizona's police and end provisions of seven 287(g) task force agreements that gave some Arizona police agencies powers to enforce immigration laws. The vindictive, disproportionate response effectively isolates the state in terms of being far more stringent than anything the administration has inflicted on Burma, North Korea or Iran. Federal authorities will no longer take phone calls from Arizona officers making immigration inquiries about suspected illegals picked up in the course of committing crimes, perhaps some quite spectacular ones. Instead, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service "will tell the local police to release the person," the Washington Times reports. That's de facto amnesty to yet another group of criminal illegals, done this time as a means of punishing Arizona for its insolent desire to enforce federal law. It goes to show that the court ruling was never a question of federal law trumping state law, as the administration has spun its argument in court, but of election-year pandering for the Latino vote. The whole federal conflict with Arizona has come about not because Arizona wanted to make its own laws contradicting federal law, but because it wanted to enforce federal laws itself. What does it say about the Obama administration's priorities that it effectively scraps its sworn pledge to uphold the law, usurps the legislative function by ignoring federal laws, punishes those who comply and puts its own re-election first? Investor's Business Daily . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) Investor's Business Daily . The most interesting "scorched Earth" effort by the WH is the hotline they set up for illegal immigrants to call if police in Arizona are giving them a hard time. I miss the old days, when the country was more interested in protecting its own citizens first. Now we are trying to protect illegal citizens from our own police. Kind of an odd twist. But hey...that's what we get for not asking "So when you say 'change we can believe in,' could you be more specific?" Edited June 26, 2012 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) Investor's Business Daily . My God at that article B-Man...pay attention to what you read...I wouldn't read editorials from that website anymore. Whoever wrote it doesn't understand the holding of the case and goes on to say things that are straight up false: Federal authorities will no longer take phone calls from Arizona officers making immigration inquiries about suspected illegals picked up in the course of committing crimes, perhaps some quite spectacular ones. LOL. Edited June 26, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 My God at that article B-Man...pay attention to what you read...I wouldn't read editorials from that website anymore. Whoever wrote it doesn't understand the holding of the case and goes on to say things that are straight up false: It's Investor's Business Daily. You're only just figuring this out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 The most interesting "scorched Earth" effort by the WH is the hotline they set up for illegal immigrants to call if police in Arizona are giving them a hard time. "Para espanol, marque numero uno. Para espanol, marque numero dos. Para espanol, marque..." I miss the old days, when the country was more interested in protecting its own citizens first. Now we are trying to protect illegal citizens from our own police. Kind of an odd twist. But hey...that's what we get for not asking "So when you say 'change we can believe in,' could you be more specific?" To those who feel profiled, I say "suck it up." I'm Indian and after 9/11, we were pulled over when flying to be patted-down. My wife got upset, but I told her "hey, if it means they don't let a real terrorist aboard, so be it. It is what it is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Florida Judge: Non-citizens can be removed from voter rolls: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/27/2871392/judge-halts-federal-attempt-to.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Florida Judge: Non-citizens can be removed from voter rolls: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/27/2871392/judge-halts-federal-attempt-to.html It is mindboggling that anyone argues against that. Yes, I mean you, Mr. Holder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 It is mindboggling that anyone argues against that. Yes, I mean you, Mr. Holder. But not surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 But if non-citizens aren't allowed to vote - only citizens will be able to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts