US Gov't Sues Arizona Over Immigration Law

Openly harassing a large segment of the population isn't reform. It is just the opposite.
 
A typical reaction from a person not at all connected with the issue. No surprise there.

In other news, the Federal Government opens up Florida coastlines to drilling less than 12 miles offshore, and nobody in the other 49 states care because "it's not in my backyard".
 
The law does not say that Officers MUST harass this part of the pop. The law says that if you are pulled over, look like an immigrant (foreign looking, heavy accent), and don't have a green card, they could be arrested. After all, aren't immigrants required to always have their Greencard?
 
What part of Illegal immigration do the feds not understand. I'd say build a massive concrete wall on the border or stock the desert with Killer Robots.

This also. I do like the wall idea, China has lasted thousands of years, maybe we should do what they do! But remember, the drug dealers have subs now.
 
So how does this usurp the federal gov't's authority over immigration policy?

Because all politicians are partisan, and since this doesn't register with the government's current agenda... bam, find a clause in the Constitution and use it to your advantage. Whereas if it was a conservative government, they'd shrug this off, even if it does violate the federal government's constitutional powers. The Constitution only works when you agree with it. ;)

It's been said much of the Arizona law is merely actually enforcing what the feds will not... but we can't have that, can we? ..even though states are supposed to enforce federal laws no matter what; it's called the Supremacy Clause.

And how much leeway do states have concerning federal laws anyway? The federal government has firearm laws, and each state has it's own laws about firearms, and a lot of cities have firearm laws. How is this different in terms of one being constitutional and the AZ law not?

Immigration, however, seems to be exclusively the power of the federal government's, and so states are forbidden from adding their own packages to it. Another example in particular would be the feds' monetary policy; only the federal government can print money, not the states in addition to the federal gov't.

That is probably where the government rests its case on this; immigration is exclusively their domain.

Yeah. This is all about safety, security, and the feds not doing enough under Obama to stop the supposed lawlessness, alright.

I see no issue with preventing the blockage of traffic. Aren't protesters similarly prevented from blocking traffic, for the sake of good public order?

By attacking the stereotypical hotspot for illegal immigrants who want work, we make it more difficult for them to find work. Bam. Far more effective way to curtail their numbers than active hunts for them or a giant wall.

The vast majority of "lawful contact with policeman" is no doubt petty traffic/pedestrian stops. In that case this law can affect anyone. Not just criminals.

It appears immigrants are required to carry their green cards anyway, so this shouldn't be much of a problem except for American citizens(who logically won't have the card), ironically. And they can probably prove citizenship via the courts.

And it seems you need to actually commit a crime for the officer to ask for your papers... so, what is the problem? :confused:

That said, I'm not saying the law's perfect. But to treat it as some gross human rights abuse that outdoes all others is just insane.

Openly harassing a large segment of the population isn't reform. It is just the opposite.

Reform doesn't necessarily mean liberal or conservative; it merely means trying to make things work better. Trying to find a way to make our immigration laws effective would indeed be reform.

What part of Illegal immigration do the feds not understand. I'd say build a massive concrete wall on the border or stock the desert with Killer Robots.

The latter would just be flat out epic. They shall be our trap door spiders. ;)
 
So you think it would be perfectly acceptable for states to also violate the Constitution by declaring war on terrorism because the feds aren't doing enough?

Within the confines of their state borders....absolutely.

I really don't think the personal opinions of a few "law and order" conservatives that the feds are suddenly not doing enough under a Democrat president is sufficient reason to defy the law.

Number of guardsmen on southern border under Bush: roughly 7k for about 2 years.

Number of guardsmen on southern border under Obama: well, supposedly about 1k are on the way.

I dunno, but by pretty much any definition, the current admin isnt doing as much as the previous one did in regards to the Mexican border.
 
I dunno, but by pretty much any definition, the current admin isnt doing as much as the previous one did in regards to the Mexican border.

Undoubtedly the problem has become worse in the last couple of years. Watching the local news every night before sleeping gives nightmares around here.....
 
It appears immigrants are required to carry their green cards anyway, so this shouldn't be much of a problem except for American citizens(who logically won't have the card), ironically. And they can probably prove citizenship via the courts.

True. It's a federal law. The big difference is that the feds enforce it in a way that isn't really discriminatory. When I cross the border and talk to the feds I have to prove my citizenship/residence status just like anyone else. The Arizona law only wants people who are "suspected" of being illegal immigrants to be subject to this. It will be interesting to see if there are any cases from AZ where an officer's "reasonable suspicion" isn't based on some type of racial or ethnic profiling.

And it seems you need to actually commit a crime for the officer to ask for your papers... so, what is the problem?

I believe that being pulled over for violating some petty traffic law would be enough to meet the criteria for "lawful contact with law enforcement" unless you have info that says otherwise. As I said before this law can give anyone problems. (But much less so if you happen to be white)
 
Yeah Tanic, I've been advocating Kill-bots for many purposes for a long time. For illegal immigration purposes, for fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and other functions. They work on anything.
 
[_] Solve problem by enforcing federal law
[X] Accuse Arizona of rasism

Well done, Obama.

[_] Truth
[X] Lie

Well done GOP.

 
Number of guardsmen on southern border under Bush: roughly 7k for about 2 years.

Number of guardsmen on southern border under Obama: well, supposedly about 1k are on the way.

I dunno, but by pretty much any definition, the current admin isnt doing as much as the previous one did in regards to the Mexican border.

Isnt illegal immigration into the US the lowest it has been in about 20 years ?
Since the crash of the US economy and high unemployment.

EDIT: wrong chart cant find the NYT time one which charts ilegal immigration and not total illegal population.. I'll see if I can find it again

 
I'd hate to be walking around in Italy or Spain and then get pulled over because the police suspects me of being an illegal immigrant from Africa. Racial profiling sucks.
 
So you think it would be perfectly acceptable for states to also violate the Constitution by declaring war on terrorism because the feds aren't doing enough?

I really don't think the personal opinions of a few "law and order" conservatives that the feds are suddenly not doing enough under a Democrat president is sufficient reason to defy the law.

Yes. That's what the National Guard is for. The Guard was never meant to be a presidential play toy until Bush came along.

@ FriendlyFire: What is non-criminal about an illegal alien. :lol:
 
BLAH! No wonder I couldnt find 2010 numbers. (thats what you get from listerning to podcast(s) and multitasking CFC at the same time)

/meh Now how about refutting the 2009 figures ?

I suspect that criminal deportation is for those illegals caught committing actual crimes (other then being illegal) then deported afterwards.
Time to put up or shut up.
 
@ FriendlyFire: What is non-criminal about an illegal alien. :lol:

The fact that it's not a felony; that graph is distinguishing deportations by those who have committed a felony and those who have not. We've been over this before.
 
Top Bottom