Arizona Official Threatens to Cut Off Los Angeles Power as Payback for Boycott

[DEDixon 39]

If the wages go up, then the prices of those products will go up too.

cheaper products is no excuse for slavery.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

cheaper products is no excuse for slavery.

In fact I can think of quite a few professions involving illegal immigrants that are actually suffering because of overproduction.

[evli1966 88]

Can Az physically turn the power off to LA.

Yes they can it is done at substations through out the Power Grid.

Will they do it I hope they do if LA and any other CA city tries to impose a boycott.

No law yet exists that requires that a US citizen must carry an ID on them but typical adults over 18 that is have several IDs they carry on themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_in_the_United_States

There is a law "8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code" that already states with in the law the following:

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times

carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate

of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to

him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails

to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of

a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined

not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or

both.

Of course there is this found in the USAM (United States Attorney's Manual; I am providing a link directly to section 1918 which discusses a decision made by the "The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit" regarding the INA laws that lends support to the new AZ law.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01918.htm

pay close attention to this decision

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983), that the structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not evidence an intent to preclude local enforcement of the act's criminal provisions. Id. at 474. Based on the pertinent legislative history, the court of appeals rejected the argument that since 8 U.S.C. § 1324© specifically authorizes local officers to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a) and 1326 contain no comparable provision, Congress must have intended that local officers be precluded from making arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a) and 1326. Id. at 475. The decision warns, however, that the first violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) is a misdemeanor, and that if applicable state law authorizes law enforcement officers to arrest for misdemeanors only if committed in their presence, they would not be authorized to arrest aliens for illegal entry (unless the officers should happen to know that the alien had previously been convicted of illegal entry) unless they saw him/her cross the border."

it goes further to say this:

"The disappointing aspect of Gonzales is the statement that an alien's "inability to produce documentation does not in itself provide probable cause (to arrest)." See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, supra, at 16. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e), aliens are issued registration cards and must carry such cards with them at all times. Aliens who gain entry without the requisite inspection, and who therefore are not issued such cards, violate 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Consequently, a law enforcement officer confronting an alien who is unable to produce documentation arguably has probable cause to believe that a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) (failure to possess documents or 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) (entry without inspection) has occurred. (If the alien is undocumented and has been in the United States for longer than 30 days, he or she has also violated 8 U.S.C. § 1306(a))."

I send these links in support of non citizens to be required to carry ID and or at least present supporting documents with in a reasonable amount of time.

[evli1966 88]

forgot to add this

I apologize I could be wrong in my thinking but because the congress is precluding local officers then the based on state sovereignty of making its own law with in the laws of the federal government AZ has the right to enact a more stringent policy.

Although I am not sure what allows states to do this specifically I would direct you to how laws are made state to state which determine speed limits which are different from the federal standard I believe. ( I am up to being educated on how states are able to govern their own laws and the reason it is so)

Thanks

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Funny, that's not what the ACLU thinks. For starters, the memo is not in itself a binding document, even on the administration under which it was drafted. But the current administration has to officially withdraw the memo for it not to serve as the official opinion of and act as guidance for the justice department. That they haven't already done so means either this legal opinion has good standing in law and upholds the Constitution (I don't know) and/or that Eric Holder is a bumbling fool (no question about that).

And then there's the matter that it is only your opinion that SB1070 violates the 14th Amendment. It is not fact. Granted, there are plenty of people out there who are of a similar opinion. However, there are also plenty who disagree with your opinion. If any of the proposed legal challenges goes ahead, we might finally find out for certain.

Until then, it remains just your opinion.

Mind you, if the Federal government stepped up to the plate and started enforcing the laws that SB1070 allows local law enforcement to enforce, this would be a moot point. It would also be enormously popular with the American electorate. Whereas the prospective challenges to SB 1070 and the proposed immigration amnesty are most certainly not.

That's a big assumption thinking that the current administration endorses the memo because it hasn't been withdrawn. These are complex legal matters that require careful consideration.

As for legal opinions - I've stated before, those are the opinions that will ultimately matter in the decision over whether this law is unconstitutional or not. If you read the legal opinion of constitutional scholars like Erwin Chemerinsky, you would have a better understanding of why they argue the law is unconstitutional.

The Arizona law appears to be ‘facially unconstitutional,’ Manheim said. ‘States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.’”

And as for legal precedent, look at this Supreme Court ruling, Pyler v. Doe.

Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

[Pooky 3,784]

As for legal opinions - I've stated before, those are the opinions that will ultimately matter in the decision over whether this law is unconstitutional or not. If you read the legal opinion of constitutional scholars like Erwin Chemerinsky, you would have a better understanding of why they argue the law is unconstitutional.

They are still only opinions and ultimately, they don't matter.

The only opinions that will ultimately matter are the nine that belong to the Supreme Court Justices. Until it gets that far, all else is merely conjecture and posturing.

Arizona is only seeking to enforce Federal law, which the government is not currently prepared to do. It is a sad day when elected officials in this country complain and object to a State's willingness to undertake the task which they are abjectly failing to do themselves. A sad and shameful day on the floor of Congress.

[DEDixon 39]

legal opinions

but you only care about opinions that support your opinion. there are just as many opposing opinions if you bothered to look for them.

[sjr09 155]

but you only care about opinions that support your opinion. there are just as many opposing opinions if you bothered to look for them.

That’s nothing new!

[Darnell 8,478]

Canada's weather is hardly idea for outdoor movies.

Take a random sampling of 12 movies that were released in the last 5 years. Study the credits. You'll have some data to make a new chart and graph for Canadien Production Companies.

as for the weather, sorry, yer wrong. Canada has 4 seasons, I hope you were being facetious instead of ignorant ???

[Heracles 417]

Take a random sampling of 12 movies that were released in the last 5 years. Study the credits. You'll have some data to make a new chart and graph for Canadien Production Companies.

as for the weather, sorry, yer wrong. Canada has 4 seasons, I hope you were being facetious instead of ignorant ???

Are you for real? Is Canada's weather anywhere near that of Mexico or even Australia? I bet a day in a freezer is warmer than a day in Canada during the middle of winter. Hint: Ice Road truckers.

Aaaah perhaps, you are talking about the awesome beaches Canada is renowned for.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Booyah!

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Aaaah perhaps, you are talking about the awesome beaches Canada is renowned for.

the seals don't have any complaints - at least not until the hunters show up.

[Marilyn. 340]

Take a random sampling of 12 movies that were released in the last 5 years. Study the credits. You'll have some data to make a new chart and graph for Canadien Production Companies.

as for the weather, sorry, yer wrong. Canada has 4 seasons, I hope you were being facetious instead of ignorant ???

a lot of TV shows are filmed in Canada too... mainly in the Vancouver area....

and yeah Canada's weather is very diverse depending on where you live..

the average high temperature in Vancouver in the summer is around 70 degrees Fahrenheit and during the winter it is between 40 to 50 degrees...

http://www.gate1travel.com/north-america-travel/canada-weather.htm

Edited May 21, 2010 by Marilyn.