Arizona's immigration law isn't the only one

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The only thing you got is what your told!

No I have eyes to see. Ears to hear. And a mind to think for myself and not get bogged down in hype. This is America, you can think for yourself or let others do your thinking for you, which would appear to be your issue not mine.

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

California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to create a state-run citizenship screening system in order to prohibit illegal immigrants from using health care, public education, and other social services in the U.S. State of California. The proposed law was initially passed by the voters through referendum in November 1994 but later found unconstitutional by a federal court, with appeals against the judgment being halted by Governor Gray Davis in 1999.

......

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants and simultaneously struck down a municipal school district's attempt to charge illegal immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented student to compensate for the lost state funding^[1]. The Court found that where states limit the rights afforded to people (specifically children) based on their status as aliens, this limitation must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial goal of the State.

.........

There are plenty more examples of state laws that attempted to circumvent our beloved Constitution, but I'm sure that your friends at NumbersUSA and FAIR will continue to push forward legislation in various states to reach their objectives. Thank God somebody is standing up for our beloved Constitution.

[Darnell 8,478]

The real debate is whether AZ is in crisis, or typical and historical bigot/racist mode... The facts as they stand don't really add up to a 'crisis.'

historical bigot/racist mode ? really ? Hey - I'm trainable - can you elucidate on this? I'd like to be more informed - can you help?

[evli1966 88]

Yes I am home. Been to AZ many times, including recently, and went to Juarez as well, recently. If you don't understand my comment, then you don't really understand AZ's history. But feel free to buy all the hype, the facts don't really add up to the furor.

My statement has nothing to do with the Holocaust, nor was it in any way referencing 9/11 or the CIA. You need to get off the crack of Faux News...

Let me help you out.

BTW the halocaust and 9/11 reference was to your state of denial.

passing through and visiting gives someone such a great understanding of what the people living there go through daily.

anyhow as to me being a fox news watcher lets go a little deeper with your liberal news papers and tv news to help enlighten you to what you have been eveidently missing.

CNN

http://topics.cnn.com/topics/u_s_customs_and_border_protection

want even more liberal

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1842750

New York Times

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/mexico/drug_trafficking/index.html

LA Times

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/18/local/la-me-immigrant-kidnap-20100718

http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#/its-a-war

This is why the borderneeds to be closed and secured and I didnt even post the Illegal Alien news stories.

I will if you need me too but I think you know that there is eveidence and reason we are calling for an end to Anti-Illegal Immigration and for the securing of our borders.

[evli1966 88]

California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to create a state-run citizenship screening system in order to prohibit illegal immigrants from using health care, public education, and other social services in the U.S. State of California. The proposed law was initially passed by the voters through referendum in November 1994 but later found unconstitutional by a federal court, with appeals against the judgment being halted by Governor Gray Davis in 1999.

......

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants and simultaneously struck down a municipal school district's attempt to charge illegal immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented student to compensate for the lost state funding^[1]. The Court found that where states limit the rights afforded to people (specifically children) based on their status as aliens, this limitation must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial goal of the State.

.........

There are plenty more examples of state laws that attempted to circumvent our beloved Constitution, but I'm sure that your friends at NumbersUSA and FAIR will continue to push forward legislation in various states to reach their objectives. Thank God somebody is standing up for our beloved Constitution.

Who is in your corner that you think are helping you? The NAACP with the racist commenting/bigoted speaking organizations that are supported by them or the liberal politicians whos only agenda at this point is to find a vote among the masses that would allow them to remain in office?

Sure you posting factual challenges of laws that were passed to circumvent the federal laws that were in place. SB1070 does not do that and the DOJ knows this and so do you. POsting links like this helps does not help your case. The SB1070 law enables local Law enforment to assist federal governemt with the enforcement of the federal Law they are choosing not to enforce.

What you fail to understand or keep enying is that the court will have to look into how the federal govenement has failed to enforce the law and stated so by its own leaders. In dooing so the Federal Governement has failed to protect the states it is manadated to protect.

Also the Federal Law has set precedence already by training local law enforcement to act as the intiial contact of enforcing the federal law thereby setting precedence that local law enforcemebnt can and have been assisting with the enforcement of the Federal Law in some cases. SB1070 expands the local officials ability to help enforce the Federal Laws at the expense of the state

With Precedence set the SB1070 law \allows Law Enforcment to act in a manner which will help enforce the Federal Law that the Federal Governement has failed to do or stated it could not do; it does not hender the efforts of the federal government in the enforcment of these laws because they are not being enforced or at least failing in the enforcement as stated by the Fedral Leaders.

I am not an attorney or a legal aide or edumacated but I see the precedence and I have read enough supreme court cases to know that they will consider whether these precedneces were set which they have been and are documented along with the Federal leaders making comments such as the laws can not be enforced.

I know this is all BS from me but you know what at least I am not trying to pull out some supreme court case that has no bearing or precedence in this case; those laws which were defeated were laws created to actually undermine the federal law not assist it.

[sjr09 155]

This is why the DOJ's complaint against SB 1070 is weak, despite the assertions of Steven's "Constitutional scholars". The court will have cause to question not only the existing patchwork of contradictory state and federal laws, but the Feds intolerent dealing with one state in crisis while refusing to interfere with other jurisdictions that are openly hostile to federal immigration directives. The Feds do not have a slam dunk case by any measure, mostly due to their openly scornful biases.

Vitter and DeMint Attempt to Block Obama's Lawsuit against Arizona

http://www.visajourn...ost__p__4076801