No ruling in hearing over Arizona immigration law

[Peikko 1,575]

Not really. This is a question of state's rights vs. federal absolutism. The progressive Obama administration is all about expanding federal government authority over states and individuals. If they are successful in asserting absolute authority in an area where they have made it clear they have no interest in carrying out their Constitutional duty to protect the borders of this country from invaders, defend our sovereignty and the value of our citizenship from usurpers, then the validity of this government comes into question. Their primary duty under the Constitution is to do what they say they hesitate to do, and their encouragement of a foreign nation to disparage Arizona, interfere with its law making, and bolster its lawbreakers is a treasonous act. Challenging their One World agenda is well worth the financial and social costs.

Oh dear, the VW train has left the tracks. Really VW, can you be any more hyperbolic? I can't take you seriously when you go off on one of your ideological rants.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Turn about is fair play.

True to her reputation, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton made attorneys sweat on both sides of the aisle in this morning's hearing on Senate Bill 1070, the state's new immigration law.

The topic was a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and several other civil-rights groups and individuals. Three requests from defendants seek to have the suit thrown out; one from the plaintiffs asks the judge for a preliminary injunction, blocking the law from taking effect.

Omar Jadwat, an attorney representing the ACLU, had just begun to say why he believed SB 1070 was unconstitutional and should be enjoined, when Bolton cut him off.

"I'm sorry to interrupt you after your second sentence," she said.

But she wanted to make it clear that SB 1070 was not a statute in itself, but rather an "enactment" by the Legislature that merged new laws with old laws and amended laws, all dealing with immigration.

"Shouldn't we be talking about it section by section and provision by provision?" she asked. "Because I'm not going to enjoin SB 1070." (Interesting, because enjoining the law is what she is being asked to do by its opponents.)

Then she steered the attorneys toward the new law's sticking points: the fuzzy language of when police may question suspects about immigration status, the ability to hold people indefinitely as their immigration status is verified, and whether or not the new laws about hiring or transporting illegal immigrants or carrying registration cards pre-empt federal law. (There is a separate lawsuit before the SCOTUS about this issue, based on a prior AZ law that has been upheld by lower courts).

She asked Jadwat why the state could not try to impose a standard enforcement of federal immigration and why citizens should not be allowed to sue if they feel the laws are not being enforced.

"Who am I to stop the state of Arizona?" she asked, if the state wanted to outlaw "sanctuary cities."

But she also held the state's lawyer, John Bouma, to the fire when he repeatedly was unable to answer questions about how the state law intermeshes with federal immigration law.

Twice she told Bouma that she was "mystified" by the law's wording and focused on a provision that allows law-enforcement officers to arrest people suspected of committing offenses that could have them removed from the country.

"How can a police officer make a determination that a person has committed a removable offense when that decision can only be made by a federal judge?" she asked.

And during a discussion of the strain that the law would put on federal immigration authorities, she evoked a wave of laughter after Bouma said that the law did not intend to "melt down ICE," the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

She paused a beat and asked, "Did you really just say 'melt down ICE'?"

Bolton did not rule from the bench after this morning's hearing.

In the afternoon hearing, Bolton was just as tough on the Department of Justice attorney, Edwin Kneedler, as he presented arguments as to whether the state law pre-empts federal law.

And when Bouma was about to begin his final argument, she said, "If you don't have anything new to say, I remember what you said this morning and last week."

At the end of the hearings, she took both matters under advisement with no suggestion as to when she would rule.

Oh dear, the VW train has left the tracks. Really VW, can you be any more hyperbolic? I can't take you seriously when you go off on one of your ideological rants.

I'll bet one of your ancestors said the same about George Washington when he proposed that the colonies revolt against the Crown.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Peikko 1,575]

Turn about is fair play.

I'll bet one of your ancestors said the same about George Washington when he proposed that the colonies revolt against the Crown.

How far off the rails are you going to run?

Here's a lesson for you, it has emerged in hindsight that McCarthy had a point in so far as there is evidence to suggest that there were ex soviets in places of importance in the US government (it is impossible to determine if they were in fact spies, or defectors but one can assume that a % were spies, it is reasonable to do so). However, MrCarthy derailed his own case by excessive hyperbole (partly because he was a drunk). No one could or would take his accusations seriously BECAUSE he did not limit his accusations to things that were reasonable and provable, but determined that everyone and everything was in league with the devil.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[justashooter 430]

face it sugar, you're on the losing team.

[TBoneTX 46,282]

can you be any more hyperbolic?

Hyperbole is the best thing EVER, si man!

[TBoneTX 46,282]

It took me half an hour to compose a huge post regarding how the 14th Amendment protects the people of Arizona as much as the 10th Amendment protects the State of Arizona, but Safari "couldn't connect with the server" and the dratted thing was lost. Note to Self: always "copy all" before trying to post, because then the contents can be pasted into a new message that might go through.

Nonetheless:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let's hear the pros & cons of how the 14th Amendment should or shouldn't or does or doesn't protect USCs or illegals vis-a-vis the Arizona law.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Let's hear the pros & cons of how the 14th Amendment should or shouldn't or does or doesn't protect USCs or illegals vis-a-vis the Arizona law.

the 14th was added to ensure the rights of slaves & their children. the slaves were brought here against their will. illegal immigrants were not brought here against their will, they come knowingly violating the laws of this country. so, they nor their children should not fit under the protection of the 14th amendment.

[HAL 9000 96]

the 14th was added to ensure the rights of slaves & their children. the slaves were brought here against their will. illegal immigrants were not brought here against their will, they come knowingly violating the laws of this country. so, they nor their children should not fit under the protection of the 14th amendment.

*devil's advocate*

Since most children go places not of their own initiative, children born in the US to illegal parents just as much as children born to slaves back in the 19th century, would be interpreted in the same way. Same thing for children brought over the border at an age they can't decide where to go or stay.

[SMOKE 1,426]

*devil's advocate*

Since most children go places not of their own initiative, children born in the US to illegal parents just as much as children born to slaves back in the 19th century, would be interpreted in the same way. Same thing for children brought over the border at an age they can't decide where to go or stay.

i misspoke. the childern of illegals born here should be covered by the amendment, unless the 14th its self is amended. as for children brought by their illegal immigrant parents. nope. that age could be argued all the way to 17 years old, at which age a person knows exactly what they are doing is illegal. the US gov't isn't responsible for their parents actions & they should not be covered by the 14th. if someone wants a villian to blame for this, its their parents.

[HAL 9000 96]

i misspoke. the childern of illegals born here should be covered by the amendment, unless the 14th its self is amended. as for children brought by their illegal immigrant parents. nope. that age could be argued all the way to 17 years old, at which age a person knows exactly what they are doing is illegal. the US gov't isn't responsible for their parents actions & they should not be covered by the 14th. if someone wants a villian to blame for this, its their parents.

Much better... any part of these 'protections' can be done away with or modified, as with any other 'protection' afforded to people within the geographical confines of the USA. Such is the way of law and code.

Way to show a more 'sensible' and pragmatic view there.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Much better... any part of these 'protections' can be done away with or modified, as with any other 'protection' afforded to people within the geographical confines of the USA. Such is the way of law and code.

Way to show a more 'sensible' and pragmatic view there.

ty.

there is also going to have to be some give & take on a 'pathway to legalization' too. the far left isn't getting blanket amnesty & the far right isn't getting blanket deportation.

after the border is sealed...we have to stop the flow first before anything can be done to legalize people. otherwise we're just treading water. they (washington D & R) need to agree on a # of years a person has been in the US, to be eligible for a pathway program...thats going need to be more than 5 years...personally 8 years sounds fair. how do you prove it???idk maybe rental agreements, utility bills, car/home loans..etc. if someone has been here 1/2 that # of years...ok 5 years miltary service..yes full retirement if they put in 20 years. the details can all be worked out later. both sides have to be willing to give a little & we have to be serious about enforcement. and the first step has to be sealing the borders.

[HAL 9000 96]

ty.

there is also going to have to be some give & take on a 'pathway to legalization' too. the far left isn't getting blanket amnesty & the far right isn't getting blanket deportation.

after the border is sealed...we have to stop the flow first before anything can be done to legalize people. otherwise we're just treading water. they (washington D & R) need to agree on a # of years a person has been in the US, to be eligible for a pathway program...thats going need to be more than 5 years...personally 8 years sounds fair. how do you prove it???idk maybe rental agreements, utility bills, car/home loans..etc. if someone has been here 1/2 that # of years...ok 5 years miltary service..yes full retirement if they put in 20 years. the details can all be worked out later. both sides have to be willing to give a little & we have to be serious about enforcement. and the first step has to be sealing the borders.

Its pretty simple stuff that gets polarized with those political labels.

Secure the border, duh.

Different grades of legalization for different kinds of illegals, duh.

International (e.g., México) cooperation program that stimulates local economies without corrupt local politicians and ruling classes, as well as proifiteering multinational US corporations from incorrectly profiting from the labor of likely illegal immigrants, duh.

If you 'look' at the 'far left' you'll unlikely see many calling for blanket amnesty. Don't let those on the 'far right' know you're looking because obviously, they'll try to generalize what's not there.

I like the idea of military service as a path to residence and citizenship, but only in certain MOS and Ratings. None have to be 'undignified' in any way. Same thing for national service. As I also believe national service can be used as temporary programs in lieu of unemployment benefits once a standard monetary benefit period has run out for those citizens unable to seek employment on their own.

Free of partisan hackery.

Edited July 26, 2010 by HAL 9000

[Peikko 1,575]

Good points - although I am a little unsure how one secures a border without the cost being prohibitive or the methods inhumane?

I am also not certain that all immigrant workers require citizenship - it seems to me that a lot of accommodating could come about with a more pragmatic approach to a guest worker program but it is complicated, of course.

[Craneman 2]

I don't understand the retardlicans outrage on this topic. It is quite clear, with regards to deporting people or expelling them from this nation, it is a federal matter. A state usurping this authority is assuming authority that is strictly reserved for the federal government. Whether or not you agree with the federal governments assertion of this authority is strictly superfluous. Stop the self-righteous indignation, it only makes you look ignorant.

Bank Robbery is Federal Crime, can not local police assist in arresting bank robbers?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The 14th Amendment doesn't requiring an amendment to exclude illegals since it never was intended to include them.

The longer someone has broken the law, the more eligible they are to be rewarded for it? What other crime can be rewarded for being committed for a long time?

When do we start bragging about how we are a country of illegal immigrants?