Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law

eixid said:
There is a game called "Border Patrol" on the Interwebs that some of you may enjoy playing.

It is a first-person shooting game, and the "American" is stationed at the Mexican border next to a sign that reads "Welcome to America, welfare office that way".

The objective is to shoot as many Hispanics as possible while they attempt to cross the border.

Targets include "breeders" (pregnant Latina women with small children).

The more you shoot, the higher your score.
Click to expand...

And this means.................................what??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
When did asking a question, become a reaction?
Using your standards; why did you have such a reaction to my question??
Click to expand...

Since I suspect, although you won't admit it, and it's pure speculation on my part - that you endorse this game and the underlying sentiments it exacerbates, namely acting out violence against illegal immigrants.

Surprise me and admit it.
 
eixid said:
Since I suspect, although you won't admit it, and it's pure speculation on my part - that you endorse this game and the underlying sentiments it exacerbates, namely acting out violence against illegal immigrants.

Surprise me and admit it.
Click to expand...

Why would I admit to something that I don't agree with, unless you're just trying to see who and how many others you can get to try and discuss something with you; instead of just ignoring you.

I suspect, although you won't admit it, and it's pure speculation on my part - that you're a pedophile and you support child porn.
Surprise everyone and admit it!
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Why would I admit to something that I don't agree with, unless you're just trying to see who and how many others you can get to try and discuss something with you; instead of just ignoring you.

I suspect, although you won't admit it, and it's pure speculation on my part - that you're a pedophile and you support child porn.
Surprise everyone and admit it!
Click to expand...

ask him why he beats his male lover
 
Yes, you are always right Legion. You are never wrong, ever. You are the greatestest. No one can come close to your great intellect. Why do you even bother with the dumb proles here?
 
Yurt said:
the law will stand
Click to expand...

i do not think that scotus will reverse the rulling - it is the province of the feds

once more i ask how much the nation is willing to pay to stop illegal immigration - the bill would be very high

still it would be nice to actually control our borders - it would be nice if for no other reason to keep out terrorists - but how do we stop the home grown terrorists
 
DonQuixote said:
i do not think that scotus will reverse the rulling - it is the province of the feds

once more i ask how much the nation is willing to pay to stop illegal immigration - the bill would be very high

still it would be nice to actually control our borders - it would be nice if for no other reason to keep out terrorists - but how do we stop the home grown terrorists
Click to expand...

And as I have said before; If the court rules that this is solely the domain of the Feds, then all the States can ban together and demand that the Feds pay up for their failure to hold up their end of the bargain (so to speak).

Win-win situation for the States.
 
DonQuixote said:
i do not think that scotus will reverse the rulling - it is the province of the feds

once more i ask how much the nation is willing to pay to stop illegal immigration - the bill would be very high

still it would be nice to actually control our borders - it would be nice if for no other reason to keep out terrorists - but how do we stop the home grown terrorists
Click to expand...

Although there is quite a bit of debate with respect to state and local law enforcement officers’
authority to enforce immigration law (see discussion below), as a matter of practice, it is
permissible for state and local law enforcement officers to inquire into the status of an immigrant
during the course of their normal duties in enforcing state and local law. This practice allows state
and local law enforcement officers to play an indirect role that is incidental to their general
criminal enforcement authority.
For example, when state or local officers question the immigration status of someone they have
detained for a state or local violation, they may contact an ICE agent at the Law Enforcement
Support Center (LESC).5 The federal agent may then place a detainer on the suspect, requesting
the state official to keep the suspect in custody until a determination can be made as to the
suspect’s immigration status. However, the continued detention of such a suspect beyond the
needs of local law enforcement designed to aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws
may be unlawful.6
Click to expand...

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32270.pdf


The general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948); United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948). Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized. Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963). Therefore, federal regulation of a particular field should not be presumed to preempt state enforcement activity "in the absence of persuasive reasons--either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained." De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356, 96 S.Ct. 933, 936, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 (1976) (quoting Florida Avocado Growers, 373 U.S. at 142, 83 S.Ct. at 1217).
14
Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens. De Canas, 424 U.S. at 354-55, 96 S.Ct. at 935-36. The plaintiffs' reference to exclusive federal authority over immigration matters thus does not resolve this question. Instead, we must define precisely the challenged state enforcement activity to determine if "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion."
Click to expand...

The Immigration and Naturalization Act was considered by the second session of the 82nd Congress. The version of section 1324 passed by the House made no reference to arrest authority. Id., 81 Cal.App.3d at 1006, 147 Cal.Rptr. at 198. The version of section 1324 passed by the Senate authorized enforcement by "all other officers of the United States whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws." Conf.Rep. No. 1505, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1952 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1358, 1360, 1361. As the Barajas court concluded, the clear implication of that version of the statute was that the enforcement of section 1324 was limited, but that of sections 1325 and 1326 was not. As a compromise, however, the conferees agreed to adopt an amendment to section 1324(c) proposed by the House. According to the Conference Report, the amendment "struck out the words 'of the United States,' so that other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws would have authority to make an arrest for a violation of a provision of the act." Id. The amendment thus removed the limitations on enforcement authority in section 1324(c). This expansion of authority cannot be read as an implied limitation of sections 1325 and 1326. Instead, it implicitly made the enforcement authority as to all three statutes identical.
23
We therefore hold that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the Act.
Click to expand...


722 F. 2d 468 - Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983)
 
Chapdog said:
if i was Arizona i would give a big middle finger to the federal judges block and go ahead with the new law. state rights should rule.
Click to expand...
And were I the federal judge I would then hold a contempt hearing for the governor of the state, have federal marshal's go arrest and if the governor did not issue an order in compliance with my initial order I would throw her ass in Jail until she did. Federal courts have the right to review state laws for their compliance with the Federal Constitution and to insure they do not interfere with existing federal law.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And as I have said before; If the court rules that this is solely the domain of the Feds, then all the States can ban together and demand that the Feds pay up for their failure to hold up their end of the bargain (so to speak).

Win-win situation for the States.
Click to expand...

I would love to see a negligence suit filed against the Feds. If it succeeded, it would open the door for all sorts of suits, as it would set a precedent!! :cof1:
 
Threedee said:
I would love to see a negligence suit filed against the Feds. If it succeeded, it would open the door for all sorts of suits, as it would set a precedent!! :cof1:
Click to expand...

This is why I said what I did, when it was announced that the Feds had filed a suit against AZ for SB1070.

If the court rules for AZ, then the Feds lose and the States win.
If the court rules against AZ, then the Feds lose and the States win.
 
Socrtease said:
And were I the federal judge I would then hold a contempt hearing for the governor of the state, have federal marshal's go arrest and if the governor did not issue an order in compliance with my initial order I would throw her ass in Jail until she did. Federal courts have the right to review state laws for their compliance with the Federal Constitution and to insure they do not interfere with existing federal law.
Click to expand...

This has the ring of truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top