Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law
- Thread starter Socrtease
- Start date
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Since when does the exclusion of two sections, which are more then likely going to be overturned, show that SB 1070 is not in force.
You truly have no idea what you've been attempting to discuss, do you??
W
WinterBorn
Guest
He is offended by Quick Draw McGraw. Actual debate gets difficult when Hanna-Barbera is the enemy.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
This is the second time that you've made this assertion.
Looks like it's time for you to either prove it, or look like an idiot.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
LIAR!!
In 11-1051(B) The phrase “lawful contact” has been changed to “lawful stop, detention or arrest” and it added that said “stop, detention, or arrest” must be “in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
And until it's proven and ruled that New Mexico is issuing Drivers Liscenses, in violation of Federal Laws, a New Mexico drivers liscence is considered a legal ID.
El Toro Bravo
Banned
When did I say I was offended?
You denied that was your intention at the time if you recall.
You also claimed to ('for giggles') have added a "G" to "El Cabon", whom you asserted was a cartoon character.
Are you less than honest?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
If I'm not mistaken, this is usually accomplished by more information.
Such as:
Approx. Height
Approx. Weight
Clothing
Facial hair, or lack of
Hair length
Distinquishing features
etc.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
bullshit. They use the racial designation. Then the police go searching for a hispanic.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Since when is a Drivers Liscense from another State, not considered a Legal ID??
How long have you been out of the family basement and been allowed to walk around in the real world??
El Toro Bravo
Banned
If enforcement of the portions of S.B. 1070 for which the Court finds a likelihood of preemption is not enjoined, the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm. This is so because the federal government’s ability to enforce its policies and achieve its objectives will be undermined by the state’s enforcement of statutes that interfere with federal law, even if the Court were to conclude that the state statutes have substantially the same goals as federal law. . . . The Court thus finds a likelihood of irreparable harm to the interests of the United States that warrants preliminary injunctive relief.”
. . .
“If Arizona were to enforce the portions of S.B. 1070 for which the Court has found a likelihood of preemption, such enforcement would likely burden legal resident aliens and interfere with federal policy. A preliminary injunction would allow the federal government to continue to pursue federal priorities, which is inherently in the public interest, until a final judgment is reached in this case.”
. . .
“The Court therefore finds that preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely preempted by federal law to be enforced.”
http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/OrderUSvsArizona.pdf
. . .
“If Arizona were to enforce the portions of S.B. 1070 for which the Court has found a likelihood of preemption, such enforcement would likely burden legal resident aliens and interfere with federal policy. A preliminary injunction would allow the federal government to continue to pursue federal priorities, which is inherently in the public interest, until a final judgment is reached in this case.”
. . .
“The Court therefore finds that preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely preempted by federal law to be enforced.”
http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/OrderUSvsArizona.pdf
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Section 11-1051:
This section is also amended to strike the word “solely” from where SB 1070 stated “A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION”
How many more times am I going to have to rub your nose in the BS you keep leaving on the floor?
El Toro Bravo
Banned
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an anti-immigrant group founded by John Tanton was responsible for drafting SB 1070 through their attorney, Kris Kobach.
FAIR is identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
FAIR harbors individuals with eugenicist beliefs.
FAIR is identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
FAIR harbors individuals with eugenicist beliefs.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
In 11-1051(B) The phrase “lawful contact” has been changed to “lawful stop, detention or arrest” and it added that said “stop, detention, or arrest” must be “in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”
Being questioned about witnessing a possible crime, has never been considered a lawful stop.
The rest of your diatribe is just fear mongering.
I provided proof as to why NM drivers licenses can be reasonably considered valid proof of lawful presence...meaning that you and your fear mongering talking points are wrong!!!
El Toro Bravo
Banned
Police never, ever consider race. color or national origin in the performance of their duties, do they?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
A drivers license from another State is and has always been an accepted form of ID in AZ.
El Toro Bravo
Banned
"The Court thus evaluates the constitutionality of the individual provisions
of S.B. 1070 challenged by the United States.
2. Section 2(B): A.R.S. § 11-1051(B)
Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 provides as follows: For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by [an Arizona] law enforcement official or . . . law enforcement agency . . . in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.
The United States argues that this section is preempted because it will result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens and will burden federal resources and impede federal enforcement and policy priorities.
of S.B. 1070 challenged by the United States.
2. Section 2(B): A.R.S. § 11-1051(B)
Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 provides as follows: For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by [an Arizona] law enforcement official or . . . law enforcement agency . . . in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.
The United States argues that this section is preempted because it will result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens and will burden federal resources and impede federal enforcement and policy priorities.
