Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow3. Show whatnow3's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    I need to repeat this:

    How is Obama going to justify ignoring sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal laws, and go after States that want to enforce the laws.

    It makes ZERO sense, and I am shocked that more people aren't yelling and screaming from the tree tops. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    "I know a lawyer who agrees with me so clearly you're wrong"
    Posted by WhatIsItNow


    I know everything so clearly you're wrong!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    I need to repeat this: How is Obama going to justify ignoring sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal laws, and go after States that want to enforce the laws. It makes ZERO sense, and I am shocked that more people aren't yelling and screaming from the tree tops. 
    Posted by whatnow3


    If Reuben is right that could be one reason, "Sanctuary cities don't really amount to much as the authorities don't stop the Feds from doing their job."

    If you combine that with the Constitution's command that the federal government is Supreme in all powers appointed to it (immigration?), well, then you have a situation in which states cannot regulate immigration, and a federal decision not to go after something that isn't an actual problem.

    Of course....the courts are the ones that will determine whether or not AZ's law violates the Supremacy Clause.  And if you love the Constitution and love America, you'll be happy with that answer.

     (unless of course you think the courts can't interpret the constitutoin and it's really just your personal opinion of its meaning that counts: A non-lawyer knowing more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court.)





    But don't take it from him.  Use common sense.  If you have identified such a horrible non-sensical combination of positions by Obama, why haven't Republican politicians also identified it?  Maybe there's a reason they aren't yelling and screaming about it. After all, they yell and scream about everything else they seem to think is a problem or conspiracy to destroy America.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow3. Show whatnow3's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    States ARE REGULATING IMMIGRATION.  Whether they are allowing known illegals to remain in the country(sanctuary), or are actively trying to deport them.   

    They are doing it in RI and they have been doing it for years in other states.

    Many states have been trained to handle the issue.

    The argument is BS 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    States ARE REGULATING IMMIGRATION.  Whether they are allowing known illegals to remain in the country(sanctuary), or are actively trying to deport them.    They are doing it in RI and they have been doing it for years in other states. Many states have been trained to handle the issue. The argument is BS 
    Posted by whatnow3


    I'll just wait and see what the courts say about the suit's merits. Thank the lord that there is no chance of you ever ending up a judge.

    If you truly discovered some damning contradiction, Republican politicans would be raging about it.  They rage about BS all the time, so something real would set them through the roof.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Um yeah....that was kind of my point. Who isn't keeping up? See, you wrote: " In Arizona the police will be arresting illegals as trespassers and conducting searches to uncover that status." The law hasn't gone into effect yet and you're already assuming what will happen. Hence why I wrote what I wrote. Again, try to keep up.
    Posted by hawkeye01


    You try to keep up.  That is part of the new Arizona law: illegals violate state trespass law.  If they don't follow the law, what is the point of this discussion??
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsATravesty. Show ItsATravesty's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    Everything is politics. God forbid Obama not throw everything at the opportunity to defy the majority of the American public and the constitution while buying 14 million new Democratic party voters. All under the guise of intentionally NOT enforcing federal laws and protecting Americans on their homeland.
     
    He is such a dirty dawg. I retract that. He's the complete POS.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    Everything is politics. God forbid Obama not throw everything at the opportunity to defy the majority of the American public and the constitution while buying 14 million new Democratic party voters. All under the guise of intentionally NOT enforcing federal laws and protecting Americans on their homeland.   He is such a dirty dawg. I retract that. He's the complete POS.
    Posted by ItsATravesty


    Sound and fury....



     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow3. Show whatnow3's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    ahhh, good retort Whatisit.

    At least you acknowledge that there is a "damning contradiction"

    And yes, people are raging.

    Just as they are raging against the new law that allows blacks to commit voter intimidation.

    Or illegals are now allowed to rape 4 year olds, or, steal your stuff, and not be charged. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Wrong! In AZ it is a secondary offense. SAME as RI. In neither case can a law enforcement officer stop you for suspicion of being illegal. In BOTH cases while investigating a primary offense the officer CAN ascertain your legal status. When did speeding, traffic accidents, illegal U-Turn become federal laws? They are state laws (and many times local) and that is when RI police can request a license or ID. One question - What "other matters" can the RI police be investigating to ascertain your legal status? Trespassing? Speeding? Illegal U-Turn? Running a red light? Failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign? Stop me when i get to the Federal crimes and out of the state or local jurisdiction.
    Posted by brat13


    There is no such thing as "a secondary offense".  It is either part of the criminal law or not.  If it is criminal it can be investigated within the 4th Amendment.  A driver is pulled over and has no valid id.  That raises a suspicion of being an illegal trespasser.  The passengers are then asked for id. with the same result.  See a problem?  How about people on foot near the border?  Going to check their id.?  You betcha.  Why?  Because they are potential trespassers.  It is very different from Rhode Island where the information is not the focus.  With the trespass law it is the focus.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsATravesty. Show ItsATravesty's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Sound and fury....
    Posted by WhatIsItNow


    How not to debate or dispute.

    Visas?? .. we don need no stinking visas.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Reuben either A. Isn't really a lawyer or B. Is a Sotomayor type lawyer who believes "Social Justice" should trump civil and criminal justice and has been totally blinded by that ideology. I have friends who are lawyers and are "left" and none of them think the DoJ has a shot in a million in winning this case. They have actually read the AZ law and see nothing wrong with it legally. Their issues are more on the ideological "profiling" etc. side. They hate the law but admit it is Constitutionally legal.
    Posted by brat13


    Don't be insulting.  Who the heck are you to judge anyone?  Keep it civil.  Stick to the argument and avoid personal attacks.  Otherwise you will be dismissed as a right wing nut job and a jerk.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow3. Show whatnow3's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    Reuben, you are being disinegneous.

    You know the AZ law requires that the stop occur for some other law being broken.

    You can't stop someone on suspicion of being illegal.

    And a license is proof of citizenship.  So, when a police officer asks for license and registration, if you provide a license, no citizenship questions can be asked.

    And if a person is determined to be illegal, ICE is called.  They are not deprting these people on their own.

    Just like in RI. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tiresias. Show tiresias's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    "As long as this law doesn't say "the federal government CAN'T arrest and deport Arizona Illegal Immigrants" it is Constitutional." This is wildly wrong, Brat13.  Look up preemption / Supremacy in regards to federal law.

    "There's been no shortage of show-me-some-ID jokes around Arizona this week, but the association of police chiefs from around the state does have serious objections to SB1070, the controversial new state law that requires police to ask for papers from anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. The law's main champions certainly include some law-enforcement figures, like Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio and the bill's state senate sponsor, Russell Pearce, a former cop whose son (also a policeman) was once shot by an illegal immigrant. But the official opposition of the Chiefs of Police Association — on the grounds that the law amounts to an unfunded mandate, that it could hurt community relationships and that it distracts attention and resources from more serious criminality — shows that in Arizona, cops are just as divided about the law as everyone else."
    So I guess it's not bs when the Chiefs of Police Association is officially opposed to this law.  From a purely rational standpoint, you might consider that police don't want any kind of additional burden placed on them.  This law requires police to ask for papers from any suspected illegals.  I've read the law, I've heard the arguments.  This law unquestionably goes beyond federal law.  Your little description of SB1070, brat13, is completely not the issue here.  You can post your retraction about law enforcement being opposed to the law anytime now.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : How not to debate or dispute. Visas?? .. we don need no stinking visas.
    Posted by ItsATravesty


    Debate with you?  Unless a poster agrees with your rants, you say they are a hated liberal communist and insane.

    I can picture your mouth foaming:

    [QUOTE]Everything is politics. God forbid Obama not throw everything at the opportunity to defy the majority of the American public and the constitution while buying 14 million new Democratic party voters. All under the guise of intentionally NOT enforcing federal laws and protecting Americans on their homeland.
     
    He is such a dirty dawg. I retract that. He's the complete POS.

    Posted by ItsATravesty[/QUOTE]

    Yeah that's a debate.

    No point in trying.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Those lawyers are intellectually honest, at least. It is quite possible a liberal activist judge will find the Arizona law unconstitutional....because liberal judges use their raw judicial power for political ends...the substance doesnt matter, only the result matters.  
    Posted by BobinVa


    LOL.  Of course.  If a judge disagrees with you about what the Constitution means, that makes him a liberal and an activist. 


     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    Reuben, you are being disinegneous. You know the AZ law requires that the stop occur for some other law being broken. You can't stop someone on suspicion of being illegal. And a license is proof of citizenship.
    Posted by whatnow3


    Whatnow3, you are being disengeuous.

    Police officers already make up stories about "some other law being broken" or about "furtive gestures" to stop people whenever they have a hunce or just want to do a racially motivated patfrisk.

    They stopped thousands and thousands of people in NYC because they were making "furtive gestures".  Blacks stopped 9 times more than whites were.  Whites had a slightly higher percentage of firearms.

    The point here is that AZ police will stop minorities on suspicion of being illegal.  They'll just say it was because the person crossed a lane change, or made 'furtive gestures' (suspicion of gun or drug possession)....

    To believe anything else is disenguous at worst, and naive at best.  The real question that BDC posters torture themselves to avoid answering is:  Are you O.K. with racial profiling?









    All that said, there is no contradiction.  The Supremacy Clause say states have no business regulating in areas the Federal Government has occupied.  Question for the courts is the extent to which AZ's law intrudes. 

    Think it's a bit ridiculous to assert that it is so clearly Constitutoinal or so clearly not Constitutional until you have a lot of legal experience in the particular field.  I'm a lawyer, but I don't have that expertise and don't feel like doing hours and hours of research, so I'll just wait to see what the court says. 

    The administratoin might thing that AZ's law violates the Supremacy Clause, but that 'sanctuary' cities.  Or 'sanctuary cities' might not be interfering in any meaningful way.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow3. Show whatnow3's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    You don't base the validity of a law on the potential abuses.  Otherwise, no law would be passed.

    It is an invalid argument.  And there is a case already decided in court on that specific issue.   

    Reuben, can ya help a guy out? 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    Reuben, you are being disinegneous. You know the AZ law requires that the stop occur for some other law being broken. You can't stop someone on suspicion of being illegal. And a license is proof of citizenship.  So, when a police officer asks for license and registration, if you provide a license, no citizenship questions can be asked. And if a person is determined to be illegal, ICE is called.  They are not deprting these people on their own. Just like in RI. 
    Posted by whatnow3


    No I do not know that.  Do you have a section of the law that supports the view?
    All potential law breaking can be investigated under reasonable suspicion or probable cause reasons.  It would be odd indeed that they carved an exception for this particular law. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    You don't base the validity of a law on the potential abuses.  Otherwise, no law would be passed. It is an invalid argument.  And there is a case already decided in court on that specific issue.    Reuben, can ya help a guy out? 
    Posted by whatnow3


    Reading comprehension.

    The Supremacy Clause & the argument that the federal government has already 'entered the field' in regulating immigration is the argument why the State's law is unconstitutional.


    The fact that abuses will certainly happen to a greater extent than with respect to something like patfrisks for weapons is merely why I don't like it.  The other reason I don't like it is that it's stupid and wasteful, compared to what they could do by aiming at employers properly - something much more likely to be within the state's sphere of power.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flamo. Show Flamo's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : I don't have a problem with that: in Rhode Island they are investigating state crimes and when they come across an illegal they refer them to the Feds.  In Arizona the police will be arresting illegals as trespassers and conducting searches to uncover that status.  Those issues fall under Federal jurisdiction.  We cannot have 51 immigration policies.  It would be nice if all the states followed rhode Island, not Arizona.  It would also be nice for the Feds to step up their game considerably.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    Read the AZ law, they have to be detained for another reason.  Seeing as Holder wants to prosecue why did he drop the charges against the black panthers for a hate crime and voter intimidation?  That's on tape.  An easy win.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Read the AZ law, they have to be detained for another reason.  Seeing as Holder wants to prosecue why did he drop the charges against the black panthers for a hate crime and voter intimidation?  That's on tape.  An easy win.
    Posted by Flamo[/QUOTE]

    I have read the law.  The law says that illegals in Arizona are guilty of trespassing.   Officers can investigate this potential crime.  The law says they can make inquiry during any lawful stop.  That could be a stop where there is reasonable suspicion that you are involved with an illegal trespasser.   The Black Panther stuff is another issue for another day.  Stay on topic.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow3. Show whatnow3's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    Reuben and whoever else is still unaware of what the AZ law is about. . .


    Just read this.  You can even see the pdf of the law itself.  But this site breaks down the law very well.

    http://www.arizonaguide.com/arizona-travel-info/identification-requirements
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : There is no such thing as "a secondary offense".  It is either part of the criminal law or not.  If it is criminal it can be investigated within the 4th Amendment.  A driver is pulled over and has no valid id.  That raises a suspicion of being an illegal trespasser.  The passengers are then asked for id. with the same result.  See a problem?  How about people on foot near the border?  Going to check their id.?  You betcha.  Why?  Because they are potential trespassers.  It is very different from Rhode Island where the information is not the focus.  With the trespass law it is the focus.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]
    What was the Massachusetts seat belt law? It was a SECONDARY enforcement law that COULD NOT be used to stop a vehicle. Only after a vehicle was stopped for a primary infraction could the officer investigate the seatbelts. It is now a primary enforcement law which means you can be stopped for not wearing one.
    If a person is stopped in RI and doesn't have a valid license, the officer can and will ask the passenger if they have a valid license. Happens every day all over the country. They need to establish whether they would need to tow the vehicle or call a kin to gather the vehicle or have a passenger drive it away.
    As for the people on foot, in the AZ law an officer CANNOT stop anyone that is walking unless a provable crime was committed near by and they fit the description of the perpetrator. SAME AS IN MASSACHUSETTS TODAY (see Charles Stuart case)! It is called probable cause. If you are walking around in a state park you cannot be stopped because you look illegal. That is a liberal scare tactic and protected in the law.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Don't be insulting.  Who the heck are you to judge anyone?  Keep it civil.  Stick to the argument and avoid personal attacks.  Otherwise you will be dismissed as a right wing nut job and a jerk.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]
    You are right. I apologize. It was childish and uncalled for. I will remove the post.
     

Share