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 JaySev2010. Show JaySev2010'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???:
    It's official.. Obama is a lying socialist US citizen. Seems the Left Wing Loonies bring up his citizenship the most. More obfuscation. Anything is better than the Messiahs current state of affairs (apologies to Al Gore).
    Posted by ItsATravesty


    Spend some time in socialist country, then get back to us on Obama. The guy isn't a socialist. He is barely even a democrat at this point.
     
  2. 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???

    After reviewing the constitution and the AZ law.. Are 9 states stupid enough to jump into a losing fray?? NOT !! 

    DETROIT -- States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.

    Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

    The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the U.S. illegally.

    President Barack Obama's administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law's backers say Congress isn't doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it's the state's duty to step up.

    "Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders," Cox said in a statement.

    Fair enforcement of immigration laws

    Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox's office, said she was thankful for the support.

    In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents "a lot of states," considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.

     
  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???:
    After reviewing the constitution and the AZ law.. Are 9 states stupid enough to jump into a losing fray?? NOT !!  DETROIT -- States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law. Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands. The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the U.S. illegally. President Barack Obama's administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law's backers say Congress isn't doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it's the state's duty to step up. "Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders," Cox said in a statement. Fair enforcement of immigration laws Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox's office, said she was thankful for the support. In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents "a lot of states," considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.
    Posted by ItsATravesty


    Calm down and let the adults handle it.  The courts will decide whether or not it violates the federal constitution, and will explain the decision in a series of opinions (district court, appeals court...maybe USSC if they care enough).

    Fortunately, we don't decide matters of constitutional law in the way you picked this year's prom king :)
     
  4. 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??? : Calm down and let the adults handle it.  The courts will decide whether or not it violates the federal constitution, and will explain the decision in a series of opinions (district court, appeals court...maybe USSC if they care enough). Fortunately, we don't decide matters of constitutional law in the way you picked this year's prom king :)
    Posted by WhatIsItNow

    It's prom QUEEN (which was you)

    You ignored the post (sighhh again).
    Would 9 stated jump in and spend oodles of short money if they thought there was ANY chance Obamas farce law suit had a chance?
    Writings on the wall pup. Others will follow.
    Obama only want's to drag it out and cause pain. That's his way. 
    Kumbaya my azz.  
     
  5. 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???

    Maybe July 29th will be like a 2nd independence day.
     
  6. 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???:
    It's prom QUEEN (which was you)
    Posted by ItsATravesty


    Like I said, let the adults handle it...
     
  7. 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 ignore facts.  The AZ ploice will be handing the illegals over to ICE.  They are not going to start deporting.  And they asked for training from the Feds and Obama refused. And if you are a citizen, you can prove it without any ID.  A social, proof of residency etc. A police officer is trained to figure that stuff out. And if you are not a citizen, you should be carrying your docs, IT IS THE LAW. And if you are citizen, and are driving when you are pulled over you have to have a license.  And I have been asked to show ID when I have not been driving.  You know what I did, I gave the cop my ID.  I had nothing to hide.  I am sure if it was you, you would take a stand and cause problems.  But the vast majority like to cooperate with cops because they are the good guys in most cases.  You are talking about a very small majority of citizens who walk around without ID.  Is asking for an ID to get liquor a violation of our laws? You can't get it without showing ID. Give it up.  Your arguments are just not valid, let alone your soap box rants about bad cops. 
    Posted by whatnow3


    Why do you continue to ignore the fact that you can go to jail in Arizona for being an illegal based on that state's trespass statute?  That is a huge change in the legal dynamic.   And you continue to ignore that people will get held because they are suspected illegals until they can prove their innocence.  There are lots of stops of people when they are not driving cars.  I hope it happens to you so you can feel the pain of an unjust law.
     
  8. 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, that happens today in Massachusetts! Police have every right to stop a US Citizen and hold them until certain facts are established to exonerate that citizen. If you are walking in an area where a bank was robbed and you fit the description of the robber you WILL be stopped and held. Asked for ID and required to produce it. 100% legal!
    Posted by brat13


    On the facts you describe, you are wrong. You can detain briefly to inquire about the person's situation.  You can do a pat down if there is a belief he is armed.  The identification has nothing to do with the case until there are facts that connect a potential identity to the crime.  You need probable cause to make that search and on these facts you don't have them.  But what do I know, I was just a criminal defense attorney for 15 years...
     
  9. 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???:
    brat13- I have learned that Reuben believes what he believes and facts about the law won't persuade him.  Odd considering he is a lwayer.
    Posted by whatnow3


    If you used actual facts that would be a different matter.  But you consistently ignore relevant facts so as to make your argument.  But you are not a lawyer, so you are forgiven. 
     
  10. 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??? : Uhm, the Arizona law is LAW, and YOU think it is wrong.  Hello!
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    Sigh.  Blind yourself to nuance, and it's easy to find contradiction.

    Brat made a false claim about the law, and ended up defending it by saying the Supreme Court was simply "wrong".



    Completely different than me saying I don't like the AZ law because it will be enforced unreasonably and unfairly against anyone who happens to look Mexican.  Yes, if the're legal, they will eventually be let go.  But a lot will end up getting harassed on the street, wrongly arrested, or even spend the night in lockup with real bad guys (have you seen a lockup, btw?)....and that's bad.

    And we know that there will be improper stops and racial profiling.  All you have to do is look how cops treat content-neutral crimes.  i.e., the NYT article I've been referring to left and right...minorities stopped 9 times more often than whites on suspicion of gun possession, but whites had slightly greater percentage of guns.




    Also completely different from other people saying the AZ law violates the Supremacy Clause because the federal government has already occupied the field of immigration enforcement.



    But go ahead, boil it all down to the word "wrong" so you can conjur inconsistency...
     
  11. 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??? : Correct and it has been stretched to include illegal immigrants over the years. The issue is there was really no definition of illegal immigrant at that time. Mr. Ark's parents had a legal domicile in California. SCOTUS ruled that in law a domicile is a permanent residency in a particular jurisdiction and the Ark's were legal immigrants and their children were therefore legal. Illegal immigrants can't have domiciles in the US since they are trespassing. SCOTUS was wrong and it was proven when the Ark's returned to their native China. They never intended to have a permanent residency in the US. The funny thing is prior to the ARK case, SCOTUS ruled birthplace was not sufficient for right to citizenship. The majority threw away case law in the Ark case and changed the definition. Since then, SCOTUS refuses to acknowledge the wrong decision and hides behind their case law BS.
    Posted by brat13


    Well it would be interesting if it comes to court.  Of course, there is no mention of "domicile" in the Amendment, just birth.  I am not sure the Court has changed its view:the other relevant case was about Indians and they were not citizens until 1924. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

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

    The states do not defend the borders of this country. The regulation of the borders is explicitly a federal job. The pre-emption clause has been used many times against states that try to beat the feds. The states ALWAYS LOSE.
     The AZ law is stupid because it assumes the care and feeding of detainees to be AZ taxpayers problem. The fed is sueing in part not to pay the bill for housing folk who work hard but have overstayed a visa or other issue. So you need to understand that just because AZ taxpayers want to lock up anyone not carrying a passport or drivers license, they can pay for the consequence. But the one thing that AZ is forbidden to do is remove them from the US.
     Fiscally it is a stupid bill, legally not defensible.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

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

    The states do not defend the borders of this country. The regulation of the borders is explicitly a federal job. The pre-emption clause has been used many times against states that try to beat the feds. The states ALWAYS LOSE.
     The AZ law is stupid because it assumes the care and feeding of detainees to be AZ taxpayers problem. The fed is sueing in part not to pay the bill for housing folk who work hard but have overstayed a visa or other issue. So you need to understand that just because AZ taxpayers want to lock up anyone not carrying a passport or drivers license, they can pay for the consequence. But the one thing that AZ is forbidden to do is remove them from the US.
     Fiscally it is a stupid bill, legally not defensible.
     
  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???

    Brat13, you haven't explained how this statement is accurate:

    "It was decided many times by the SCOTUS that a baby born in the US to a non-citizen is NOT a citizen of the US. They are a citizen of the country the parents are citizens of."

    That has never been proven by SCOTUS no matter how much you wish it had.  The 14th Amendment is quite clear.  Your interpretation of the subject is that the SCOTUS was wrong then and has always been wrong.  You also think the 14th Amendment doesn't include the children of non-citizens for some reason.  The Constitution had natural-born citizen based on english common law which held the principle of jus soli granting citizenship.

    "At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, [...] .
    The Constitution having recognized that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United State..."


    Like I said, you're going to have to post those SCOTUS decisions that held that babies born in the US to non-citizens are not granted US citizenship.  Your case seems to be based on your disagreement with the 14th Amendment and your own interpretation of two SCOTUS rulings that in fact have established birth in the US conferring citizenship.

    You think you're schooling me, but you just sound like a wacko because you're ignoring the 14th amendment and you have your own interpretation of SCOTUS precedent.  There haven't been any serious challenges to jus soli heard by the SCOTUS.  Sponsors of legislation to reinterpret the 14th amendment have gone nowhere.  I don't think any serious person believes babies born in the US to illegal aliens are not automatically US citizens.

    When you or anybody else successfully argues in the SCOTUS against this principle, then we can have this conversation.  Glad to hear you're not a birther.

    Btw your education of me consists of you telling me how previous SCOTUS decisions were wrong and what the 14th Amendment really means.  Have you enrolled at Beck U?
     

Share