Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 62

Thread: BREAKING Judge BLOCKS parts of Arizona immigration law

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    My Parents' Basement
    Posts
    14,097

    Default BREAKING Judge BLOCKS parts of Arizona immigration law

    By JACQUES BILLEAUD and AMANDA MYERS, Associated Press Writers Jacques Billeaud And Amanda Myers, Associated Press Writers 6 mins ago

    PHOENIX A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

    The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

    The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

    U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues.

    The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law at 12:01 a.m. Thursday and protesters were planning a large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them their immigration status.

    The volume of the protests will be likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.

    Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona the busiest illegal gateway into the country to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/...na_immigration



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    My Parents' Basement
    Posts
    14,097

    Default

    Bump to discuss

  4. #3

    Default

    They will never let this law embarass the Feds and Obama. Just as I expected.

  5. #4

    Default

    Arizona Moves to Abandon Police Protection of Federally Chartered Banks

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As it may be the job of the Federal government to provide police protection of Federally Chartered banking institutions, Arizona will not provide state resources in the protection of those facilities. Arizona does not have the budget means to provide protections after hours when those facilities are un-occupied.

    This is the current rumor in the blogosphere.
    Abolish the Privately Owned Federal Reserve Bank Corporation!
    How many more times are we going to let them screw up our economy?

  6. #5

    Default

    Ignore the judge then. the hell with this I am tired of it. n what grounds did he block ANYTHING?

  7. #6

    Default

    does federal law say that immigrants must carry papers?
    ‎"dancing... is a healthy exercise, elegant and very attractive..." ~ Thomas Jefferson, March 14, 1818

    They hate us for our policies, not our freedoms.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tropicangela View Post
    does federal law say that immigrants must carry papers?
    Of course not. It's selective obfuscation. I carry my "papers" with me everyday in my wallet. It's called a driver's license. Next time a cop asks me for my driver's license, I'm going to throw this judge's ruling at him.

  9. #8

    Default

    Well this is more fuel to the fire, things had died down a bit....I had detected a lull in the outrage level....not anymore.

    I predict the law will go into effect in the end. When dealing with cops in a law violation you must produce ID anyways, to not deal with illegal immigrants in these situations is absurd. America is reaching a boiling point.


    The amount on injustice is reaching a level I have never seen before. A ruling like this when the SC will not even lift a finger to protect our rights or deal honestly with the highest law of the land. It is a smack in the face and a outright outrage.

  10. #9
    Member MelissaWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Audient Void
    Posts
    15,159
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Of course not. It's selective obfuscation. I carry my "papers" with me everyday in my wallet. It's called a driver's license. Next time a cop asks me for my driver's license, I'm going to throw this judge's ruling at him.
    How about next time you go jogging or for a walk? Do you carry your ID on you for that? Not everyone does, and I'm a bit suspicious of people who'd like to make it arrestworthy to merely be out and about and not have one's ID on them.

    In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
    This should have been the only provision to hold up the works. The immigration checks during stops for other reasons is being blocked, but I don't understand why. They've already going to ask for your license, for instance, if they're pulling you over. It shouldn't be that big of a leap to expect someone driving to have some form of paperwork on them. Perhaps the worry was that most people would be let go with a "driving without a license" ticket, and those who looked "suspicious" of being illegals would be profiled and asked to prove their innocence? I can only speculate.

    I'm also not a fan of the ruling's wording.

    "There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."
    There is also a part of the article that seems to say that it would be just awful if the country had a "patchwork" of differing immigration laws. That sort of thing is entirely suspect. First of all, Nebraska's immigration policies will have far less impact on the country than Texas' or California's, obviously. Second, so what? The answer is that the Government wants it all neat and tidy and wants to keep control for a rainy day.
    May the wings of liberty never lose a feather.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tropicangela View Post
    does federal law say that immigrants must carry papers?
    Legal residents, yes. Citizens, no.

    I'd really like to see Brewer ignore the court.
    .[QUOTE]"Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won." - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead[/QUOTE]
    ..
    .

    I blog at Red State Eclectic, and I tweet here,.

  12. #11
    Member MelissaWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Audient Void
    Posts
    15,159
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Legal residents, yes. Citizens, no.
    Which is part of the problem here. Somehow, people are assuming only immigrants who would have papers on them will be asked for papers. In reality, a lot of 100% citizens, who have no real reason to carry "papers" at all times, fall under the category of "looking like an illegal." All assurances of profiling being prohibited aside, that seems like a really ugly path to go down, and a great excuse for police to arrest someone without a warrant (which also means they can search your person and immediate vicinity).
    May the wings of liberty never lose a feather.

  13. #12

    Default

    The administration is purposely trying to irritate Americans.

    It wants a violent response from people, when that happens there
    is your excuse for martial law.

    I would even say that the law in Arizona was passed just for this reason.

    IT ALL STINKS!
    GET OUT!
    Remember humans are people too.

  14. #13

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    Which is part of the problem here. Somehow, people are assuming only immigrants who would have papers on them will be asked for papers. In reality, a lot of 100% citizens, who have no real reason to carry "papers" at all times, fall under the category of "looking like an illegal." All assurances of profiling being prohibited aside, that seems like a really ugly path to go down, and a great excuse for police to arrest someone without a warrant (which also means they can search your person and immediate vicinity).
    This is ridiculous and I am sick of hearing it as an argument. A great injustice has occurred and we have people arguing for it. I cannot begin to express how completely ridiculous this sounds.

    In order to deal with illegal immigration you must have a means to determine legal status. Every time you post you give absolutely no solutions to how this might be accomplished. In fact with your ideas it is impossible to control immigration, secure the borders or even have a fighting chance of protecting ourselves from being devoured by a engorged welfare state.

    If the people of AZ want this law then it is THEY that are subject to it. I cease to see how it remains any of your business. It could be considered a inconvenience, but the people there are willing to accept it in order to deal with an illegal immigration problem.

    It is a state...you can move you can not stay...why is it I never here you so outraged over Mass Health Care plan? Where is the anger? Where is the outrage...people there are FORCED...to be a part of that plan to be regulated like cattle.

    And we get crickets from you. I don't care about Mass because I don't live there and if they want that sort of law then SO BE IT. At the very least people can choose not to live there.

    The game is obvious, to most. Demogauges see an illegals as a possible voting block, another way to manipulate a democracy(with totalitarian power) to oppress more people. Our government is actively wooing outside nationals to influence activities inside our country....and to prey on the rights of each and everyone of us.

  16. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    My Parents' Basement
    Posts
    14,097

    Default

    The judge is full of hyperbole in one regard

    Arizona like East Germany? The judge needs a history lesson

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    Which is part of the problem here. Somehow, people are assuming only immigrants who would have papers on them will be asked for papers. In reality, a lot of 100% citizens, who have no real reason to carry "papers" at all times, fall under the category of "looking like an illegal." All assurances of profiling being prohibited aside, that seems like a really ugly path to go down, and a great excuse for police to arrest someone without a warrant (which also means they can search your person and immediate vicinity).
    The law already exists - droves of people haven't been summarily rounded up because they were mistaken for illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants keep their papers on them religiously because they don't want to be deported. It's apparently not that hard for LE to figure out the differences.

    I'm not a big fan of prohibiting anything because something bad might happen. If the law progresses down that ugly path, then let the people sue.

    That's how the system is supposed to work.

    As it stands, a huge majority of the people who live in the state think the law is a good law. I'm perfectly willing to defer to them.
    Last edited by angelatc; 07-28-2010 at 12:26 PM.
    .[QUOTE]"Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won." - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead[/QUOTE]
    ..
    .

    I blog at Red State Eclectic, and I tweet here,.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbyw24 View Post
    The judge is full of hyperbole in one regard

    Arizona like East Germany? The judge needs a history lesson
    It's crazy to see the judge defending the feds. The very same Feds who have intentionally corrupted everything they have touched over the last 100 years.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    Which is part of the problem here. Somehow, people are assuming only immigrants who would have papers on them will be asked for papers. In reality, a lot of 100% citizens, who have no real reason to carry "papers" at all times, fall under the category of "looking like an illegal." All assurances of profiling being prohibited aside, that seems like a really ugly path to go down, and a great excuse for police to arrest someone without a warrant (which also means they can search your person and immediate vicinity).
    And, i believe, in some places that's enough for them to add your DNA to the 'bad people' database.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    It's crazy to see the judge defending the feds. The very same Feds who have intentionally corrupted everything they have touched over the last 100 years.
    I don't think he's saying that it's a defense of the Feds as it is a joint attack against a bad law.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbyw24 View Post
    The judge is full of hyperbole in one regard

    Arizona like East Germany? The judge needs a history lesson
    And he is totally at odds with Ron Paul. I cannot abide by anyone saying we have no right to protect our borders. It's akin to saying we have right to protect our country. I am truly disgusted by what has occurred.

    A ID check is ROUTINE with police interaction. To merely take the next step to determine legal status makes complete sense....it is something I ASSUMED was already happening.

    When I heard about the law, after reading it and getting the truth about it, I was like well this explains why illegal immigration is such a problem. No means to enforce the law. And the mere passage of the law was enough to encourage illegals to leave... beautiful.

    In any case this is not the last of this. We have seen on the tip of the iceberg.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    It's crazy to see the judge defending the feds. The very same Feds who have intentionally corrupted everything they have touched over the last 100 years.
    The fact that we can disagree with some of our leaders on certain issues is what distinguishes us from a cult.

    I love the judge, but I think he's wrong about this.
    .[QUOTE]"Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won." - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead[/QUOTE]
    ..
    .

    I blog at Red State Eclectic, and I tweet here,.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    The fact that we can disagree with some of our leaders on certain issues is what distinguishes us from a cult.

    I love the judge, but I think he's wrong about this.
    Because he solely views it through the prism of the individual who is likely to be asked for a driver's license. If there was a few thousand migrant workers working and moving between the border in a relatively quiet fashion, this entire issue would be backpage news. Instead we have millions of Mexicans and OTMs moving northward thanks to the economic dislocation occuring in their dysfunctional home countries.
    Last edited by AuH20; 07-28-2010 at 12:38 PM.

  24. #23

    Default

    Any suggestions on how this law could be tweaked to avoid this kind of disagreement while enforcing it? I don't understand the whole idea completely, but I have been concerned about people having to carry papers because of this law.

    I heard that illegal criminals are often let go because of restrictions on holding times.
    ‎"dancing... is a healthy exercise, elegant and very attractive..." ~ Thomas Jefferson, March 14, 1818

    They hate us for our policies, not our freedoms.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    The fact that we can disagree with some of our leaders on certain issues is what distinguishes us from a cult.

    I love the judge, but I think he's wrong about this.
    He is dead wrong. Because you must consider what is happening and what is being done. The people are FORCED to pay the burden of having just anyone come in and use the system...and system people don't want to be a part of.

    Add to this statists have undermined our constitution to such a point where it offers no protection the Supreme Court does no justice to the law of the land. That means we are in the grips of a totalitarian demogauge democracy. The only thing missing from the mix of tyranny and corruption is buying illegals votes by promising even more of the peoples labor and lives in the form of taxation and forced programs.

    Add to this in order to protect borders you must have enforcement on immigration. Without it you have defacto NO BORDERS, and it's a free for all on the pockets of honest men and women who are threatened with physical violence constantly if they do not surrender part of their labor to a government...one that uses it to buy more votes...and get more power.

    This is the problem. Restore the Constitution..PROTECT the rights of the people before opening up the borders. The whole idea of borders and the ideas of a country is to protect the people and their property. We have a government that is preying on the people. Illegal immigration, withing the framework of a corrupt democracy, is another tool to oppress the people.

  26. #25
    Member MelissaWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Audient Void
    Posts
    15,159
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stary Hickory View Post
    This is ridiculous and I am sick of hearing it as an argument. A great injustice has occurred and we have people arguing for it. I cannot begin to express how completely ridiculous this sounds.

    In order to deal with illegal immigration you must have a means to determine legal status. Every time you post you give absolutely no solutions to how this might be accomplished. In fact with your ideas it is impossible to control immigration, secure the borders or even have a fighting chance of protecting ourselves from being devoured by a engorged welfare state.

    If the people of AZ want this law then it is THEY that are subject to it. I cease to see how it remains any of your business. It could be considered a inconvenience, but the people there are willing to accept it in order to deal with an illegal immigration problem.

    It is a state...you can move you can not stay...why is it I never here you so outraged over Mass Health Care plan? Where is the anger? Where is the outrage...people there are FORCED...to be a part of that plan to be regulated like cattle.

    And we get crickets from you. I don't care about Mass because I don't live there and if they want that sort of law then SO BE IT. At the very least people can choose not to live there.

    The game is obvious, to most. Demogauges see an illegals as a possible voting block, another way to manipulate a democracy(with totalitarian power) to oppress more people. Our government is actively wooing outside nationals to influence activities inside our country....and to prey on the rights of each and everyone of us.
    Then you are not the least bit familiar with anything I've ever said on the subject. Congratulations for making yourself look absolutely foolish.

    I did speak about the Massachusetts healthcare problem, by the way. I can see how you wouldn't remember; you weren't on the boards at the time. I talked about it in particular with those who were saying Romney wasn't a bad guy. There's a problem with utterly ignoring these ideas as they spring up at the state level, which is that they have a way of making themselves known at the national level soon enough. At that point, it will be everyone's problem... though of course we're all free to move.

    You don't have to determine the legal status of every single person you see. To think this is to be absolutely ridiculous to the point that logical discussion is not possible. You can determine the legal status of those you actually pull over for a traffic stop, seeing as you're already asking for identification as part of that person's contract with the Government to use its roads. Since we have licenses, that's only fair and obvious. Someone without a license is already breaking the law, and needs to go out of their way to prove they have one but it's not on them, or face escalating consequences. No one in their right mind has much of a problem with this, other than the potential for profiling, but even that is after a violation has happened.

    I have posted the law over and over, and no longer have any desire to do so. You've read it, and told me it says something utterly different than the words actually state. There are probably a half dozen people or so on the boards who continue to insist that the law does not provide a means to arrest, without warrant, those suspected of being illegal. It does. It does not say "those suspected of being illegal while conducting a motor vehicle" or any other such thing. All that's necessary is behavior that makes an officer suspicious. That behavior has not been defined, which leaves it open to abuse and interpretation.

    I have also posted solutions to the actual problems people talk about. Welfare should, as it's still going to exist, be restricted to citizens. All citizens have paperwork that makes them such. This is either in the form of a birth certificate (easy to verify) or legal immigration paperwork (also very easy to verify). Verify citizenship before providing someone with foodstamps, or public schooling, or healthcare, or whatever else a citizen is illegible for, and a great deal of the incentive and sustenance goes away. Hiring illegals should be looked down upon, and companies should be able to be certified in some way that lets people know they hire "Citizens Only" in the same way that people used to look for the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to know a product was worthwhile. Criminals should be dealt with, which goes without saying.

    All of that can be done without stopping someone who "looks like an illegal" and placing them under arrest for not having their ID on them, which no matter how you want to squirm is allowable under the current incarnation of the law.

    The Constitutionality of Massachusetts' healthcare program should have been challenged before we got stuck with ObamaCare, which is already causing problems and it's not even fully in place. The Constitutionality of asking people for their papers based purely on, for example, the fact they're hanging out near a Home Depot or speaking Spanish, should also be challenged. I'd actually have much preferred that the law had gone into effect, and that the challenges were based on actual cases rather than hypotheticals. Right now, this review basically is the legal equivalent of arresting someone for a thought crime. It would have been more useful to all involved if someone actually HAD been arrested under that clause, which would have exposed more directly the problem the law poses. Instead, this is just worrying a wound that was already tended to for the moment.
    May the wings of liberty never lose a feather.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stary Hickory View Post
    If the people of AZ want this law then it is THEY that are subject to it.
    Well if you're white then you're probably not really subject to the law... or it wouldn't be an issue, because white people don't look like illegals.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Well if you're white then you're probably not really subject to the law... or it wouldn't be an issue, because white people don't look like illegals.
    Illegallity is irrespective of color. Not the other way around.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stary Hickory View Post
    In order to deal with illegal immigration you must have a means to determine legal status.
    Your entire post is bunk until you prove that any of them are here "illegally."

  30. #29
    Member MelissaWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Audient Void
    Posts
    15,159
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    The law already exists - droves of people haven't been summarily rounded up because they were mistaken for illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants keep their papers on them religiously because they don't want to be deported. It's apparently not that hard for LE to figure out the differences.
    ....
    Please show me which law "already exists" which allows for warrantless arrests of people based on suspicion of removable acts. I haven't had much luck finding it. When told that the law has "been on the books for decades" by other posters, I also become confused considering this one mentions eVerify, which obviously has not been around for decades.

    This is not precisely the same law that's been around. It has many perfectly reasonable clauses which are versions of what's been around. It also has one glaringly stupid clause that no one sees fit to correct. When those involved are busying themselves fixing every OTHER clause, and ignoring that one, it makes me wonder about it.
    May the wings of liberty never lose a feather.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Illegallity is irrespective of color. Not the other way around.
    Is violation of an unconstitutional federal statute a criminal act?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •