Obama administration to sue Arizona.

[drkitten]

Because I believe what a clear majority of Americans believe?

No, in this case, because you think that whether or not "a clear majority of Americans" agree with something is in any way relevant to whether or not it's legal.

 

[BeAChooser]

You think a majority can't be stupid?

So you think the majority is stupid in this case? Just because they want Federal law enforced? How far does that theory extend?

 

[The Painter]

You think a majority can't be stupid? That's the whole reason politics works.

Of course they can. That's how Obama got elected.

 

[BeAChooser]

No, in this case, because you think that whether or not "a clear majority of Americans" agree with something is in any way relevant to whether or not it's legal.

LOL! Does the fact that the Arizona law is IDENTICAL to Federal law mean anything to you regarding legality?

 

[drkitten]

LOL! Does the fact that the Arizona law is IDENTICAL to Federal law mean anything to you regarding legality?

Not really. There's this little thing called a "Constitution," you see, and it outlines some things that would be legal if done by the Fed but would be illegal if done by a state. And vice versa, of course.

For example, if Arizona were to declare war on Mexico, that would be illegal. Or if Arizona were to coin its own money.

And, oddly enough, immigration policy is one of the powers reserved exclusively for the Federal government.

So, no, that particular "fact" is irrelevant in this instance, because Arizona doesn't have the authority to set immigration policy,.... even to set it to be identical to what you think Federal immigration policy is.

And now you see part of why I consider you Stuck on Stupid. Because you can't get basic facts like federal supremacy correct.....

 

[Piscivore]

So you think the majority is stupid in this case? Just because they want Federal law enforced? How far does that theory extend?

I think the majority of humans are stupid in most cases, partisan politics being the loudest and most obvious symptom of it.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Does the fact that the Arizona law is IDENTICAL to Federal law mean anything to you regarding legality?

Not really.

immigration policy is one of the powers reserved exclusively for the Federal government.

LOL! You don't know what you're talking about.

This has nothing to do with immigration "policy" … which pertains to who is legal and who is not. Arizona isn't saying who can legally come into America. That power is reserved to the Federal government. They are simply going to enforce the same rules established by Federal law regarding illegal immigrants. The Arizona law is no more and no less stringent than the one of the Federal books. And such laws are allowed to the states. That has been established by numerous precedents.

For example,

http://web.mac.com/waltermoore/Walt...lice_Can_Enforce_Federal_Immigration_Law.html

In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- you read that right, the Ninth Circuit -- concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “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.”* Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.

In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”

Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’* On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.

In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United* States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage."

In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, 1 Fed. Appx. 827, that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."

in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.

In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.

There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent Arizona from doing this. As you'll soon find out if (and that's a big if) the Obama administration actually does sue Arizona over this. You simply don't know what you are talking about (which isn't unusual).

By the way, the fact that the Obama administration knows all the above is why they haven't already filed suit against Arizona. Which is why this latest slip by Hillary is probably nothing more than more empty rhetoric designed to keep the more radical portion of their Hispanic base happy … at least until after the November elections. They must figure they can fool them that long at least, and then hope they'll forget by the next election … as democrats often do.

 

[rwguinn]

Not really. There's this little thing called a "Constitution," you see, and it outlines some things that would be legal if done by the Fed but would be illegal if done by a state. And vice versa, of course.

For example, if Arizona were to declare war on Mexico, that would be illegal. Or if Arizona were to coin its own money.

And, oddly enough, immigration policy is one of the powers reserved exclusively for the Federal government.

So, no, that particular "fact" is irrelevant in this instance, because Arizona doesn't have the authority to set immigration policy,.... even to set it to be identical to what you think Federal immigration policy is.

And now you see part of why I consider you Stuck on Stupid. Because you can't get basic facts like federal supremacy correct.....

None of which is relevant, since Arizona didn't do anything but require Enforcement of Existing Federal Law.

Not withstanding, your assessment of BAC's ilk is, IMO, correct.

 

[Piscivore]

Of course they can. That's how Obama got elected.

And Bush, and Nixon, and Reagan, and Carter, and Arthur, and Grant... etc.

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC's ilk

LOL!

And what would be your "ilk"? Out of curiosity.

 

[funk de fino]

While the worldview of the USA is improving since the dark days of GWB, the Obama factor does not seem to be working with Mexico. Who thinks the Arizona bigots are the cause of this?

I do.

 

[Piscivore]

While the worldview of the USA is improving since the dark days of GWB, the Obama factor does not seem to be working with Mexico. Who thinks the Arizona bigots are the cause of this?

I do.

I live in AZ, I sure as **** do.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

For example, if Arizona were to declare war on Mexico, that would be illegal.

Right you are

Or if Arizona were to coin its own money.

Ummm...no that's not entirely accurate. Arizona isn't allowed to print a currency that looks like federal currency or state that the currency is considered legal tender by the federal government. Scrip became a somewhat popular form of currency for local government during this recession because it allowed consumers to purchase local currency at a discount and spend the full value at participating businesses.

And, oddly enough, immigration policy is one of the powers reserved exclusively for the Federal government.

Correct, but I don't see how this Arizona law has violated federal authority. If you can show me that the law allows Arizona to carry out deportations or that they plan on carrying deportations out regardless then please show me and I'll quickly change my position. Reporting illegals to ICE seems rather harmless to me, though I am wondering what Arizona plans on doing with these illegals if ICE won't deport them.

 

[BeAChooser]

though I am wondering what Arizona plans on doing with these illegals if ICE won't deport them.

I suggest giving them a one-way bus ticket to Los Angeles or Sacramento ... or even better ... Washington DC.

 

[dtugg]

While the worldview of the USA is improving since the dark days of GWB, the Obama factor does not seem to be working with Mexico. Who thinks the Arizona bigots are the cause of this?

I do.

If wanting to enforce the law makes one a bigot, then I suppose the majority of Americans are bigots.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Well, actually, I wouldn't find that shocking. Not too safe for work below...some swears.

NSFW

 

[Piscivore]

If wanting to enforce the law makes one a bigot, then I suppose the majority of Americans are bigots.

Do you feel the same measures should be taken to make sure that Federal tax law is enforced?

 

[dtugg]

Do you feel the same measures should be taken to make sure that Federal tax law is enforced?

I wouldn't really care. But I doubt it would be something that the states would be interested in doing because federal tax cheats don't really affect them while illegal aliens residing in their state do.

 

[dtugg]

Plus, I imagine the IRS does a much better job of enforcing tax laws than ICE does of enforcing immigration laws.

 

[Drysdale]

Why is Hillary talking about this anyway?

Should'nt Holder be the one stating this?