That's a great solution, Flash. I don't know why the administration hasn't thought of that yet.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NASA's New Mission?
- Thread starter SeaBoundRhino
- Start date
That's a great solution, Flash. I don't know why the administration hasn't thought of that yet.
You don't spend much time is the southwest do you Flash? To say that they are occupying a section of a city is not accurate, but rest assured there are isolated areas in the border towns of this country which are controlled directly or by proxy, by Mexican drug cartels / gangs.
Clux4
Banned
Will the Arizona law make that section of town inhabitable for the Mexican gangs?
There are neighborhoods in Chicago run by the " Blood and Crips" gang. I wonder if the Arizona law will be useful in Illinois.
I will let the Constitution explain:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Immigration enforcement is the sole province of the federal government and the main crux of the Department of Justice's arguments against the law in their suit against it.
Someone has gotta come up with the ideas around here.
As I already pointed out earlier the situation is little different than you would have in other 'high crime' areas, my examples of DC's Ward 8 and neighboring Suitland, MD are ones that I am very familiar with unfortunately. Maybe we should run with Clux's idea!
Exactly! You don't emigrate to Arizona, you emigrate to the USA. You are not a citizen of a state, you are a resident. I thought this argument was settled in the Civil War...
Maybe not. States rights is still an issue to a lot of people.
By saying this you are implying that any city/county/state law enforcement officer should ignore people breaking any federal law that does not have a corresponding state law.
I, on the other hand, believe it is their responsibility to enforce all laws with the territorial bounds of the jurisdiction regardless of origin. Whether it's murder, rape, violating civil rights or apprehending those in the country in violation of the federal laws. All are laws and all should be enforced with the associated violators arrested.
I don't think so... Nor am I trying to imply that it would... Nor am I giving support for or against the AZ law.
Flash was saying that CAMike was exaggerating, I was calling BS on that assessment.
The liberals/'progressives' on this website are sooooo ... so, so, so transparent. And so's their agenda. Do 'they' really think the rest of us 'don't get it' ... ???
I'm just glad they're not in any unit that I'm in ... or ever served in.
I'm just glad they're not in any unit that I'm in ... or ever served in.
The courts have upheld the rights of state and local police to arrest illegals before. SB1070 doesn't do as much as most people who are against it think--probably because most people who are against it haven't read it and only got their information about it from the very vocal minority that strongly opposes it.
A very pertinent case.
The more I hear people complain about SB1070, the more I think it has less to do with any of the supposed issues people have with the law, and more to do with people not wanting illegal immigrants deported.
A very pertinent case.
The more I hear people complain about SB1070, the more I think it has less to do with any of the supposed issues people have with the law, and more to do with people not wanting illegal immigrants deported.
That's not true - if it were, I don't think the case would be particularly compelling.
First of all, the notion that the Supremacy Clause prevents states from passing laws that deal with issues already dealt with by the federal government is flatly wrong. The clause merely (and logically) states that laws enacted by the states (etc) cannot conflict with the US Constitution or federal law. The Supreme Court explained in Edgar:
At any rate, federal law allows immigration inquiries to be made by the states. AZ 1070, meanwhile, makes no claim to the fed's turf in terms of prosecution or deportation. It merely delivers the illegals to ICE to deal with in accordance to federal law (see 1/20, 1/27, 3/5, 7/3, 10/42).
That is, of course, in regards to illegality as such. As the DOJ notes, the AZ law does create "a series of state immigration crimes." This the DOJ objects to, and does claim here that the federal government has a "constitutionally reserved" right to handle immigration, although I was unable to find a believable justification for that claim.
NONETHELESS, the DOJ does have a strong case to make, if you read their brief.
The main crux of the argument is that the AZ law overreaches:
DOJ is making the argument that the AZ law will undermine federal immigration policy. As absurd as that may sound, the basic argument is that INS and ICE's limited resources will be excessively drawn to cater to minor immigration problems exposed by the AZ law at the expense of higher priority (national security) cases and the government's intended policy on immigration (the quality of that policy not being particularly relevant).
From the brief:
La Policía ... i.e.,the illegals go back to their own country. The Mexican police can protect them.
Qué lástima .... I'll bet you never thought of that, sí ???
The only problem with that line of argument is that the AZ law says the same thing as the federal law. The two don't really contradict each other so why make a huge fuss about it? Furthermore, Obama wasn't griping about the supremacy clause when he was on TV talking about "ice cream trips with little Johnny (or should I say Jose?)". He was complaining about racial profiling and harassment. Why isn't his big taxpayer-funded lawsuit saying anything about that? Because he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Hence, the political posturing.
I don't think Illegal Immigration is Obama's fault, but turning a relatively benign law into a Nationwide, Partisan Pissing Contest is just stupid. Pick your battles and move on. Illegal Immigration has been a problem for years Instead of doing something constructive about the issue at hand, he would rather waste all of our time by sending a piddly 400 NG troops down there at a time and continue pissing away and deficit-spending our tax dollars (or lack thereof) on a lawsuit.
All-in-all, the juice just isn't worth the political squeeze in this case.
As if the illegal aliens were lining up to testify in the first place? "Hey, I'm not here legally and shouldn't even be talking to you, but so-and-so just robbed the Quicky-Mart and I'd like to testify against him?" I mean, how often does that really happen? Something tells me not too much...
Besides, the law isn't meant to do anything but really piss off the administration and they're playing right into the fold. They would be much better had they just taken the sucker punch from the AZ lawmakers and then sent the 6000 National Guard troops that they were asking for in the first place. Not only would the border have been better secured, but the general public would have liked to have seen something actually getting done about this.
Actually, the idea is to piss away Arizona's tax dollars on a lawsuit.
Oh, and section three (immigration paperwork), is almost certainly in violation of the supremacy clause. So it's not frivolous.
Don't you watch TV?
"We're not INS, Mrs. Gutierrez. We only want to know who you saw running out of the cheese factory with the bloody crowbar."
If it happens on TV, it must happen in real life, right?