Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats plan to force vote on Arizona immigration law if itís upheld by court
Washington Post ^ | Monday, April 23 | Rosalind S. Helderman,

Posted on 04/23/2012 8:23:53 PM PDT by Cheerio

Senate Democrats are making plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona’s controversial immigration statute if the Supreme Court upholds the law this summer.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will announce the fallback legislation at a hearing on the Arizona law Tuesday, a day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a suit to determine whether Arizona had the authority to enact the 2010 state crackdown.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: aliens; arizona; democrat; senate
Go for it Schmucky!!!! THIS IS ALL ABOUT STATES RIGHTS and not much to do with immigration. SB 1070 is all about fighting CRIME. IT is a federal crime to have crossed the border illegally. I can't wait to hear the Obozo admin argue before the Supremes that the Fed law really doesn't mean what it states. If you are not a citizen and in the country on a visa or other provision you must carry your papers at all times - law has been around for maybe 50 years????
1 posted on 04/23/2012 8:23:54 PM PDT by Cheerio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
controversial immigration statute

Controversial? Dealing with lawbreakers and criminals is controversial?

2 posted on 04/23/2012 8:29:01 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
I can't wait to hear the Obozo admin argue before the Supremes that the Fed law really doesn't mean what it states.

Four of the justices will be perfectly fine with this, needless to say.

3 posted on 04/23/2012 8:30:59 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

To the Democrat scumbags at the Washington Post and the rest of that ilk, any conservative initiative that makes the rats holler is “controversial”. Have you EVER heard the Democrat scumbags at the Washington Post or the rest of that ilk refer to Obamacare as “controversial”?

No. Of course not.


4 posted on 04/23/2012 8:33:39 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

FORMER Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.)...

there fixed it for them.


5 posted on 04/23/2012 8:43:44 PM PDT by cableguymn (Good thing I am a conservative. Otherwise I would have to support Mittens like Republicans do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

Are they going to vote on resuming their duties to protect and defend the border?


6 posted on 04/23/2012 8:59:31 PM PDT by Personal Responsibility (Obama 2012: Dozens of MSNBC viewers can't be wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

Oh well! I guess their war on women is fading fast. I’ll bet their attention to illegals fades even faster. Democrats have no base. They are so full of it. They have 50 million on food stamps. That’s a hell of of a life you damn jackasses!!!!


7 posted on 04/23/2012 9:04:23 PM PDT by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress

“Democrats have no base. “

Just took a look at Rasmussen. With FUBO lurking in the low 40’s, it’s hard to imagine he could get re-elected. But then he is running against Republicans.


8 posted on 04/23/2012 9:12:42 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

Do me a favor and write your local representative to explain just how you feel. I suggest you do it really charged up.

God Speed


9 posted on 04/23/2012 9:20:12 PM PDT by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

What would happen if Pubbies en masse called out the dems as subversive for their support of crap like this. It’s worth a try to open some eyes.


10 posted on 04/23/2012 9:51:37 PM PDT by chiller (Elect another batch of TPartiers and it won't matter which R we elect. WE will lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
I can't wait to hear the Obozo admin argue before the Supremes that the Fed law really doesn't mean what it states. If you are not a citizen and in the country on a visa or other provision you must carry your papers at all times - law has been around for maybe 50 years????

That is correct. A few years ago I and my friend were stopped at a Border Patrol check point in South Texas. I identified myself as a citizen of the USA and my friend from England identified himself as from the United Kingdom. The agent then asked to see his passport. His passport was back at my home in Central Texas. The agent asked us a few more questions and informed my friend that he "must carry his passport at all times while in the United States." The Border Patrol agent was polite and courteous and sent us on our way.

This year when my friend came over again, when we went through the checkpoint I displayed my license and his passport. The agent was polite and courteous and said to my friend, "enjoy your vacation in The United States."

The point of my post is that Arizona wants to enforce the laws and statutes that are exactly the same as the those of the Federal Government of the United States.

By opposing this the Federal Government has in effect said, "The laws on immigration and illegal immigration can only be enforced by the Federal Government and not the individual states of the USA.

Using the same logic an officer in Arizona could not stop and hold or question an individual that is suspected of a Federal Crime but not a state crime. For example the following:

1. Espionage
2. Murder on Federal Land in an Indian Nation.
3. The list of example would be endless. In effect any statute that has anything to do with national security, border control, interstate commerce, etc. would then be in the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and not the States.
Using this logic if a criminal commited interstate wire fraud in a scheme that only involved New York and California, the State of Arizona could not question, arrest or charge this individual if he were caught in Arizona.

The logic of the Justice department is not illogical. The logic is criminal. This is simply a power grab by the Federal Government that is political in nature and its purpose is to influence the Presidential Election this year.

The Obama Administration is corrupt and law breaking to its very core.

11 posted on 04/23/2012 10:13:15 PM PDT by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

States apparently don’t have any rights anymore. The House of Lords has now decided they rule this country.


12 posted on 04/23/2012 10:25:30 PM PDT by Terry Mross ("It happened. And we let it happen." Peter Griffin - FAMILY GUY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

Won’t pass Congress.

Have at it.


13 posted on 04/23/2012 10:44:05 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

This may be just bluster. Schumer wants Republicans to go on record for or against the AZ bill, but what he’s also forcing is putting a lot of Dems in swing states to go on the record as well. I doubt he’d get many of the Dems to vote his way and hand their GOP challengers a plum issue heading into the election.


14 posted on 04/24/2012 4:54:54 AM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

I will vote against anybody in my district who votes to do away with the Arizona anti-immigration law. I promise!!!


15 posted on 04/24/2012 5:16:29 AM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maxwellsmart_agent
I will vote against anybody in my district who votes to do away with the Arizona anti-immigration law.

It's not an anti-immigration law. It's an anti-ILLEGAL immigration law. There's a big difference between the two.

16 posted on 04/24/2012 6:14:11 AM PDT by Isabel C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
States apparently don’t have any rights anymore.

The Constituion guarantees the States a repulican form of government. If the States don't have any rights, then there is no repulic. The contract is broken and Washington no longer holds any legitimate authority. They're just a criminal organization running an extortion racket and need to be dealt with accordingly.

17 posted on 04/24/2012 6:27:35 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

Good luck Chuck getting the House to go along.


18 posted on 04/24/2012 8:06:34 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson