Posted on 07/06/2010 11:45:49 AM PDT by nysuperdoodle
The federal government just filed suit against the state of Arizona for daring to enforce the law. It's deeply troubling to see the federal government attacking our own state governments to protect lawbreakers, but on the plus side, the lawsuit was filed by Eric Holder, which means at least the legal work should be sub-par.
(Excerpt) Read more at evilconservativeonline.com ...
Very good defense position to argue. It certainly points out a double standard.
Eric Holder, the nations chief law enforcement officer. Ever vigilant, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Fighting a never ending battle for truth, justice and socialism.
All the O-holes need to be in GITMO.
sfl
Can someone please explain to me why it’s an issue for the state to enforce immigration laws but not federal drug or gun laws?
George Soros.
Ping!
Time for the gloves to come off - reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is next.
Hello? Hellooooooo.......
FUEH
By the way, is there a defense fund set up for Arizona yet? I just might be able to scrape up a few dollars to help.
I just realized, you don’t stay and discuss or respond to posts. You just post blogs. Meaning you’ll never see my request for a source other than your blog.
So never mind. I found a link. Folks can go here for information without going to a blog.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jup3stJNgod5yvfvOU1IInU0erAwD9GPN88G0
A normal common-sense person would think so. However, a lot of legal cases hinge on arcane issues, especially if the real issue isn't brought into the room. For example, who gets to decide whether or not the Feds have abandoned their responsibility, as they so obviously have here. Is that the question before the Court? Or does it only get to address pre-emption, with the implied assumption that however the Federal government executes its laws is up to its imperial self?
Thanks! :-)
The list, ping
So, what does the federal district judge do? Does he tell them "go away, you bother me" or does he kick it upstairs
So, what does the federal district judge do? Does he tell them "go away, you bother me" or does he kick it upstairs
The man for whom I would most welcome an assisted cessation of the intake of oxygen.
in other words, the federal court with federal judges will play legal games to find a favorable outcome for the federal government.
ok, fine.
if i were Arizona, i would tell them ‘that’s nice’ and continue anyhow. cut all monies sent to the fed and all monies received from the fed. declare that all Arizona citizens no longer have to pay federal taxes, income or otherwise, but instead send that money to the state (with some tweaking as to the amounts). if the federal government wants that money, it will have to deal with the state government, and won’t be able to threaten Arizona residents
if the federal government isn’t doing it’s job, then stop paying them. especially if your citizens are dying because of it.
pretty simple when you boil it down
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an “illegal alien” (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
Allow police to detain people where there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they’re illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what “reasonable suspicion” might entail)
Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren’t already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in “solely” considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: “Reasonable suspicion” has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures”). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of “reasonable suspicion:”
A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver’s license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.
The SB1070 provision in question reads:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment).
Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725
Perfect. The Democrat Party would rather shield illegal aliens than make sure that there is no intimidation of voters by the New Black Panthers at open polling places.
Typical.
“Can someone please explain to me why it’s an issue for the state to enforce immigration laws....”
ya...yur cuttin’ in on the Democratic voter pool
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.