"That discrimination bit really tied the room together didn't it. Now its GONE."
I really think that the democrats are biting off more then they can chew with using the Supremacy clause as their argument on this.
The Arizona law is NOT in conflict with federal law but in support of it’s enforcement.
Yet santuary cities that clearly void and conflict with federal law are ok with Obama’s DoJ? I would love to hear them spin that one. This is pure politics and not a case of standing for the federal government.
Imagine this: We have federal law which takes jurisdiction over certain waters in the States in order to protect them from pollution. Imagine that the federal government was not enforcing them and allowing certain cities to give sanctuary to polluters. Imagine then that a state mirrors the federal law and decides to go after the people who are dumping chemicals in the waterway. Would the left-wing cry about the Supremacy clause then? Of course not. They would argue that the States were simply backing up federal law. This lawsuit is purely a political temper-tantrum by the Obama DOJ. Nothing more.
That should be easy for Arizona to beat. Arizona is not setting their own immigration policy whatsoever. Arizona is going after people who have broken existing laws.
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
I’m a legal American citizen and I must show my ID when:
1. Pulled over by the police.
2. Making purchases on my department store credit card.
3. When I show up for a doctor’s appointment.
4. When filling out a credit card or loan application.
5. When applying for or renewing a driver’s license or passport.
6. When applying for any kind of insurance.
7. When filling out college applications.
8. When donating blood.
9. When obtaining certain prescription drugs.
10. When making some debit purchases, especially if I’m out of state.
11. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.
I’m sure there are more instances, but the point is that we citizens of the USA are required to prove who we are nearly every day!
Why should people in this country illegally, be exempt!!!!!
Why shouldn’t we guard our borders as closely as every other country in the world does?
Discrimination baloney!
We’re supposed to be concerned over the “unspeakable horror of a fellow human being having to show their ID?
OH! THE HUMANITY!!!
I’m a legal American citizen and I must show my ID when:
1. Pulled over by the police.
2. Making purchases on my department store credit card.
3. When I show up for a doctor’s appointment.
4. When filling out a credit card or loan application.
5. When applying for or renewing a driver’s license or passport.
6. When applying for any kind of insurance.
7. When filling out college applications.
8. When donating blood.
9. When obtaining certain prescription drugs.
10. When making some debit purchases, especially if I’m
out of state.
11. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.
Of course not- they only reserve that phony talking point for the media blitz.
Do we really think Zero and the boys would have filed so quickly given the obvious fallout they’re getting if they didn’t fear the very real chance of other states passing similar laws... I think they’re scared shirtless of the American people so they’re going to keep everything in court for as long as it takes to ‘normalize’ public opinion.
"That discrimination bit really tied the room together didn't it. Now its GONE."
What a terrible waste of money. Hundreds of lawyers, all looking for their moment in the sun.
This is a bold-faced power grab by the regime. It is aimed at intimidating and silencing all of the States and people into submission to the Obama Administration.
Islam means submission to (the will of) God (as determined by Imams).
Bump and Bookmarked