|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 25, 2012 11:35:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 25, 2012 11:55:29 GMT -8
You mean immigration? Forgetting that your source is one of the great right wing nut job tabloids, why would the Feds want to cooperate with the vigilante state of Arizona, for a law that pushes beyond constitutional limits, and add fire to an already volatile situation? |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 25, 2012 11:57:59 GMT -8
It depends on the tax payer. If they're old, white follks, they support it. Everyone else here seems to be against it. Then again the blue hairs are the largest voting block here.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 25, 2012 12:02:48 GMT -8
You are missing the point. www.breitbart.com/breitbart-tvDo you want the Fed to enforce the law or just want open borders. Az is just trying to do what is the law and what the Feds refuse to do. If you want to be overrun, then that is another issue. This is about the rule of law and selective enforcement. This is about vindictive action taken by the Feds against Arizona's attempts to halt the illegals and control the borders. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 25, 2012 12:06:25 GMT -8
You mean immigration? Forgetting that your source is one of the great right wing nut job tabloids, why would the Feds want to cooperate with the vigilante state of Arizona, for a law that pushes beyond constitutional limits, and add fire to an already volatile situation? Did I forget spell check or make a finger fart? |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 25, 2012 12:21:23 GMT -8
You mean immigration? Forgetting that your source is one of the great right wing nut job tabloids, why would the Feds want to cooperate with the vigilante state of Arizona, for a law that pushes beyond constitutional limits, and add fire to an already volatile situation? Did I forget spell check or make a finger fart? You were probably trying to spell emigration. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 25, 2012 13:54:59 GMT -8
Did I forget spell check or make a finger fart? You were probably trying to spell emigration. ;D I'm against illegal irrigation |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 25, 2012 15:40:52 GMT -8
You mean immigration? Forgetting that your source is one of the great right wing nut job tabloids, why would the Feds want to cooperate with the vigilante state of Arizona, for a law that pushes beyond constitutional limits, and add fire to an already volatile situation? The Supreme Court said Arizona can ask for documentation if they feel someone is illegal(during a normal stop). The federal government now says they will now not take illegals that the state identifies into custody and deport them. This is a huge shift from the normal operating procedure. It is the Federal government declining to do what they are mandated to do. One of the reasons the supreme court said they OKed that part of the Arizona law, is that the Federal Government had failed to do their part. Next time it is before the court they may find the Federal Government is not deporting those they should and give the states that right also. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 25, 2012 15:59:48 GMT -8
No, that won't happen.
The federal government has pretty much exclusive jurisdiction in immigation matters, and that has been so for a long time.
Google *Houston v. Moore*. That was a Supreme Court decision back in 1820, and although it was a controversy about the militia, and state versus federal jurisdiction over a member of the militia under certain circumstances, the dicta in the opinion delved into immigration policy as an example of where federal law is supreme.
If you can deal with the stilted language of that era, I think you will see that the Court said that federal law concerning immigration is exclusive.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 25, 2012 16:06:53 GMT -8
No, that won't happen. The federal government has pretty much exclusive jurisdiction in immigation matters, and that has been so for a long time. Google *Houston v. Moore*. That was a Supreme Court decision back in 1820, and although it was a controversy about the militia, and state versus federal jurisdiction over a member of the militia under certain circumstances, the dicta in the opinion delved into immigration policy as an example of where federal law is supreme. If you can deal with the stilted language of that era, I think you will see that the Court said that federal law concerning immigration is exclusive. But that isn't what this ruling says. It says that states are not merely bystanders. It allows Arizona to check and hold illegals. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 25, 2012 16:13:28 GMT -8
The states will never be allowed to deport illegals on their own authority.
We agree that the federal government is not doing the job they are charged with executing.
But the states do not have the power to deport.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 25, 2012 16:35:21 GMT -8
The states will never be allowed to deport illegals on their own authority. We agree that the federal government is not doing the job they are charged with executing. But the states do not have the power to deport. Until today they didn't have the power to check and hold. The Supreme Court was very clear that they said the states had that right now because the Federal Government was not doing their job. If the Feds refuse to do the rest of their job maybe the SC would allow states that right too. Once a non-citizen becomes a member of a state populace, they become the problem of the state. The main issue for the court is if the state is interfering with the Feds. When the Feds have no position (like not caring to depot) then there is no interference. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 25, 2012 16:36:03 GMT -8
You were probably trying to spell emigration. ;D I'm against illegal irrigation I am against illegal irritation. |
|
