Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: ACLU Responds To SCOTUS Ruling On Arizona Immigration Law

  1. #1
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476

    ACLU Responds To SCOTUS Ruling On Arizona Immigration Law

    You have the right:

    not to be racially profiled by police.

    to ask if you are free to leave.

    not to give permission to be searched.

    to remain silent.

    not to say anything about your immigration status.

    ask for a lawyer.


  2. #2
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Oh brother!
    Iím proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    Thumbs up Sounding quite familiar to the OC'ers, isn't it?

    The Supreme Court ruling was spot on. Kudos to oldbanger for seeing that and reminding us all of it.

    Effectively, the ruling completely gutted everything AZ had tried to pass. It only affirmed that AZ law enforcement officers have the ability to ASK anything they want to - which has always been the case - but it does not require any person to ANSWER any such questions, or "present their papers," a scenario we learned to avoid over 70 years ago with the Nazi's.

    It doesn't require anyone who is the subject of an LEO inquiry to answer any of them. The 5th and 6th Amendment rights of ANYONE who is questioned by police remain intact. Shut up and lawyer up.

    This ruling is good news for the OC community because it reaffirms what we all argue for - our Constitution doesn't allow the government to force us to incriminate ourselves, and, more importantly, requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are guilty of something before it can punish us.

    Regardless of your individual positions on immigration issues, anyone with the slightest understanding of the United States Constitution should celebrate this ruling.

    Anyone in America can clam up, refuse to consent to a search of their person, car, belongings, home, etc., and that is the way it should be.

    Nobody has to respond to "Your Papers, Please" requests, and I hope any and every person who is stopped and subjected to this kind of BS shuts up, lawyers up, and makes the government employees justify their stop of any person, much less their assertion of guilt of something, beyond a reasonable doubt by doing their damn homework instead of relying on the color of the subject's skin, English language skills, or social biases before condemning them to criminal sanctions.

    Nobody can be forced to submit to warrantless searches and seizures of themselves or their property in a free country (yes, I am quite familiar with exceptions thereto, but unless the contact fits among them, too bad/so sad for the LEO), and I hope every resident of AZ learns these rights and knows how to shut down any and every form of police contact.

    I know I'll probably piss off the Joe Arpaio fans with this, but that blockhead has cost Maricopa County millions upon millions of dollars in judgments and settlements over the last several years because he believes it's okay to violate the Constitutional rights of people that happen to be present in the county, and his fingerprints, as well as all his fans (who only have a fleeting glimpse of what our Constitution stands for) all supported this legislation. They all need to re-examine and learn (not re-learn, because obviously they never did if they support him) what Constitutional rights really mean.

    Honor the WHOLE constitution, not just parts of it (kinda like the Bible, you know?) - or you might as well ignore the whole message.

    Anybody who disagrees with that notion should reconsider whether they should belong to this board.

    I welcome disagreement.
    Last edited by DCR; 06-25-2012 at 07:04 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Medic1210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Rockingham, NC
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    Oh brother!
    What? Isn't this exactly the way we feel regarding the police and illegal detainment/searches? In fact, this video could very well have been written for us.

  5. #5
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by DCR View Post
    Anybody who disagrees with that notion should reconsider whether they should belong to this board.

    I welcome disagreement.
    Both statements, really?


    I have no issue with the ruling, because now the feds have to enforce the laws they went to court over as their responsibility, right?
    Iím proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  6. #6
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Medic1210 View Post
    What? .
    The sharks will be on all the street corners passing out their cards.
    Iím proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  7. #7
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    jbone believes in liberty for him and his. Those dirty other folk don't qualify. It's comfortable in that warm, dark place.

  8. #8
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    Those dirty other folk don't qualify.
    What dirty folks is that?
    Iím proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  9. #9
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    What dirty folks is that?
    Why, the folk who don't think, talk, and look like you, of course. You call them Americans, but what you really mean is something rather more selective.

    "You don't know what I mean" in 3... 2... 1...

    But, of course, I do. Your plausible deniability is neither plausible nor deniable. You're a first-class bigot. Sadly, you have plenty of fellow bigots who provide shelter from your knowing-better. See, it's obvious you do know better, but it's also obvious you hide from it. Don't worry, I don't expect you to confess publicly. I don't need you to. I just want you to recognize it privately, and correct your thinking, talking, and behavior as a result. Do it on your own time, in your own way. Don't even tell anyone you have done it. Just do it, please.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    Why, the folk who don't think, talk, and look like you, of course. You call them Americans, but what you really mean is something rather more selective.

    "You don't know what I mean" in 3... 2... 1...

    But, of course, I do. Your plausible deniability is neither plausible nor deniable. You're a first-class bigot. Sadly, you have plenty of fellow bigots who provide shelter from your knowing-better. See, it's obvious you do know better, but it's also obvious you hide from it. Don't worry, I don't expect you to confess publicly. I don't need you to. I just want you to recognize it privately, and correct your thinking, talking, and behavior as a result. Do it on your own time, in your own way. Don't even tell anyone you have done it. Just do it, please.
    Owe you a beer. Nice summation.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    Simmer Down, now...

    I take jbone's question regarding both lines of my post at face value. I see his question as valid, and respond as follows:

    My statement regarding whether one should question their membership on this board if they disagree with the ruling was only intended to raise individual, internal questions as to whether they should feel conflicted if they are questioned for OC, a perfectly legal activity, yet think any state (or federal, for that matter) LEO or official should be permitted to stop and question any person, in the same way, on their immigration status.

    Reasonable Articulable Suspicion / Probable Cause works the same for both situations.

    Personally, I hope anyone in either situation learns their rights, clams up, and effectively lets the LEO know they are free to go get bent, and there will be no questions answered.

    As to my second statement - I also welcome disagreement, because I know I'm not the smartest guy in my house, neighborhood, state, or on this board, and am willing to listen and learn other perspectives. My opinion, which I'd like to think is based on legal precedent and currently applicable jurisprudence, may not change in light of opposing views (especially if they're not well-reasoned), but I'm always open to hearing ideas, and have been known to change my mind simply because I can't refute the logic and reasoning of the opposing viewpoint (but have to admit it's rare! I'm a mule that way -)

    Lastly, I have to agree with Medic1210's sentiment. It's painfully obvious that this legislation was aimed at anyone who's not among the "I got mine, too bad for you because you're not as light-skinned and European as me" segment of the population.

    AZ's law, in my opinion, clearly ran afoul of Constitutional principles of not discriminating against people on the basis of race, ethnicity, country of origin, and a whole bunch of other areas.

    It ignored really significant parts of the whole Constitution (and case law interpreting it!), kind of like how those against the RKBA try to ignore the Second Amendment while quoting other parts.

    Anyway, that's my $.02 - you can keep the change.

    And keep up the dialogue - that's how we learn and progress.

    Peace -

    DCR

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    Well Put!

    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    Why, the folk who don't think, talk, and look like you, of course. You call them Americans, but what you really mean is something rather more selective.

    "You don't know what I mean" in 3... 2... 1...

    But, of course, I do. Your plausible deniability is neither plausible nor deniable. You're a first-class bigot. Sadly, you have plenty of fellow bigots who provide shelter from your knowing-better. See, it's obvious you do know better, but it's also obvious you hide from it. Don't worry, I don't expect you to confess publicly. I don't need you to. I just want you to recognize it privately, and correct your thinking, talking, and behavior as a result. Do it on your own time, in your own way. Don't even tell anyone you have done it. Just do it, please.
    You can collect a beverage of your choice from me next time you're in Idaho, too!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    The federal government has declared war on legal citizens and states that believe in American soveirngty.
    I see your point, but would characterize it differently.

    I would characterize it as the business lobbies - agricultural and service industries, primarily - who have contributed almost exclusively to Republican candidates in every state and at the national level, who have lobbied their way to ensure their continued economic prosperity.

    Immigration issues are much more complicated than the talking-head simpletons (not you, by any stretch - you are thoughtful and obviously know that complex problems can't be solved by simple solutions) have posted here try to espouse.

    Really, it's business self-interest which poses the challenge, but it certainly isn't against American "sovereignty." There's no question that America, as the lone superpower, is quite sovereign.

    The question is whether the business lobby will stop hiding behind the false "sovereignty" shield, and every other "patriotic" mantra they try to use in selling their self-interested lobbying and political shenanigans, to justify their manipulation of our state legislatures, congress and presidential elections.

    So far, they're exclusively behind Republican candidates.

    Got any responses or solutions to that?

    The real challenge to "sovereignty," or the interests and freedoms of the American people, comes not from "outsiders" or immigrants, but from within.

    The problem is not immigration. It's America's (and other foreign-based corporations' )big businesses, and its unfettered ability to spend its internationally-accumulated big money to elect state-level legislators, governors, congressmen, senators, and presidents, all of whom see to it that "the Masters' will be done."

    Starting to see what the Occupy XYZ protesters were REALLY protesting? (It wasn't the "socialist agenda," anarchy or the other fringe nonsense that local and national corporate-owned media folks wanted you to think that it was all about, much as they tried to convince you of it.)

    Look a little deeper, turn off the AM (or shortwave, as the case may be) radio, and realize there's much, much more to what's going on than the guys at the gun shop, cafe, or forum boards that you happen to resonate with politically have to say.
    Last edited by DCR; 06-25-2012 at 09:12 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    Why, the folk who don't think, talk, and look like you, of course. You call them Americans, but what you really mean is something rather more selective.

    "You don't know what I mean" in 3... 2... 1...

    But, of course, I do. Your plausible deniability is neither plausible nor deniable. You're a first-class bigot. Sadly, you have plenty of fellow bigots who provide shelter from your knowing-better. See, it's obvious you do know better, but it's also obvious you hide from it. Don't worry, I don't expect you to confess publicly. I don't need you to. I just want you to recognize it privately, and correct your thinking, talking, and behavior as a result. Do it on your own time, in your own way. Don't even tell anyone you have done it. Just do it, please.
    Great, another hate speech by the coward. You already proved to me your the preverbal pot. Calling others dirty and trying to attach that to me is just more the proof of your hate towards others not fitting you're twisted self severing sense of freedom.
    Iím proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Does this mean states should stop enforcing federal laws on guns and drugs? If I were Jan Brewer I'd let my state be a mass trasit system for dope to the rest of the country, by not confiscating drugs on the interstate as long as they were leaving AZ. Want a machine gun? Build as many as you want and take them to NYC, LA and Chicago. We're not allowed to enforce federal law.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  16. #16
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    The ruling today may be a sound constitutional ruling.

    However, it showed that the federal government under Bush and Obama are completly in favor of open borders and against American soveignty.

    The federal government just stabbed Arizona and America and legal citizens in the back by responding to the ruling by pulling out of program that allows state officials to make immigration arrests.

    I spent time on the border in the 2001, 2002 and 2003 and it was obvious to me and everyone down there that the federal government was the enemy of legal citizens and the protector and propronent of illegal aliens and their unfettered invasion of America,

    This is an issue worth going to war over.

    The federal government has declared war on legal citizens and states that believe in American soveirngty.
    You are correct on all points. And I add that Bush and Obama also screwed and screw the country for political gain.
    Iím proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    You REALLY don't get it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Does this mean states should stop enforcing federal laws on guns and drugs? If I were Jan Brewer I'd let my state be a mass trasit system for dope to the rest of the country, by not confiscating drugs on the interstate as long as they were leaving AZ. Want a machine gun? Build as many as you want and take them to NYC, LA and Chicago. We're not allowed to enforce federal law.
    You have it all wrong.

    You are correct in that states and local LEO's don't enforce federal law. State and local LEO's only have the authority to enforce state and local law. If a statie or local tries to tell you you're violating federal law, laugh in their face and remind them they don't have jurisdiction.

    I would, and I hope any undocumented/illegal/whatever you want to call them immigrant would clam up, lawyer up, and send any LEO - whether federal, state, or local, LEO packing.

    You need to study up on what is a Constitutional police power that was granted to the states, as opposed to federal authority which was reserved to the feds. It took me many years of law school and practice to grasp it, and I know I still have much to learn (unlike many of the "experts" here) before I can explore it on a particular thread thoroughly, and it would likely take too many posts and threads for anyone to sit through, much less understand. And most would give up, take a swig, and call me a pinko-commie-f**-lawyer and move on. Even though I am none of them, except lawyer.

    These principles allowed the states to develop their own laws regarding controlled substances and firearms. Go look - AZ, and every other state, has its own laws on suppressors, full auto weapons, and controlled substances. It's a jurisdiction thing that would take far too long to explain here.

    If both federal and state law happen to have an overlap, they get to fight over who gets to spend their time and resources prosecuting it and, on conviction, housing the defendant.

    But that only happens when that tattered, worn document the states like to ignore, called the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, and its counterpart, the Bill of Rights, allows both the federal government and the states jurisdiction over certain areas.

    Immigration is not, has never been, nor will ever be, one of those things that was placed within the states' authority.

    Hence, the states have no authority over that area - which is, in a nutshell, what the Supremes today affirmed.

    Unless they want to secede, which is already unconstitutional (except for TX, but that's another topic for another thread), and we all know how well that turned out 150 years ago.

    You're riding on rhetoric, not reason. That was the same mistake they made 150 years ago (well, one among many, but let's not quibble).

    Stop voting how you do if you want a change.
    Last edited by DCR; 06-25-2012 at 10:16 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Scalia get it!

    Quote Originally Posted by DCR View Post
    Hence, the states have no authority over that area - which is, in a nutshell, what the Supremes today affirmed.
    "Must Arizona's ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the executive's unwise targeting of that funding?" Scalia asked. Later, he added: "What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that 'federal policies' of nonen­forcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration."

    The federal government "does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude," Scalia alleged.


    Arizona's entire immigration law should be upheld, Scalia wrote, because it is "entitled" to make its own immigration policy. At one point, he cites the fact that before the Civil War, Southern states could exclude free blacks from their borders to support the idea that states should be able to set their own immigration policies. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/a...185431255.html

    While we can respect the Justice's ruling, the WH cannot. AZ access to immigration checks has been turned off following the Supreme's upheld portion. WH has told AZ, ICE will not answer requests of immigration checks. The WH is in that dart place ()pen(arry speaks of.
    Last edited by jbone; 06-25-2012 at 10:23 PM.
    Iím proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    It seems by some of the comments that some people have never bothered to actually read the law.
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member hjmoosejaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.W. Pa.
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    The ruling today may be a sound constitutional ruling.

    However, it showed that the federal government under Bush and Obama are completly in favor of open borders and against American soveignty.

    The federal government just stabbed Arizona and America and legal citizens in the back by responding to the ruling by pulling out of program that allows state officials to make immigration arrests.

    I spent time on the border in the 2001, 2002 and 2003 and it was obvious to me and everyone down there that the federal government was the enemy of legal citizens and the protector and propronent of illegal aliens and their unfettered invasion of America,

    This is an issue worth going to war over.

    The federal government has declared war on legal citizens and states that believe in American soveirngty.

    Apparently we can't do much about the ones that are here. ( the illegals ) Maybe if a bunch of them suddenly died from acute lead poisoning while crossing the border, others would think twice about entering. Just a thought. I know I'm going to catch hell for that, yet, I don't care. I'm tired of having to accept everything.
    watch your top knot !

  21. #21
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix David View Post
    It seems by some of the comments that some people have never bothered to actually read the law.
    I heard that! Not to far back...
    Holder hasnít read Arizona law he criticized

    Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizonaís new immigration law, said Thursday he hasnít yet read the law and is going by what heís read in newspapers or seen on television.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...he-criticized/
    Iím proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    ....uh....if you read the opinion and the law the SCOTUS drop kicked three of the four major provisions. The three dumped were duplicates of existing federal law. The last only emerges 'after' a lawful detainment. So that 'RAS/PC gotta have' crap can stop right now. The fuzz can't 'ask' for anything. They must have already got you lawfully 'before' they can 'ask'.

    Sheeze.....this is not like getting rousted for simply OCing. Traffic infraction anyone? BAM....PC.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by DCR View Post
    I take jbone's question regarding both lines of my post at face value. I see his question as valid, and respond as follows:

    My statement regarding whether one should question their membership on this board if they disagree with the ruling was only intended to raise individual, internal questions as to whether they should feel conflicted if they are questioned for OC, a perfectly legal activity, yet think any state (or federal, for that matter) LEO or official should be permitted to stop and question any person, in the same way, on their immigration status.

    Reasonable Articulable Suspicion / Probable Cause works the same for both situations.

    Personally, I hope anyone in either situation learns their rights, clams up, and effectively lets the LEO know they are free to go get bent, and there will be no questions answered.

    As to my second statement - I also welcome disagreement, because I know I'm not the smartest guy in my house, neighborhood, state, or on this board, and am willing to listen and learn other perspectives. My opinion, which I'd like to think is based on legal precedent and currently applicable jurisprudence, may not change in light of opposing views (especially if they're not well-reasoned), but I'm always open to hearing ideas, and have been known to change my mind simply because I can't refute the logic and reasoning of the opposing viewpoint (but have to admit it's rare! I'm a mule that way -)

    Lastly, I have to agree with Medic1210's sentiment. It's painfully obvious that this legislation was aimed at anyone who's not among the "I got mine, too bad for you because you're not as light-skinned and European as me" segment of the population.

    AZ's law, in my opinion, clearly ran afoul of Constitutional principles of not discriminating against people on the basis of race, ethnicity, country of origin, and a whole bunch of other areas.

    It ignored really significant parts of the whole Constitution (and case law interpreting it!), kind of like how those against the RKBA try to ignore the Second Amendment while quoting other parts.

    Anyway, that's my $.02 - you can keep the change.

    And keep up the dialogue - that's how we learn and progress.

    Peace -

    DCR
    And all this time I thought we where talking about those dam Canadians.....do you know how many of their quarters I keep getting as change. This really pisses me off.....

  24. #24
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    IF the Federal Goverment would just do their job and secure the borders, arrest and deport anyone here illegally just like EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET then this would be a non-issue. But the goverment doesn't want to do their job and I can understand AZ's problem.

    It is like someone (Fed) ordering a tone of stuff in a fine dining establishment and then you (AZ) getting stuck with the bill.

    VOTE EVERYONE OUT....THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post

    "Must Arizona's ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcementóor, even worse, to the executive's unwise targeting of that funding?" Scalia asked. Later, he added: "What I do fearóand what Arizona and the States that support it fearóis that 'federal policies' of nonen*forcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration."

    The federal government "does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude," Scalia alleged.

    Arizona's entire immigration law should be upheld, Scalia wrote, because it is "entitled" to make its own immigration policy. At one point, he cites the fact that before the Civil War, Southern states could exclude free blacks from their borders to support the idea that states should be able to set their own immigration policies. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/a...185431255.html

    While we can respect the Justice's ruling, the WH cannot. AZ access to immigration checks has been turned off following the Supreme's upheld portion. WH has told AZ, ICE will not answer requests of immigration checks. The WH is in that dart place ()pen(arry speaks of.
    You know, Seattle makes the exact same argument Scalia does, but about gun laws. They say "the state doesn't pass the policies we need" or "the state doesn't give us the tools to enforce the laws we should" or "state law is inadequate, we should be able to pass local ordinances that protect our city against the problems caused by guns." I don't find the argument persuasive in either place.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •