ACLU Responds To SCOTUS Ruling On Arizona Immigration Law

Ca Patriot said:

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.

Click to expand...

hjmoosejaw said:

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.

Click to expand...

Phoenix David said:

It seems by some of the comments that some people have never bothered to actually read the law.

Click to expand...

[h=1]Holder hasn’t read Arizona law he criticized[/h]Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona’s new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn’t yet read the law and is going by what he’s read in newspapers or seen on television.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/holder-hasnt-read-ariz-law-he-criticized/

Click to expand...

DCR said:

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

Click to expand...

jbone said:

"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 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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

DocWalker said:

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.....

Click to expand...