Jump to content

Hearing on Arizona Immigration Law Begins


Recommended Posts

I found this interesting:

 

PHOENIX -- A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement.

 

"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer ®.

 

Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.

 

"How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"

Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"

 

My understanding (and I've been wrong before, just not very often:D) is that not everyone arrested for some crime will have their status cheked. AZ police officers are being trained that signs that might indicate a person is an illegal immigrant are: "speaking poor English, looking nervous, or traveling in an overcrowded vehicle".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,"

 

Is this woman stupid or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"

 

My understanding (and I've been wrong before, just not very often:D) is that not everyone arrested for some crime will have their status cheked. AZ police officers are being trained that signs that might indicate a person is an illegal immigrant are: "speaking poor English, looking nervous, or traveling in an overcrowded vehicle".

 

They are also being trained that "race and ethnicity do not."

 

As to the training "It will emphasize the importance of professionalism, ethics and integrity, as well as an officer's duty to protect civil rights, according to the outline."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are also being trained that "race and ethnicity do not."

 

As to the training "It will emphasize the importance of professionalism, ethics and integrity, as well as an officer's duty to protect civil rights, according to the outline."

 

You are correct. That is what I read also.

 

I'm thinking a fairly large segment of people arrested for some crime will be "looking nervous". :D

 

 

The safe thing to do, from the standpoint of NOT racial profiling, is to check the status of either all or none. It's the "speaking poor English" that worries me. I suspect that this may apply to many legal immigrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,"

 

Is this woman stupid or what?

 

Why is that stupid?

 

You are correct. That is what I read also.

 

I'm thinking a fairly large segment of people arrested for some crime will be "looking nervous". :D

 

 

The safe thing to do, from the standpoint of NOT racial profiling, is to check the status of either all or none. It's the "speaking poor English" that worries me. I suspect that this may apply to many legal immigrants.

 

It may be a minor interference for legal immigrants. But, once they can prove that they're here legally, there will be no problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The safe thing to do, from the standpoint of NOT racial profiling, is to check the status of either all or none. It's the "speaking poor English" that worries me. I suspect that this may apply to many legal immigrants.

 

I can't imagine why we wouldn't screen EVERY law breaker for citizenship anyway.

 

If not, I can see a hilarious SNL sketch featuring extremely eloquent English speaking illegals... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN is reporting that the judge blocked enforcement of the most controversial parts of the law. So technically if you are here illegally, even if you break the law, the authorities can't ask for proof of residency, a green card, or visa? Makes perfect since to me. Maybe I can sue the next police officer who asks for my driver license?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN is reporting that the judge blocked enforcement of the most controversial parts of the law. So technically if you are here illegally, even if you break the law, the authorities can't ask for proof of residency, a green card, or visa? Makes perfect since to me. Maybe I can sue the next police officer who asks for my driver license?

 

Smart aleck racist...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

j/k :lol: Me too... :thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judge is an idiot... She doesn't even know federal law.... The federal immigration law states that legal immigrants MUST carry their papers,(green card,etc) at all times...

 

 

However, if I am a citizen I will not have any papers. What then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.