Az immigration law case begins (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 7:47:32 PM)

Thursday, today, the hearings began. Sitting on the bench is Judge Susan Bolton. She asked some interesting questions, and made some interesting statements.

quote:

Bolton, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, repeatedly questioned Justice Department attorney Edwin Kneedler to explain how specific provisions of the law intruded on federal authority as he had argued.

"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered the United States illegally?" she said.

Without prodding from attorneys, the judge also pointed out to lawyers the everyday realities of Arizona's immigration woes, such as signs that the federal government erected in a wilderness area south of Phoenix that warns visitors about drug and immigrant traffickers passing through public lands.

She also noted the immigrant smuggling stash houses that are a fixture on the news in Arizona. "You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored," Bolton said.

Kneedler said the law's requirements that law enforcement check on people's immigration status set a mandatory policy that goes beyond what the federal government requires and would burden the federal agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.

Attorney John Bouma, who represents Brewer, said the federal government wants to keep its authority while turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants.

"You can't catch them if you don't know about them. They don't want to know about them," he said.

Brewer said she's confident the state will prevail, adding that Bolton "certainly understands the dangers that Arizonans face in regards to harboring illegals."

During the morning hearing, Bolton told lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union that she's required to consider blocking only parts of the law, not the entire statute as they had requested.

ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat said the law's provisions are supposed to work together to achieve a goal of prodding illegal immigrants to leave the state. He called it unconstitutional and dangerous.

Most of the controversy about the law centers on provisions related to stops and arrests of people, new crimes related to illegal immigrants, and a requirement that immigrants carry and produce their immigration papers.

Other parts of the law getting little attention deal with impoundment of vehicles and sanctions against employment of illegal immigrants.

Bouma told Bolton that those challenging the law haven't demonstrated that anyone would suffer actual harm if it takes effect, and that facts — not conjecture — must be shown.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/22/politics/main6701831.shtml

Am i reading this wrong or does it sound like Bolton already has her mind made up?




TheHeretic -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 7:59:13 PM)

I'm going to laugh if she throws the case out of court.




luckydawg -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 8:01:01 PM)

It sounds like she has made up her mind that Obama is going to have show actuall harm. She also seems to have decided to not accept the characterization of the law by the ACLU as fact. They have to prove it.


It just shows that Dem (or Rep) appointed judges do not always toe the party line. Which is they way it is supposed to work.


Do you think the ACLU and the Justice Dept are going to be unable to show any actuall harm?




tazzygirl -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 8:13:38 PM)

Thats just it... im not sure exactly what her position is, or may be. It seems to me that she is forcing both the Federal Government and the ACLU to prove their assertions that the law is illegal and could harm those here legally.

In that link was another link about a Nebraska town that made it illegal to hire or rent to any illegals.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/21/national/main6698903.shtml?source=related_story&tag=related

Its becoming increasingly clearer to me that both entities - ACLU and the Fed - are more concerned about how the hispanic population may view these laws.

However, i dont think i like a Judge who seems to be making comments in court supporting a law she is supposed to be fact finding about. Which is why i asked if i was reading the article wrong.




joether -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 8:14:23 PM)

Wasn't there an article on these very forums, regarding the camera system in Arizona, to catch speeders? And that this system, had costed them quite a bit of money, but is now going off line. Not because people in Arizona are driving the speed limit, but because the Arizona Goverment couldn't handle all the speeding violations taking place. So if the Arizonains are so irrate at a bunch of people hopping the border, and breaking the law, why are they not, on speeders?

I think, once this law gets going, it'll start costing Arizonains where it hurts: their wallet. Since, defending laws cost, big bucks; and the ease by which US Citizens could be unfairly targeted, will led to many lawsuits. Violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments are just as nasty as 1st or 2nd.




luckydawg -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 8:19:27 PM)

Where did her comments support the law?

She said Obama and the ACLU have to actually prove thier claims. What is wrong with that?

Should we assume that they can't? If they can't prove thier claims, of course they should lose.



"Its becoming increasingly clearer to me that both entities - ACLU and the Fed - are more concerned about how the hispanic population may view these laws."


Should we assume you mean Obama and the ACLU aremore concerned with how it is viewed by a key voting group, than the actually legality or Constitutionality of the laws?

That is rather disgusting if true, and cause for removal, right?




Owner59 -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 8:24:15 PM)

In the end,it`ll be the income AZ looses from this stupidity that turns it around,wilbur.




tazzygirl -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 8:25:07 PM)

I dont believe the ACLU is in it for the votes. Do votes actually support the ACLU?

As far as Obama, i have said before that too many on the political field are more worried about votes... through votes comes power... through power comes money... pretty easy to follow.

quote:

Where did her comments support the law?


I think it was the tone... something im sure i am projecting... but when she asked about those in AZ being able to be inhospitable to those who enter illegally.

Im not saying i think she is wrong.. nor do i think those people in Az have to be hospitable to anyone who enters illegally... i guess i just feel that she is leaning a bit heavily upon those who are against.

Isnt this suppose to be about justice being blind?




slvemike4u -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 9:12:36 PM)

Perhaps I am mistaken here...but Arizona passed a law...the ACLU and the Feds are questioning the constitutionality of that law....The burden of proof is on,respectively the ACLU and the Fed and the Judge's remarks simply reflect that fact.




tazzygirl -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 9:18:34 PM)

Im not taking any of these responses as snark or anything less than supplying information and opinions.

Nor do i think its unreasonable for the Judge to ask for the government or the ACLU to prove harm. I think the part im having trouble with is the first part of the snip i posted.

quote:

"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered the United States illegally?" she said.


Is this kind of question common in court cases? It almost seems to me that she is endorcing the law. A law i happen to agree with.




slvemike4u -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 9:27:37 PM)

Perhaps she is endorsing Arizona's right(absent any constitutional violations) to enact whatever law that state so chooses.
Now to be sure I find this law not only offensive but unconstitutional....but the ACLU and the Fed have the burden of proving so....absent that proof niether party has any standing to object to laws the good people of any state choose to enact.




tazzygirl -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 9:30:04 PM)

Thats my other "shoe" on this issue. So many are willing to stand up and scream... state rights. Yet, when a state, or city, enacts a law that isnt politically popular, the ACLU steps on in ready to trample over the rights of the state.

Gesh, no wonder why im so confused.




slvemike4u -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 9:37:28 PM)

States rights stop at the point where they violate the Constitution.The problem here is that trying to have this law struck down premptively is going to prove rather difficult.Better,or perhaps I should say an easier case to make,were they let the law be enacted.....once that actually happens and the "harm" part of the case is no longer theoretical...proving their case will be rather easy.
The administration of this law will be nigh on impossible without violating some citizens rights....it is inevitable.Once that takes place the proof of harm will be sitting in the courtroom.




tazzygirl -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 9:41:33 PM)

I believed, when i first heard about this law, as i believe now, that this law wasnt meant to do anything more than make the fed stand up to their own obligations. It certainly seems to be leading in that direction.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 9:47:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


I think it was the tone... something im sure i am projecting... but when she asked about those in AZ being able to be inhospitable to those who enter illegally.

Im not saying i think she is wrong.. nor do i think those people in Az have to be hospitable to anyone who enters illegally... i guess i just feel that she is leaning a bit heavily upon those who are against.

Isnt this suppose to be about justice being blind?


If you havent heard audio then yes, you are projecting.

Justice is about being blind....not deaf. she is simply probing to find out exactly what harm is being done to whom.




tazzygirl -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 9:49:14 PM)

you are right, i havent heard any audio. Which is why i was asking and not making a statement of fact. It should be an interesting case to follow.




slvemike4u -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 9:56:55 PM)

Making the fed stand up to their own obligations is a relative statement....do you view the feds obligation as one in which they are supposed to stop illegal immigration in its entirety.
How are they supposed to do that?
Does the fed's responsibility extend to meeting the expectations of folks like popeye?
Would Arizona expect,or want, the fed to turn this country into a police state at the alter of halting illegal immigration?
Arizona trying to compel the Fed to live up to its obligation by violating its(Arizona's) obligation to the constitution itself is not going to fly....nor should it!




tazzygirl -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 10:04:22 PM)

We do have immigration laws in place. We also have laws pertaining to the hiring of illegals. Just as there are laws protecting the treatment of those same people. No one should be treated as sub-human. Nor should our immigration laws be ignored on so many levels. Many border states have been frustrated for decades over the immigration problems. Its not something that just popped up overnight. Eventually it has come to a head. Consider these types of emerging laws as the pimple that has suddenly popped after it festered under the skin for a while.




slvemike4u -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 10:16:35 PM)

Well lets just be careful lest the cure kill the patient.The problem is multi-faceted...saying that border states have been frustrated for years by this issue ignores the economic advantages those same states have gained by having an excess of cheap labor at their disposal.
Now of course some are noticing the resulting demographic shifts that are taking place...and suddenly the economics of the issue are secondary.All of the benifits these border states accrued over all of these years from all of that cheap labor doesn't amount to a hill of beans when they realise that theyy are becoming minorities in their own state.Perhaps that is understandable...perhaps it is just racial fear.




tazzygirl -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/22/2010 10:21:57 PM)

States have benefited, and so have some businesses... but not all. Some have taken hard hits because of the immigration problems. So have individuals through loss of ID when someone "borrows" their SS number. While the economy was good, many states could "look" the other way, and the Fed gladly obliged.

If illegals are deported, yes, the tax base takes a hit. But the welfare side takes a breath. Some companies lose business, other companies gain some relief from bad debts.

This has long been a battle that is just now coming to a head as states scramble to make their budgets.

Do i think this is the way to go about it? No. But, to date, nothing else has worked. At least now this issue is getting the attention.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375