RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now.

RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (Full Version)

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

Message

AsmodaisSin -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/29/2010 8:11:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse I wouldn't want to be any of the 3 democratic congressmen from AZ who are up for re-election in November. I wouldn't want to be a republican and certainly not a fiscal conservative whos ever said anything, because that ad will go something like 'Republicans are ignoring the constitution, in Arizona they want to secede from the union', and then after they frivolously waste taxpayer money writing unconstitutional law, they throw good taxpayer money after bad sueing the united states on your dime. Fiscally responsible, I don't think so. I think it's great that she's using the bailout money to pay for it, especially since they threw such a fit over the states wanting to use that money in better ways (paying off their debts and such).

thompsonx -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/29/2010 8:35:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Do you have some validation for your assertion that most americans (as in more than half) are in favor of this law? Why is it some here always want someone else to do their research? Why is it that some people are so gullible? The CNN/Opinion Research poll was conducted July 16-21, with 1,018 adult Americans questioned by telephone, including a special sample of 308 black and 303 Hispanic respondents. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Do you really believe that 1,018 people out of 300,000,000 + people is actually representative? http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/27/poll.immigration.discrimination/index.html?section=cnn_latest http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/05/two-national-polls-show-arizona-immigration-law-very-popular.html http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/14974 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005957-503544.html That enough for you? something like... 2 seconds of typing something other than bullshit will let you avoid stupid questions. Something like 2 seconds of logical thought might let you avoid stupid conclusions. So in other words, you just talk out your ass to hear yourself make noise. Gotcha. You are the one who feels that the opinion of 1018 randomly selected people contacted by telephone represent the collective opinion of the 300,000,000 + citizens of the u.s.

truckinslave -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/29/2010 9:01:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse I wouldn't want to be any of the 3 democratic congressmen from AZ who are up for re-election in November. I had the same thought. Also: Reid. Boxer? Murray in Wa? Bennett, Romanoff In Co??? realclearpolitics downgraded Boxer from likely to leans today, based on polling done before this fiasco. People are sick of illegal immigration. It's hard to see this is a political victory for the dims. It could mean the majority in either the Senate or the House. Both, even. Much less the impact on gubenatorial and state house elections, which have huge importance in a census year.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/29/2010 11:57:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse I wouldn't want to be any of the 3 democratic congressmen from AZ who are up for re-election in November. I had the same thought. Also: Reid. Boxer? Murray in Wa? Bennett, Romanoff In Co??? realclearpolitics downgraded Boxer from likely to leans today, based on polling done before this fiasco. People are sick of illegal immigration. It's hard to see this is a political victory for the dims. It could mean the majority in either the Senate or the House. Both, even. Much less the impact on gubenatorial and state house elections, which have huge importance in a census year. As I said in another thread, this is a no win situation for the Dems. They either lose and are criticized for wasting time, money and opposing a popular bill, or they win and are criticized for being soft on immigration. There was an earlier post that suggested it wouldnt be overturned in the 9th circuit, presumably because it is a liberal circuit. Not true with regard to immigration. They have consistently upheld state immigration laws, such as Az's right to enforce laws against hiring illegals. There are apparently a couple of legal errors in the opinion imposing the injunction and it may even get thrown out on a technical basis. Moreover the main issue that she imposed the TI against is only one that REQUIRES checking documentation in the event of some other action. The police have always had and still have the ABILITY to check documentation. And the TI and even eventual overturning of the law will encourage more departments to enter into 287(g) arrangements, thus having the same effect. The most important part of the law may actually be the upheld prohibition against Sanctuary cities and the right of citizens to sue any government agency that adopts a policy that restricts enforcement of Federal immigration laws. Let one person be killed in Phoenix by an illegal and a wrongful death judgement be entered, and you will see enforcement jump way up. San Francisco could be in trouble if the 9th upholds the same right to sue. But in the long run, its SCOTUS that will decide.

popeye1250 -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/29/2010 2:20:45 PM)
I want to see (((ALL))) the Democratic candidates for congress and the senate speaking out LOUD and CLEAR for Amnesty this fall. All their opponents have to do is run a 10 second clip of all the Democrats in the Congress jumping up to their feet to applaud Mexican president Calderone after he criticized our country, our laws and one of our states! Game, set, match.

truckinslave -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/29/2010 3:54:32 PM)
quote: Moreover the main issue that she imposed the TI against is only one that REQUIRES checking documentation in the event of some other action. laura Ingraham, guest-hosting for Billy O, last night, had as one of her guests another former clerk for C Thomas. They made exactly this point- that Sheriff Joe A is today free to carry on as he had in the past, free to arrest illegals, he simply isn't required to do so. I haven't had time to read the opinion, and had only heard that on the one show. Good to see it confirmed.

thompsonx -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/29/2010 4:14:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: Moreover the main issue that she imposed the TI against is only one that REQUIRES checking documentation in the event of some other action. laura Ingraham, guest-hosting for Billy O, last night, had as one of her guests another former clerk for C Thomas. They made exactly this point- that Sheriff Joe A is today free to carry on as he had in the past, free to arrest illegals, he simply isn't required to do so. I haven't had time to read the opinion, and had only heard that on the one show. Good to see it confirmed. When, exactly has the sheriff not been allowed to arrest either illegals or those who employ them?

truckinslave -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/29/2010 4:37:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: Moreover the main issue that she imposed the TI against is only one that REQUIRES checking documentation in the event of some other action. laura Ingraham, guest-hosting for Billy O, last night, had as one of her guests another former clerk for C Thomas. They made exactly this point- that Sheriff Joe A is today free to carry on as he had in the past, free to arrest illegals, he simply isn't required to do so. I haven't had time to read the opinion, and had only heard that on the one show. Good to see it confirmed. When, exactly has the sheriff not been allowed to arrest either illegals or those who employ them? Never, I suppose. But much of the reporting I've seen/heard on the Bolton ruling implied or flat-out stated something like: "law enforcement in Arizona will no longer be allowed to ask suspected persons about their immigration status" Which was incorrect.

truckinslave -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/29/2010 4:41:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I want to see (((ALL))) the Democratic candidates for congress and the senate speaking out LOUD and CLEAR for Amnesty this fall. All their opponents have to do is run a 10 second clip of all the Democrats in the Congress jumping up to their feet to applaud Mexican president Calderone after he criticized our country, our laws and one of our states! Game, set, match. There are rumors of potential Presedential amnesty for illegals. There is also this memo from ICE to try to do the same thing administratively. I don't think 0bama0 is willing to sign his political death warrant for his ideology. But I've been wrong before, and he's certainly willing to kill fellow dims for it.....

thompsonx -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/29/2010 4:42:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: Moreover the main issue that she imposed the TI against is only one that REQUIRES checking documentation in the event of some other action. laura Ingraham, guest-hosting for Billy O, last night, had as one of her guests another former clerk for C Thomas. They made exactly this point- that Sheriff Joe A is today free to carry on as he had in the past, free to arrest illegals, he simply isn't required to do so. I haven't had time to read the opinion, and had only heard that on the one show. Good to see it confirmed. When, exactly has the sheriff not been allowed to arrest either illegals or those who employ them? Never, I suppose. But much of the reporting I've seen/heard on the Bolton ruling implied or flat-out stated something like: "law enforcement in Arizona will no longer be allowed to ask suspected persons about their immigration status" Which was incorrect. Thank you for admitting that this new law in arizona was totally unnecessary.

truckinslave -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/29/2010 4:53:02 PM)
quote: Thank you for admitting that this new law in arizona was totally unnecessary. Calmly, as though to a petulant child..... I not only "admitted" no such thing, the conclusion stated is totally false, and I strongly suspect you know that. 1. There were several portions of the bill unrelated to LEO in-field checks of immigration status (sveral of which survived intact) 2. The legislature, governor, and population of Az thought it necessary to require LEOs to so inquire rather than just leave it to their discretion. Judge Bolton struck that down on the absurd notion that runing the additional checks resultant from this requirement would impose a burden on the feds. All that is, really, is an admission both that the problem is huge and that the fed refuses to address it. ("Enforcing federal law- which the President took an oath to do- places an unreasonable burden on the federal government"? That's something the Solicitor General wants to argue before SCOTUS? Really? This opinion is deeply deeply flawed)

thompsonx -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/29/2010 5:11:42 PM)
quote: All that is, really, is an admission both that the problem is huge and that the fed refuses to address it. ("Enforcing federal law- which the President took an oath to do- places an unreasonable burden on the federal government"? That's something the Solicitor General wants to argue before SCOTUS? Really? This opinion is deeply deeply flawed) Speaking quizzically as though to a biggot who speaks out of both sides of his mouth: You said quote: Never, I suppose. When I asked quote: When, exactly has the sheriff not been allowed to arrest either illegals or those who employ them? It is a federal law that the state has the obligation of enforcing...ya know just like the federal law against sticking up banks

truckinslave -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/30/2010 4:14:33 AM)
quote: It is a federal law that the state has the obligation of enforcing...ya know just like the federal law against sticking up banks Someone should tell 0bama0, the ACLU, Eric Holder, et al. All of them have argued at one point or another that enforcement of immigration law was the sole province of the feds. Good to know you're on the side of Az.

thompsonx -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/30/2010 5:37:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: It is a federal law that the state has the obligation of enforcing...ya know just like the federal law against sticking up banks Someone should tell 0bama0, the ACLU, Eric Holder, et al. All of them have argued at one point or another that enforcement of immigration law was the sole province of the feds. Good to know you're on the side of Az. So it is your position that local law enforcement is not allowed to enforce federal law? I am sure you have a cite to indicate where this or any administration says that local law enforcement is not allowed to enforce federal law.

slvemike4u -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/30/2010 6:33:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I want to see (((ALL))) the Democratic candidates for congress and the senate speaking out LOUD and CLEAR for Amnesty this fall. All their opponents have to do is run a 10 second clip of all the Democrats in the Congress jumping up to their feet to applaud Mexican president Calderone after he criticized our country, our laws and one of our states! Game, set, match. Another post from the self proclaimed "independant" ? The ruling wasn't about Republicans vs Democrats(as Popeye pointed out earlier,prior to going all independant partisan on us)it was Federal supremacy / State usurption.

mnottertail -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/30/2010 6:42:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: It is a federal law that the state has the obligation of enforcing...ya know just like the federal law against sticking up banks Someone should tell 0bama0, the ACLU, Eric Holder, et al. All of them have argued at one point or another that enforcement of immigration law was the sole province of the feds. Good to know you're on the side of Az. Jeez, I don't remember that. I doubt anyone remembers that. I remember Obama and Holder both saying that federal enforcement of immigration should be stricter in terms of its execution. Perhaps you have that cite, or are you confusing it with the position that immigration law is; as a matter of explicit constitutionality, a federal mandate? And that only federal judges have authority in immigration law. Saves us having to deal with the Judge Roy Beans of the world as well as differing immigration statutes in each state.

StrangerThan -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/30/2010 7:12:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Do you have some validation for your assertion that most americans (as in more than half) are in favor of this law? Why is it some here always want someone else to do their research? Why is it that some people are so gullible? The CNN/Opinion Research poll was conducted July 16-21, with 1,018 adult Americans questioned by telephone, including a special sample of 308 black and 303 Hispanic respondents. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Do you really believe that 1,018 people out of 300,000,000 + people is actually representative? http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/27/poll.immigration.discrimination/index.html?section=cnn_latest http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/05/two-national-polls-show-arizona-immigration-law-very-popular.html http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/14974 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005957-503544.html That enough for you? something like... 2 seconds of typing something other than bullshit will let you avoid stupid questions. Something like 2 seconds of logical thought might let you avoid stupid conclusions. So in other words, you just talk out your ass to hear yourself make noise. Gotcha. You are the one who feels that the opinion of 1018 randomly selected people contacted by telephone represent the collective opinion of the 300,000,000 + citizens of the u.s. For someone who isn't an idiot, you make a good stab at portraying one. As far as the results go, feel free to argue your case with virtually every polling house in the US. I'm sure they'll listen with great attention. In light of the question as to when the sheriff was not allowed to arrest people, he has been able to. Able equates to enforcement only when one has the desire to do so however. The law would have required statewide enforcement, not just Maricopa county. Either way, this will end up in the Supreme Court, and if it loses, what you will see is a patchwork of legal maneuvers like anti-abortionists use to chip away at the issue until we as a country, enact a comprehensive, workable and sustainable immigration policy - something we do not have now where latin America is concerned. Either way, Obama is doing the right thing in attacking the supply side. Arresting, fining or imprisoning those who hire them is a big part of the answer. Regardless of any legislation passed, if that doesn't occur, illegal immigration will continue unabated.

thompsonx -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/30/2010 2:18:45 PM)
quote: For someone who isn't an idiot, you make a good stab at portraying one. This from the person who thinks the opinion of 1018 people represent the collective opinion of 300,000,000 + people Are you sure that is the hook you wish to hang your intellectual hat on?

truckinslave -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/30/2010 5:26:32 PM)
quote: Jeez, I don't remember that. I doubt anyone remembers that “S.B. 1070 irreparably undermines the federal government’s control over the regulation of immigration and immigration policy,” says President Obama’s request. “It impermissibly attempts to set immigration policy at the state level and is therefore preempted.” You can further prompt your failing memory using google.

thompsonx -> RE: Parts of AZ law are nullied...for now. (7/30/2010 5:48:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: Jeez, I don't remember that. I doubt anyone remembers that “S.B. 1070 irreparably undermines the federal government’s control over the regulation of immigration and immigration policy,” says President Obama’s request. “It impermissibly attempts to set immigration policy at the state level and is therefore preempted.” You can further prompt your failing memory using google. quote: Someone should tell 0bama0, the ACLU, Eric Holder, et al. All of them have argued at one point or another that enforcement of immigration law was the sole province of the feds. Good to know you're on the side of Az. What you have posted shows that immigration policy not enforcement is the perview of the fed. Any cop can enforce it.[/b

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.734375E-02