Do People Believe the AZ Law is Constitutional?

Do you believe that the new AZ Immigration law is constitutional?

  • Total voters
    27
I think that each state legislature has the responsibility to protect their citizens which would include economic protections as well. That the feds have failed to adequately secure our borders left Arizona hanging in the wind. What I have read is that the Arizona law reflects no specific bias against race and in fact only reflects the same language as federal law.

Those that accuse decent law abiding americans as racist because they want a secure border are total race baiting assholes.
 
I personally don't know if it is constitutional. The argument that I heard that made me pause was that the SCOTUS in the past has ruled that the Federal Congress has, per the constitution, the power over citizenship and nationalization laws based specifically on the provision of Naturalization given them in the constitution.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I think that each state legislature has the responsibility to protect their citizens which would include economic protections as well. That the feds have failed to adequately secure our borders left Arizona hanging in the wind. What I have read is that the Arizona law reflects no specific bias against race and in fact only reflects the same language as federal law.

Those that accuse decent law abiding americans as racist because they want a secure border are total race baiting assholes.
Click to expand...

The 14th makes them citizens of the US.

I am not certain what economic protections you mean, but the states do not have the right to regulate foreign trade or interstate commerce. Shit, Scalia said the feds had power over plants grown and sold in one state. I think you have even less of a case if you argue the states have power to regulate this as commerce.

The Az law does not reflect the same language as federal law. Section 2E is clearly not in compliance with federal law.

I don't know that the action is motivated by racial bias, but the lack of concern for how this WILL fall on a specific minority, definitely seems to be affected by race.
 
RStringfield said:
The 14th makes them citizens of the US.

I am not certain what economic protections you mean, but the states do not have the right to regulate foreign trade or interstate commerce. Shit, Scalia said the feds had power over plants grown and sold in one state. I think you have even less of a case if you argue the states have power to regulate this as commerce.

The Az law does not reflect the same language as federal law. Section 2E is clearly not in compliance with federal law.

I don't know that the action is motivated by racial bias, but the lack of concern for how this WILL fall on a specific minority, definitely seems to be affected by race.
Click to expand...

It's called the right for local police to enforce federal law. WHich is real, despite your lies.
 
RStringfield said:
The 14th makes them citizens of the US.

I am not certain what economic protections you mean, but the states do not have the right to regulate foreign trade or interstate commerce. Shit, Scalia said the feds had power over plants grown and sold in one state. I think you have even less of a case if you argue the states have power to regulate this as commerce.

The Az law does not reflect the same language as federal law. Section 2E is clearly not in compliance with federal law.

I don't know that the action is motivated by racial bias, but the lack of concern for how this WILL fall on a specific minority, definitely seems to be affected by race.
Click to expand...

Illegal aliens are not legal citizens of US residency you hair splitting dweeb!

The economic protection is against the syphon of money that having a population of half a million illegals causes!

The only thing AZ law differs with the federal law is that a prior known felony is not a requirement to arrest and detain them if they are found to be here illegally during a non arrestable act...that's it!! NUMBER ONE--- That means that it is NO MORE A RACIST LAW than the federal stautes. NUMBER TWO---it means that though the federal law will trump the AZ law it WILL CAUSE THE FEDS TO HAVE TO TAKE ACTION! The boldened portion is the exception that will likely be challenged in the AZ law.

The federal immigration and naturalization scheme includes a place for state and local authorities. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c reads:

(a) In general. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who--

(1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and

(2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.

(b) Cooperation. The Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials.

The provision contemplates a circumscribed role for state and local officials, to be sure, but the Arizona law authorizes a much broader role. Particularly: The Arizona law authorizes arrest without a showing of a prior felony, the requirement under (a)(2), above. Here's the provision from SB 1070:

E. A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's called the right for local police to enforce federal law. WHich is real, despite your lies.
Click to expand...

The court rulings are clear. The locals can enforce criminal violations of the INA, but have not been given power to enforce civil violations, which 2E does. Further, 2E goes beyond powers granted to federal agents under federal law.
 
I wish we had a constitutional lawyer on the site who could give me a better understanding. Is there concurrent jurisdiction? Is this like drug laws where the states can make concurrent laws, even (sometimes) laws that legalize something that is illegal federally?
 
THis is all theatrics.

All local cops had the right to check immigration status prior to this law.

The law was not even necessary, it was used as an "event" in the public psychodrama to justify some new federal amnesty policy.
 
RStringfield said:
The court rulings are clear. The locals can enforce criminal violations of the INA, but have not been given power to enforce civil violations, which 2E does. Further, 2E goes beyond powers granted to federal agents under federal law.
Click to expand...

No. Stop lying. They are allowed to investigate BOTH TYPES.
 
AssHatZombie said:
THis is all theatrics.

All local cops had the right to check immigration status prior to this law.

The law was not even necessary, it was used as an "event" in the public psychodrama to justify some new federal amnesty policy.
Click to expand...

this is all done to stir up racist rightwing repuklicans, nothing more. if they deported them they would all cry for thier cheep labor back.:clink:
 
Ice Dancer said:
The only thing AZ law differs with the federal law is that a prior known felony is not a requirement to arrest and detain them if they are found to be here illegally during a non arrestable act...that's it!!
Click to expand...

That is all that is needed. A prior known felony creates probable cause of illegal entry, not just illegal presence. Lack of documentation or an admission of illegal presence does not create probable cause of illegal entry.

I thank you, for at least acknowledging the valid points of contention with the Az law. But you are still misunderstanding what creates probable cause of illegal entry and what only creates probable cause of illegal presence.
 
nAHZi, ask yourself, how is it that I am arguing that locals may arrest on probable cause of criminal violations of the INA if I am also maintaining that they may not investigate for violations? I am not. Either you are lying or possibly you are a dumbass that thinks the power to investigate means they can arrest and then find probable cause later. That's not how it is done in this country.

They can investigate and if they find probable cause of illegal entry they may arrest. Probable cause of illegal presence is not probable cause of illegal entry. They may not arrest based solely upon probable cause of illegal presence. Gonzales v Peoria was explicit on this point and federal law reflects these standards, while Section 2E of the Az law clearly does not.

They could arrest if they had reason to believe that the person will escape. In my opinion, this would be satisfied if the suspect is not at all able to prove his identity. But the Az law does not require a legitimate reason to believe the suspect will escape in order to execute a warrantless arrest. Without that, it clearly is a violation of the 4th.

However, even with that requirement Az may still violate the supremacy clause because the opinion in Gonzales v Peoria argues that the feds have preempted the states in the enforcement of civil violations.
 
RStringfield said:
STRAW MAN! The question is whether they may arrest, dumbass, not whether they can ask questions.
Click to expand...

if investigations (asking questions) reveal infrations, the penalties should be dealt out. And i think it's reasonable to assume anyone would flee if they were gonna be deported. Im reasonably suspicious that they woud just comply. They have a history of legal disregard.
 
Damocles said:
I wish we had a constitutional lawyer on the site who could give me a better understanding. Is there concurrent jurisdiction? Is this like drug laws where the states can make concurrent laws, even (sometimes) laws that legalize something that is illegal federally?
Click to expand...

gonzales v. perioa or something like that, says states can enforce immigration laws

i think the law is constitutional, however, it is likely to be overturned based on the supremacy clause...i don't see the high court allowing these laws, i believe the high court will view this as negative because they will fear every state creating their own laws
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top