Do People Believe the AZ Law is Constitutional?

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

  • Total voters
    27
AssHatZombie said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, the arresting officer may not just assume they will flee. Sorry. Many will, certainly, but that is not sufficient.
 
Yurt said:
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
Click to expand...

Gonzales v Peoria says they can enforce criminal violations of the law. It is your inability or unwillingness to make this distinction that blinds you. Gonzales v Peoria touched on the supremacy clause argument in regards to enforcement of the civil violations and indicated it was prohibited. It rejected the supremacy clause in regards to enforcement of criminal violations.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
No, the arresting officer may not just assume they will flee. Sorry. Many will, certainly, but that is not sufficient.
Click to expand...

He may have reasonable suspicion though. Officers are trusted to exercize their reason in making a disctinction upon the spot. That's why we have humans doing the job instead of military style kill bots.

On what grounds do you remove their right to make an arrest in light of a reasonable suspicion?
 
AssHatZombie said:
He may have reasonable suspicion though. Officers are trusted to exercize their reason in making a disctinction upon the spot. That's why we have humans doing the job instead of military style kill bots.

On what grounds do you remove their right to make an arrest in light of a reasonable suspicion?
Click to expand...

They have to be able to articulate a reason as to why they believe the person is a flight risk. They cannot just say because all or most of them flee.

I gave you what I would consider reason to believe they are a flight risk. That is, if they cannot identify themselves in anyway and/or show some proof of residence, then they are likely to evade. This is how the issue is satisfied in regards to most warrantless arrests for civil violations and low level misdemeanors.

Further, if there identity can be established a quick check may be able to reveal if they have evaded the INS, a deportation order or if there is greater probable cause for illegal entry. If they have evaded the INS that's reason to suspect they will flee.

Again, while the above might satisfy the 4th amendment concerns and limiting Az to powers granted to the feds there is still some question as to whether the Feds have preempted the state in the civil enforcement. If they have then the locals may not be allowed to act at all in that sphere.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
don't listen to RS...i gave him 3 other cases and he ignored those...its like talking to the wall
Click to expand...

Probably, the same ones asshat posted and to which I responded. At least, he was not so lazy as to ask me to go and search for his point. That's why he got a response and you didn't. Tell me what you believe is relevant and I will do the same for you.

At least, ice is catching on.
 
Immigration law is probably one of the most difficult areas of US law. There are damn few of them across the country. You will find them in places like San Diego, Tucson and Phoenix, and El Paso. I don't THINK the law is constitutional based on Damo's earlier post, but the Court could modify their holding. I think anyone that tells you they know how the federal courts will rule on this is blowing smoke. It is anyone's guess.
 
Socrtease said:
Immigration law is probably one of the most difficult areas of US law. There are damn few of them across the country. You will find them in places like San Diego, Tucson and Phoenix, and El Paso. I don't THINK the law is constitutional based on Damo's earlier post, but the Court could modify their holding. I think anyone that tells you they know how the federal courts will rule on this is blowing smoke. It is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

actually, its quite a large area of law...portland, seattle also have it...
 
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...

This should be good. :cof1:

Could you please show how your definition of the 14th Amendment makes them citizens of the US??
 
My understanding is that it mirrors the federal law and was carefully written to accommodate relative court decisions to ensure its constitutionality when challenged.
 
Socrtease said:
Immigration law is probably one of the most difficult areas of US law. There are damn few of them across the country. You will find them in places like San Diego, Tucson and Phoenix, and El Paso. I don't THINK the law is constitutional based on Damo's earlier post, but the Court could modify their holding. I think anyone that tells you they know how the federal courts will rule on this is blowing smoke. It is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...
Which is why I voted, "I don't know"... It's really up in the air. This may be one of those things that Kennedy winds up being the tie-breaker on.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
This should be good. :cof1:

Could you please show how your definition of the 14th Amendment makes them citizens of the US??
Click to expand...

OMG, you think I am arguing the 14th makes the illegals citizens? Dumbass. Can you read?

ICE was talking about the state protecting their citizens and I was noting that those citizens are citizens of the US according to the 14th.

It is a perfect example of your problem. You read what you want to read and ignore anything that gets in the way.
 
I think anyone that tells you they know how the federal courts will rule on this is blowing smoke. It is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

All we can ever go by is what the courts have decided previously. There is no guarantee they will decide the same way in the future, and we have no way of knowing the future. That said, I believe the Arizona law will not be found unconstitutional, unless the Federal law is found unconstitutional as well. I would think the Federal law has probably already been challenged at some point, and this wouldn't be an issue, but as you say... it's anybody's guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top