Do People Believe the AZ Law is Constitutional?

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

  • Total voters
    27
No!

az-goner.jpg


az-leaving-america.jpg


az-policing-tools.jpg


az-lalo-profile.jpg
 
Last edited:
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...

IMO, the problem with alot of "constitutional law" is that its just bullshit to find loopholes to let govt do stuff.

Everybody can make their own determination.. Personally its unconstitutional to me, as it violates 4th amendment rights of the people.

I dont give 2 craps about racial profiling or any of that nonsense. Racial profiling is probably a good tool for law enforcement, but it doesnt take much to go from racial profiling to violating a person's rights... and thats where I have the problem.
 
RStringfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey, when your presentation is unclear; it's the fault of the presenter, not the observer. :good4u:
 
RStringfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

No I am not. The section of AZ law which is the ONLY portion of their law that differs from federal law is that section I boldened. That deals with the right of a local officer's ability to arrest and detain a person who they believe to be here illegally. The federal law is clear that they must have commited a "prior" felony for a local officer to arrest them for suspicion of illegal entry during a non criminal encounter i.e. traffic violation. For instance a person is stopped for speeding, the officer attempts to obtain a background on any priors and a felony prior pops up...the officer can then ask them if they have legal documentation to be here and if they do not he can arrest them on suspicion of illegal entry. The AZ law allows an officer in the same situation to ask the immigrant status in the same scenario without knowledge of a prior felony.
 
Mike Mitrosky said:
IMO, the problem with alot of "constitutional law" is that its just bullshit to find loopholes to let govt do stuff.

Everybody can make their own determination.. Personally its unconstitutional to me, as it violates 4th amendment rights of the people.
Click to expand...
But the irony is that your libertarian radicalism in this instance will make us all have to get nationali id's. But you must know what you're doing.
I dont give 2 craps about racial profiling or any of that nonsense. Racial profiling is probably a good tool for law enforcement, but it doesnt take much to go from racial profiling to violating a person's rights... and thats where I have the problem.
Click to expand...

there's no racial profiling in this arizona law.

Im beginning to fail to see the difference between libertarians and run of the mill globalist neocon traitors.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
But the irony is that your libertarian radicalism in this instance will make us all have to get nationali id's. But you must know what you're doing.


there's no racial profiling in this arizona law.

Im beginning to fail to see the difference between libertarians and run of the mill globalist neocon traitors.
Click to expand...

I really do not understand where you are getting this connect of libertarian with globalist... Or how I want a national ID card...


You just want me to justify a law that I like even though its against the constitution. Arizona might be able to justify it. It might be their interpretation of the constitution, but its not mine.

No matter how much Id like to see illegals go home right now, I dont think we need to violate the constitution to do that.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Hey, when your presentation is unclear; it's the fault of the presenter, not the observer.
Click to expand...

It was not unclear when read in context. You were in a mad rush to find some gotcha, as usual, and did not take time to try to understand. You are on watch for any little misstep by me so you can make some big production out of it, meanwhile you and those who share your position continue to make HUGE errors over an over again.

Dixie, in this thread, continues the lie that the Az law does nothing more than federal law. That is absurd. They are trying to criminalize undocumented presence alone which goes well beyond federal law, not to mention, going beyond the limits on the Feds to make warrantless arrests. Whether those violate the supremacy clause is certainly debatable. But it is absurd to pretend they do not go beyond federal law.

Many on the right are continuing to spread error about what "lawful contact" means, even though it is no longer relevant because the Az Republicans knew what it meant and realized it left cops able to harass just about anyone they came into contact with.

But you are too busy looking over my posts for something you can spin or take out of context to notice the lies or errors of those who share your positions.
 
RStringfield said:
It was not unclear when read in context. You were in a mad rush to find some gotcha, as usual, and did not take time to try to understand. You are on watch for any little misstep by me so you can make some big production out of it, meanwhile you and those who share your position continue to make HUGE errors over an over again.

Dixie, in this thread, continues the lie that the Az law does nothing more than federal law. That is absurd. They are trying to criminalize undocumented presence alone which goes well beyond federal law, not to mention, going beyond the limits on the Feds to make warrantless arrests. Whether those violate the supremacy clause is certainly debatable. But it is absurd to pretend they do not go beyond federal law.

Many on the right are continuing to spread error about what "lawful contact" means, even though it is no longer relevant because the Az Republicans knew what it meant and realized it left cops able to harass just about anyone they came into contact with.

But you are too busy looking over my posts for something you can spin or take out of context to notice the lies or errors of those who share your positions.
Click to expand...

Warantless arrests are made all the time, just not for being here illegally. The federal law needs to be challenged allowing for the warantless arrest of suspected illegals. The law is not unconstitutional as claimed by many on the left...though I agree it goes farther than the current federal law goes. With half a million illegals in AZ alone this is hardly a "harmless" crime.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
It was not unclear when read in context. You were in a mad rush to find some gotcha, as usual, and did not take time to try to understand. You are on watch for any little misstep by me so you can make some big production out of it, meanwhile you and those who share your position continue to make HUGE errors over an over again.

Dixie, in this thread, continues the lie that the Az law does nothing more than federal law. That is absurd. They are trying to criminalize undocumented presence alone which goes well beyond federal law, not to mention, going beyond the limits on the Feds to make warrantless arrests. Whether those violate the supremacy clause is certainly debatable. But it is absurd to pretend they do not go beyond federal law.

Many on the right are continuing to spread error about what "lawful contact" means, even though it is no longer relevant because the Az Republicans knew what it meant and realized it left cops able to harass just about anyone they came into contact with.

But you are too busy looking over my posts for something you can spin or take out of context to notice the lies or errors of those who share your positions.
Click to expand...

An undocumented presence is criminal; well it will be come August. :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Nope.
It supports the Federal law.
Click to expand...

Congress has the power to regulate immigration and set penalties for violations of the law. It has done so. Enforcement is another issue, i.e., the courts have ruled that in the area of enforcement of criminal violations the feds have not occupied the field. But, any "support" or "supplement" to the penalties of violating federal law is likely to be rejected as a violation of the supremacy clause.
 
RStringfield said:
Congress has the power to regulate immigration and set penalties for violations of the law. It has done so. Enforcement is another issue, i.e., the courts have ruled that in the area of enforcement of criminal violations the feds have not occupied the field. But, any "support" or "supplement" to the penalties of violating federal law is likely to be rejected as a violation of the supremacy clause.
Click to expand...

Nope.
Come August this will become law and other States are going to follow our lead. :good4u:
 
It will not become law in August. I doubt even it's biggest supporters believe that. That part is unlikely to ever become law.
 
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...
You could ask Barry Obama....he's a constitutional lawyer.
 
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...
Tell me about it. I'm trying to figure out how to get the paper work done so my niece can come over here and go to school. I'm hoping I can figure it out with out hiring an atty.

Yurt, you do immigration law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top