Federal judge blocks part of Arizona immigration law

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,359
7,214
60
✟169,357.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but which part?

Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) -- With scant hours to go before a controversial Arizona immigration law goes into effect, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday against the implementation of parts of the law.

Full story here -->:doh:
 

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The judge enjoined the most controversial parts of the law:

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places...

There's no surprise here. She's just punting the decision to a higher court. SCOTUS will ultimately have to decide the issue.

Judge blocks controversial parts of Ariz. law - U.S. news - Immigration: A Nation Divided - msnbc.com
 
Upvote 0

Yusuf Evans

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2005
10,057
610
Iraq
✟13,433.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Soooo....lemme get this straight. The FEDS won't enforce a FEDERAL law, so the state takes matter into their own hands to do the job for the FEDS. Then a FEDERAL judge blocks the law. Wow.


It hurts the Feds feelings when their underlings in the state try to enforce the laws and make them look bad.
 
Upvote 0

DanielRB

Slave of Allah
Jul 16, 2004
1,958
137
New Mexico
✟18,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I wonder if the Feds are going to do anything about the numerous "sanctuary" cities and counties...a state saying it will enforce a federal law is bad, but a city or county that says that it will deliberately thumb it's nose at it is ok? THAT kind of "patchwork immigration law" is fine?

Oh, well. To expect logic from government is probably a laughable mistake.
 
Upvote 0

ACougar

U.S. Army Retired
Feb 7, 2003
16,795
1,295
Arizona
Visit site
✟30,452.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
A shame we aren't directing all this time and energy toward real immigration reform... reestablish the Bracero Program and allow anyone without a criminal record the opportunity to come here and work so long as they pay for health innsurance and toward a social security that can only be drawn in thier home country.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Billnew

Legend
Apr 23, 2004
21,246
1,234
58
Ohio
Visit site
✟35,363.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I have seen the wording, and the majority of the time, I have seen this wording:

that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.



From this wording, I would take it that an officer is not required, but may do so if they wish. CNN has a different wording though:

police are prevented from questioning people's immigration status if there is reason to believe they are in the country illegally.
Legally, the two are not the same.

The part that went into effect will still make Az less desirable to illegals.

The first few posters say this ruling is good, and expected. But this law is worded very closely to the Federal immigration laws, so how can it be in question if Nationally it is accepted, but in the state law its illegal?

Anything not covered specifically by the Constitution is a state right. There are parts of immigration in the constitution, but nothing limits immigration control as a federal control, and even more if the federal goverment isn't doing what is suppose to do, then the states must step up and enforce the laws.

I agree, lets stop fighting about Arizona's law, and force the feds to enforce the laws. It would be cheaper all around. But the current administration still has the hopes of signing millions of new liberals into citizenship. They love the lesser citizen, the ones that get paid a percentage of minimum wage, no benefits, and no employment protections that every citizen is guaranteed. They love the underground work force.

Illegals are bankrupting the border states, and the problem is expanding quickly to all states. If the federal goverment doesn't act, then every state will have to pass this kind of law.(and many are considering it.)

You can not tax the working citizens and then give away a large percentage to people that are not our citizens for very long before the state goes bankrupt. This is basically giving money to one beggar, which leads to twenty or thirty beggars to swarm in. States give welfare to illegals, so more illegals flow in. Money for nothing, when they slave at jobs in Mexico for pennies.

In the end, I believe the courts will side with Arizona on the majority of this bill, if not all of it. I do believe the governor is right, it will go to the supreme court, and I believe it will be 5-4
 
Upvote 0

ACougar

U.S. Army Retired
Feb 7, 2003
16,795
1,295
Arizona
Visit site
✟30,452.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
One of the problems is that this law has been modified a few times, and that some modifications which many believe were made to the law are not yet really in place. The law as it was originally written was horrible... the law with all the amendments I've seen is still dumb but not really a big deal IMO.

I'm all for just letting the courts sort through the mess at this point.


I have seen the wording, and the majority of the time, I have seen this wording:



From this wording, I would take it that an officer is not required, but may do so if they wish. CNN has a different wording though:


Legally, the two are not the same.

The part that went into effect will still make Az less desirable to illegals.

The first few posters say this ruling is good, and expected. But this law is worded very closely to the Federal immigration laws, so how can it be in question if Nationally it is accepted, but in the state law its illegal?

Anything not covered specifically by the Constitution is a state right. There are parts of immigration in the constitution, but nothing limits immigration control as a federal control, and even more if the federal goverment isn't doing what is suppose to do, then the states must step up and enforce the laws.

I agree, lets stop fighting about Arizona's law, and force the feds to enforce the laws. It would be cheaper all around. But the current administration still has the hopes of signing millions of new liberals into citizenship. They love the lesser citizen, the ones that get paid a percentage of minimum wage, no benefits, and no employment protections that every citizen is guaranteed. They love the underground work force.

Illegals are bankrupting the border states, and the problem is expanding quickly to all states. If the federal goverment doesn't act, then every state will have to pass this kind of law.(and many are considering it.)

You can not tax the working citizens and then give away a large percentage to people that are not our citizens for very long before the state goes bankrupt. This is basically giving money to one beggar, which leads to twenty or thirty beggars to swarm in. States give welfare to illegals, so more illegals flow in. Money for nothing, when they slave at jobs in Mexico for pennies.

In the end, I believe the courts will side with Arizona on the majority of this bill, if not all of it. I do believe the governor is right, it will go to the supreme court, and I believe it will be 5-4
 
Upvote 0
J

Jazer

Guest
Soooo....lemme get this straight. The FEDS won't enforce a FEDERAL law, so the state takes matter into their own hands to do the job for the FEDS. Then a FEDERAL judge blocks the law. Wow.
Did you read the law? While it claims to represent Federal law it really goes beyond that. This all needs to be worked out in the court system because there are other states that want to use this law for a model. Arizona is as good of a place to work it all out as anywhere else. I can not stress enough that people need to read the law before they comment on it.
 
Upvote 0
D

DesertSky

Guest
Did you read the law? While it claims to represent Federal law it really goes beyond that. This all needs to be worked out in the court system because there are other states that want to use this law for a model. Arizona is as good of a place to work it all out as anywhere else. I can not stress enough that people need to read the law before they comment on it.
I read every word of it, which is more than I can say for 99% of those against it. Most of what people are protesting doesn't even exist in the text.
 
Upvote 0

sdmsanjose

Regular Member
Jun 19, 2006
3,772
405
Arizona
✟23,684.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are three issues that will determine the 2012 elections. They are

1 Economy
2 War
3 Immigrations issues

Obama will lose votes, from those that voted for him in 2008, including myself, on the immigration issue. If he does real well on the economy and war he may still get elected. If he does poorly on either the war or economy he will loose.

Arizona has a serious problem with illegals coming into the state. Arizona is trying to do something to protect the citizen’s in Arizona and the lawmakers of the immigration laws are receiving more than 70% of the voter’s support. Polls also show that over 60% of the nation is in support of Arizona.

The opponents of Arizona base their argument on the POSSIBILTY of racial profiling. The Government is using the argument that Arizona is usurping federal authority.

The opponents of Arizona are more concerned with the possibility of racial profiling than they are concerned about the welfare of the Arizona citizens. Their priorities are out of line.

The federal government’s argument is hypocritical and is using the federal/state law controversy to divert the attention away from the fact that the federal government is failing miserably at its responsibility of doing a good job of immigration. The federal government takes legal actions against Arizona because Arizona is tired of waiting for the federal government to do the job they are responsible for but the federal governement gives a pass to sanctuary cities that violate federal law by protecting illegals. What hypocrisy!

Even the administration’s own Justice system stated:

“The Justice Department issued a statement saying the court "ruled correctly.
While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system….”

Arizonans are not going to allow themselves to suffer for another decade because the federal government is inefficient and a failure. Arizona is going to try and protect themselves.

The opponents of Arizona laws do not want to answer this question:

If illegals were coming into your yard or home and costing you money or committing crimes against your family, would you do so0mething to stop them or would you call the police that have proven to fail at protecting you and your family?

I know in the real world you would do something to stop them so your bogus rationale for not doing something is only going to make us work harder at protecting our citizens.

Arizona has had parts of their law put on hold but many of the provisions of the law held up (see quote below) and we can celebrate that victory while we wait to challenge the court ruling that put a preliminary injunction on a few of the provisions.


CNN news
“Other parts of the law will go into effect Thursday as passed. This includes a ban on so-called sanctuary cities, and the criminalization of hiring day laborers who are in the country illegally. The parts of the law dealing with sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants also withstood the first legal test.”

For those opponents that are waving their signs about Arizona people being Nazis and KKK and all the rest, you are showing your ignorance. When there is a weak argument, ignorant people make exaggerated claims because they have poor logical bases. You call us names because we are trying to protect ourselves because big brother/federal government has failed.

We in Arizona have only just begun to fight!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
There are three issues that will determine the 2012 elections. They are

1 Economy
2 War
3 Immigrations issues

Obama will lose votes, from those that voted for him in 2008, including myself, on the immigration issue. If he does real well on the economy and war he may still get elected. If he does poorly on either the war or economy he will loose.

As always, it depends on who the GOP puts up as a candidate... if my suspicions are confirmed, and they actually run Palin, Obama's got it in the bag.

Arizona has a serious problem with illegals coming into the state. Arizona is trying to do something to protect the citizen’s in Arizona and the lawmakers of the immigration laws are receiving more than 70% of the voter’s support. Polls also show that over 60% of the nation is in support of Arizona.

Which goes to show that Arizona's got the right idea... now let's look at the execution of that idea.

One of the things I noticed was: "U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but given that a US citizen has no such papers, what's to stop an illegal from simply claiming citizenship, saying something like, "Sorry, I left my wallet at home," to get around this?

Seems to me like that particular section was going to be a waste of everyone's time anyway.
 
Upvote 0

sdmsanjose

Regular Member
Jun 19, 2006
3,772
405
Arizona
✟23,684.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Quote by The Lady Kate
One of the things I noticed was: "U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but given that a US citizen has no such papers, what's to stop an illegal from simply claiming citizenship, saying something like, "Sorry, I left my wallet at home," to get around this?


You are right on Kate!
There is nothing to stop the illegal from saying "Sorry, I left my wallet at home”.

When I go to cash a check, use a credit card, get on the airplane, come to the USA from visiting Mexico, rent a car, etc I have to show ID. In the case of my returning from Mexico to buy drugs from the pharmacy I have to prove to the officials that I am a citizen. I have absolutely no problem with that at all.

It sure gets old hearing people cry about the Arizona law that requires you to carry papers when you violate the law. I did not violate any law and I have to show my proof of citizenship to the U.S. authorities every time I come back from Mexico. Why does the Illegal get a pass on showing papers when he violates our laws for a second time? The first is he is illegal, then he commits another crime and still he does not have to show papers. What a sham

I bet many of these people that are against the Arizona law don’t even live in a state that is suffering from the illegal problem. Those that do live in a state such as Arizona and are against the Arizona law care more about there trying to act like a civil rights hero, or their own personal agenda than they do about the protection of the Arizona citizens.

Martin Luther King was a great civil rights hero. Those against Arizona are no Martin Luther King but some like to make us believe that they are. Some how I cannot help but think that a lot of the so called civil rights wannabees have a personal agenda or ideology that they put above the welfare of the Arizona citizens.
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
Quote by The Lady Kate
One of the things I noticed was: "U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but given that a US citizen has no such papers, what's to stop an illegal from simply claiming citizenship, saying something like, "Sorry, I left my wallet at home," to get around this?

You are right on Kate!
There is nothing to stop the illegal from saying "Sorry, I left my wallet at home”.


When I go to cash a check, use a credit card, get on the airplane, come to the USA from visiting Mexico, rent a car, etc I have to show ID. In the case of my returning from Mexico to buy drugs from the pharmacy I have to prove to the officials that I am a citizen. I have absolutely no problem with that at all.

Now suppose you're not going to cash a check, get on an airplane, or to the pharmacy. When you're hanging out outside your neighbor's house, drinking Pepsi and talking about last night's football game, you have to prove to the officials... no, wait, that's not right, is it?

It sure gets old hearing people cry about the Arizona law that requires you to carry papers when you violate the law. I did not violate any law and I have to show my proof of citizenship to the U.S. authorities every time I come back from Mexico.


but not every time you go out in public, do you?

If at any given moment while I'm out and about, I could be accosted by the police on some flimsy pretext of being an illegal seeking work, and be required to prove my citizenship to the officer's satisfaction, that might be a bit of an issue, now wouldn't it?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums