What kind of footing does President Obama have to stand on as to opposing Arizona in the Illegal Immigrant situation? Why is there such an opposition? Is it truly just for votes or am I missing something?
I am confused....
- Thread starter TheRedlines
- Start date
Two things to consider:
1. Obama wants immigration reform to be giving amnesty to illegals, not deporting them and keeping them out of the US.
2. If Arizona is successful, it will make this and every previous administration look like the incompetent fools that they are by their failure to secure our borders and improve the lives of US citizens.
1. Obama wants immigration reform to be giving amnesty to illegals, not deporting them and keeping them out of the US.
2. If Arizona is successful, it will make this and every previous administration look like the incompetent fools that they are by their failure to secure our borders and improve the lives of US citizens.
- Thread starter
- #3
Sadly, I totally agree with you. I just can't see how he can take such a quick stand with these being his reasons to give to the world. It makes the leftist side sound absolutely crooked. (I understand how crooked all sides are but none are usually so quick and open to showing it).
This is the one problem the federal government could solve relatively simply. Neither party will do it because of risk of losing the Hispanic vote. Time to kick them all out of office in Washington. Arizona simply stood up and did something that the Feds have been playing ping pong with for at least twenty years. They should be applauded for taking the bull by the horns. Obama should be ashamed to denounce those who are doing his job for him since he won't-upholding existing law and protecting our borders. His turn to be kicked out comes in 2012.
Last edited:
Gents, this is a thread that will turn ugly really quick. This is not a political forum. If you need help finding one, let me know and I will give you a few.
Immigration laws are truly needed but this law will promote race profiling for people of brown skin including myself. I would hate to get pulled over daily to prove I was born in this great country. I would really be pissed if it happened to my daughter and my soldier son.
Immigration laws are truly needed but this law will promote race profiling for people of brown skin including myself. I would hate to get pulled over daily to prove I was born in this great country. I would really be pissed if it happened to my daughter and my soldier son.
- Thread starter
- #6
To be quite honest I am quite tan and am mistaken quite often by hispanics to be hispanic myself. I would not mind at all to be asked to show proof at a time of being stopped by an officer. It would show me that they were doing their job and I would applaud and thank them.
**BTW, I am not trying to start a heated debate but rather am searching for a real answer to my question from a supporter of the opposition which holds merit. I apologize if it looks as otherwise.
Last edited:
I would be offended.
What, you don't think they'll be pulling over many blonde blue-eyed people to see if they're here legally from Sweden?
"Your papers please." My God.
In any event, I would not be surprised if this is struck down as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.
To address the OP's question:
Politics aside, the argument being used by opponents (Obama, the Administration, Hispanics, etc.) is that border enforcement should be left to the federal government per the US constitution. The question becomes whether states are able to enforce their borders (which I believe has been decided in the past, and usually to the effect that the states have overstepped their constitutionally allotted powers). In the case of the AZ law, it becomes a crime to be inside Arizona illegally-this is not necessarily the same as enforcing the border, so it will likely be yet another decision.
The argument from AZ's side is that sure, the feds have the power to enforce the border, but when they don't exercise that power, the states should have the ability to take it up.
I'm not a lawyer but that's my summary of my best understanding.
My .02 cents-I'm on AZ's side, mainly because power vacuums (Feds not enforcing) have to be filled (border enforcement is a legitimate function of government).
Politics aside, the argument being used by opponents (Obama, the Administration, Hispanics, etc.) is that border enforcement should be left to the federal government per the US constitution. The question becomes whether states are able to enforce their borders (which I believe has been decided in the past, and usually to the effect that the states have overstepped their constitutionally allotted powers). In the case of the AZ law, it becomes a crime to be inside Arizona illegally-this is not necessarily the same as enforcing the border, so it will likely be yet another decision.
The argument from AZ's side is that sure, the feds have the power to enforce the border, but when they don't exercise that power, the states should have the ability to take it up.
I'm not a lawyer but that's my summary of my best understanding.
My .02 cents-I'm on AZ's side, mainly because power vacuums (Feds not enforcing) have to be filled (border enforcement is a legitimate function of government).
- Thread starter
- #11
If this would truly be something that would upset folks, then they simply need to ask every single stop for their papers. It is something that needs to be taken care of. We have to stop ignoring this.
agreed. feels like fascism to me. I'm biracial myself and am often mistaken for either hispanic, italian or native american, even though i'm half-Japanese. I would be greatly offended if I was pulled over because of my appearance
I think the point is that there wouldn't have to BE a stop in order to question someone. Anyone can be stopped at any time without regard to a crime being committed. Suspicion is not a crime. Being brown isn't either.
I live in Texas, so I'm pretty accustomed to seeing a lot of Hispanic folks every day. I never wonder what they're doing here. I work with them, I serve them, and I see them trying to create a better life for themselves.
If they are not suspected of a crime, leave them alone.
Saying them being here illegally is a crime does not make your point. Murder is illegal as well, but the police cannot stop you simply because they don't like your face.
I'm going to try to resist further comment on this thread, as I am (to put it mildly) strongly opposed to this legislation.
I don't really care about immigration but any reason you give the cops to stop any one and generaly harass them is not a good one and will be abused. (no ofense to the many good LEOs on here/ out in the world I'm sure your stand up guys and I know you got a hard job but this just aint right)
They do and will and a judge will back them up. "I thought the suspect was on drugs and in possession of more due to his eyes being dilated/ blood shot your honor" Good luck proving they weren't at the time.
Also the only interaction with the NYPD I have had in a year of living in NYC happened last night as I flagged down a cop car on the Ave to point out 3 kids beating on one petty badly on the street. Result the cop threatened to write me a drunk in public ticket (I was mildly buzzed after a work cocktail thing, but not stumbling or black out status) and then drove off, I yelled at the kids and they ran, sent the one who got the kicking off in an ambulance, he was in bad shape.
Back in the USSR (with apologies to Paul) . . .
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQpTNuLiA8k[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQpTNuLiA8k[/YOUTUBE]
You're making my points for me.
Judging by your avatar we have a lot in common. :up the (former) punx:
How so?
The new law addresses this. The law specifies that there has to be independent grounds for suspicion beyond race.
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSONS IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSONS IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.
The text that I have highlighted, and that you provided, is not included in the portion of the bill that you quote.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
The only time national origin is mentioned in the bill is in regards to employment investigations. This is found in Section 6, Paragraph B.
This bill should be read in its entirety by anyone and everyone that wishes to comment in this thread.
