It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge Blocks Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law

page: 7
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by mike dangerously
 



Governor Brewer never really tackled this issue until she came up for relection.So in the end she gets what she clearly wants a national stage


It really surprises me that people believed the Arizona legislature was really working for the people.

It was all a show. Politicians are politicians.

Nobody's saying their motives were pure. They are indeed politicians and respond to pressure. In this case the pressure got them to do something good.

Not being from Arizona, I'm not sure how rare that is. But this law actually is good for the people (US citizens at least) of Arizona. Let's get it back in action and get this errant judge overturned or out of the way.




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


So you would support a law that deported illegals and took all neccessary steps to prevent more from coming, as long as it didn't effect the rights of citizens?


Pretty much. As long as people learn what "crime" is. And that crossing the border is not a "crime". And that someone must be committing an actual "crime" to interfere with them period.

And if they aren't engaged in an actual CRIME then you have no lawful reason to even attempt to determine legal status.


Lawful is not legal. Illegal does not mean crime. But crimes are illegal and unlawful. Once you can get the basics of that, you'll know what I mean.

A crime involves an injured party.

And the asinine excuses of "They steal services my taxes paid for" does not create an injured party.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by indigothefish
 


We are in a state Anti-Law or Anarchy in a way. War was declared on US a long time ago. WE are simply becoming cognizant of the state we are truly in.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by TaxpayersUnleashed
 



Good. Now stop sending the feds money Arizona.

Send that money to the sherrifs that arrest and prosecute the illegals.


No Sherrifs arrest and prosecute illegals...that is kind of the point of striking down this law.

If you cut off money to the feds...then how will they fund ICE and Border Patrol...the only two agencies that CAN and DO enforce immigration laws.


Actually sherrifs, detectives, and correctional officers can and do handle immigration issues.

ICE.gov



Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), effective September 30, 1996, added Section 287(g), performance of immigration officer functions by state officers and employees, to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This authorizes the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.

State and local patrol officers, detectives, investigators and correctional officers working in conjunction with ICE gain: necessary resources and authority to pursue investigations relating to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling and money laundering; and support in more remote geographical locations.


There are currently 80 jurisdicitons across the country participating in the 287(g) program.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 
Exactly,Jam it's all a show,man and people just lap it up and continue to mindlessly vote for either party who in turn screw them.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig ... I believe that there will be back lashes out against minority groups both legal and illegale in the united states and it will continue to escelate until the federal government is forced to act.

Yes this is possible. It really could lead to a resurgence of racism. If police or others cannot ascertain who is legal, others may decide to just guess.

That would be unfortunate, but it's almost predictable.

And legal hispanics will be thought of as illegal, because it will be true that a large percentage of hispanics are illegal. It's not a "thought crime" because rational thought cannot be a thought crime. No matter how much they may tell people not to think this way, some people will persistently respond to facts rather than propaganda.

The way to protect legal hispanics from this is to get the illegal ones out. There is no other way.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass
 



In this case the pressure got them to do something good.


Good? What's good about it? All it has done is cause Arizona a lot of problems. Politicians knew it would be overturned.

They should have just increase their participation with DHS under Section 287g.


Let's get it back in action and get this errant judge overturned or out of the way.


Funny how she is errant because she didn't uphold the law. I'm sure she would have been viewed as a hero if she had upheld it.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
...
Actually sherrifs, detectives, and correctional officers can and do handle immigration issues.

ICE.gov



Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), effective September 30, 1996, added Section 287(g), performance of immigration officer functions by state officers and employees, to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This authorizes the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.

State and local patrol officers, detectives, investigators and correctional officers working in conjunction with ICE gain: necessary resources and authority to pursue investigations relating to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling and money laundering; and support in more remote geographical locations.


There are currently 80 jurisdicitons across the country participating in the 287(g) program.


But that does not seem to allow them to pursue investigations related to being in the country illegally. Nor does it seem to allow them to evict those found to be here illegally. If this worked, I doubt Arizona would have done the other.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by oniongrass
 



In this case the pressure got them to do something good.


Good? What's good about it? All it has done is cause Arizona a lot of problems. Politicians knew it would be overturned.

They should have just increase their participation with DHS under Section 287g.


Let's get it back in action and get this errant judge overturned or out of the way.


Funny how she is errant because she didn't uphold the law. I'm sure she would have been viewed as a hero if she had upheld it.


Already we've seen stories of illegals packing up and moving to California, New Jersey, and back across the border. For Arizona, those are success stories.

Yes, if the judge didn't make an error, I would not have called her errant. You think that's funny? It's obvious.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by oniongrass
Yes, if the judge didn't make an error, I would not have called her errant. You think that's funny? It's obvious.


Judges that uphold the Constitution are in error and should be fired!!! That's how America works right? We can simply fire judges who uphold the Constitution by striking down unconstitutional laws.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by oniongrass
Yes, if the judge didn't make an error, I would not have called her errant. You think that's funny? It's obvious.


Judges that uphold the Constitution are in error and should be fired!!! That's how America works right? We can simply fire judges who uphold the Constitution by striking down unconstitutional laws.

It's a real stretch for me to believe the Arizona law is unconstitutional. I mean frankly it's a ridiculous thought. Please find me the words in the Constitution that it violates.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by oniongrass

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by oniongrass
Yes, if the judge didn't make an error, I would not have called her errant. You think that's funny? It's obvious.


Judges that uphold the Constitution are in error and should be fired!!! That's how America works right? We can simply fire judges who uphold the Constitution by striking down unconstitutional laws.

It's a real stretch for me to believe the Arizona law is unconstitutional. I mean frankly it's a ridiculous thought. Please find me the words in the Constitution that it violates.


If you aren't aware of your federally protected right to privacy and protection against unlawful searches and seizures. Or the reiteration of these rights under your State's Constitution then really. Why are you even asking?

For police to determine legal status 1 of 2 things must be met.

1. Person has committed an ACTUAL crime warranting police interference.
2. Someone alleges a person has committed a crime under penalty of perjury.

Once one of these two items is met, then you can interfere with a person and subsequently determine legal status.

Mere suspicion based upon a "probable" profile correlated against ethnic similarities (discrimination) is not enough to warrant suspending the right to privacy.

"But they're illegals they don't have a right to privacy."

Yes they do. But aside from that.

If you didn't violate someones right to privacy, how would you know if they're illegal or not? Oh you wouldn't! You simply assumed and happened to be correct if you were.

Thus circumventing the legal system and potentially sacrificing the rights of legal citizens.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown


Pretty much. As long as people learn what "crime" is. And that crossing the border is not a "crime". And that someone must be committing an actual "crime" to interfere with them period.

And if they aren't engaged in an actual CRIME then you have no lawful reason to even attempt to determine legal status.


Lawful is not legal. Illegal does not mean crime. But crimes are illegal and unlawful. Once you can get the basics of that, you'll know what I mean.

A crime involves an injured party.

And the asinine excuses of "They steal services my taxes paid for" does not create an injured party.
Let me just double check here. It is against the law to reside in this country without proper identification and/or work permits. That's a federal law isn't it? Maybe not, but in any case it is a law. Last time I checked breaking the law makes you a criminal. Maybe not in the popular sense of the word, but technically yeah. If they weren't criminals, why are they sneaking over like there's something wrong with it? Why not give a friendly wave to the border patrol as you stroll through the checkpoint?

And I beg to differ on the idea of "They steal services my taxes pay for" and what constitutes an injured party.

When I lived in Arizona, my wife and I worked very hard to afford a place on the nice side of town. Well wouldn't ya know, here's this cute hispanic couple living next door. The girl was illegal, with her obligatory anchor baby and welfare. Her boyfriend , also illegal, worked under the table at a construction job making nice money.

So they're here illegally, not paying taxes, and receiving welfare. Sounds like at least 3 different crimes there. Are they murdering people, stealing cars, robbing banks? No, but they're still criminals. if they A) Paid taxes B) didn't take welfare, well you know what, they're still criminals. Because they willfully broke, and continue to break, at least 1 law.

And how many times have you heard about criminals being captured because a tail light was out or some simple thing? It's ok to catch somebody with drugs or an outstanding warrant from a tail light being out, but not ask for ID? You can dance around what's a crime and what's unlawful, but if a carfull of illegals doesn;t come to a complete stop at a stop sign, they're busted. If they don't use proper signals when changing lanes, they're busted. They cross the street anywhere other than a crosswalk, they're busted. Those are all perfectly valid reasons to be stopped be apolice officer.

It just occurred to me, in order to catch an illegal alien, you have wait for them to commit a SECOND crime. LOL what a backwards society we live in.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Here is the opinion for anyone wanting to look at it.

PDF


Judge Bolton based her reasoning entirely on the Constitution’s supremacy clause and the notion that Congress has pre-empted state regulation in the provisions struck down. The court rejected a commerce clause argument by the federal government, and did not rule on the racial profiling issue because it was not necessary.


abusivediscretion.wordpress.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


ROFL that's exactly my point.

Being here illegally is illegal. It is not unlawful. Nor is it a crime. It is merely illegal.

And public perception has been bent using propaganda to make you ignorantly assume and reiterate that breaking the law is a crime.

When in fact the legal definition of crime, and that determined by the US Supreme Court is that for a crime to exist there must be an injured party.

- - - - - - - -

Not to belittle your frustration....




When I lived in Arizona, my wife and I worked very hard to afford a place on the nice side of town. Well wouldn't ya know, here's this cute hispanic couple living next door. The girl was illegal, with her obligatory anchor baby and welfare. Her boyfriend , also illegal, worked under the table at a construction job making nice money.


But obviously I can see how you're an injured party here :/ *rolls eyes*. So you must have invaded their privacy to determine his legal status, tax status etc.

Or did they happen to one day go, "Hey neighbor! I'm illegal and work under the table. Enjoy paying taxes sucker."

No you just drew assumptions.




So they're here illegally, not paying taxes, and receiving welfare.


You really are an injured party aren't you!

And no you don't have to wait for them to commit a second crime.

You have to wait for them to commit their first crime, or violation of statutory law that doesn't apply to them that we then ignorantly skew into some legal relation to charge them with breaking statutes which are unlawful to begin with.

MAKES SENSE.




For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.

Sheer v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

"Illegals don't have constitutional rights".

Yes... they do...

Because the Constitution never GRANTED us rights. It PROTECTS the rights we were INHERENTLY BORN with. Basic HUMAN RIGHTS.

You want to see how SB1070 treats people?




35. Actions by illegal aliens prohibited A person who is present in this state in violation of federal immigration law related to improper entry by an alien shall not be awarded punitive damages in any action in any court in this state.


So essentially you can steal from illegals who have RIGHTFULLY earned their property. And we won't offer them any protection in court.

"Improper" entry? So if they come across the border for a day through the border crossing, they're protected. But if not then eff em?

And how do we know if they walked across the border, or legally came across the checkpoint?

We don't.

So we now have broad legislation making it okay to target non-US citizens w/o Visas.

ITS OKAY TO STEAL FROM THEM. But murder and assault is still illegal. We still protect their right to not be injured. I guess we shouldn't do that either since they aren't here "legally", probably.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown


If you didn't violate someones right to privacy, how would you know if they're illegal or not? Oh you wouldn't! You simply assumed and happened to be correct if you were.

OK so how about this: a guy is driving down the road, and a bee flies into the car and the guy swerves a little as he trying to shoo it out the window. A cop see's this swerve.

Now, according to your reasoning, the cop can't do anything because he hasn't actually done anything wrong. But the cop compares this swerve with previous experiences, makes a judgement call and pulls the guy over. Is the mans rights violated? Would his right be violated if he was asked to take a sobriety test? Most people would be annoyed that they had to do it, but would ultimately understand because drunk driving is dangerous and we want those people off the road if at all possible. It's an incovenience, but on the other hand it's nice to see cops out actually doing what we pay them to do.

We see alot of talk about how cops should be going about it, but how many of us are cops or have experience in law enforcement? It's not cops just cruisin around eating donuts looking for mexicans to harass. It's cops on the edge of their seat wondering if this innocent traffic stop is going to get them shot by some desperate illegal. It's cops knowing from first hand experience that alot of gangbangers are among the illegal population and they are dangerous. Cops know what the situation really is on the ground, we do not.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
Is the mans rights violated? Would his right be violated if he was asked to take a sobriety test? Most people would be annoyed that they had to do it, but would ultimately understand because drunk driving is dangerous and we want those people off the road if at all possible. It's an incovenience, but on the other hand it's nice to see cops out actually doing what we pay them to do.


This is a two-fold issue. On the basic level, yes the mans rights were blatantly violated. On the second level, if the man has vehicle tags for registration, then the vehicle must be operated by a licensed "driver". And when you apply for a license, you suspend your constitutional rights regarding travel in favor of federal privileges for "drivers".

So if he doesn't have a registered vehicle and a license? Yes his rights were absolutely violated. And if he does, his rights were violated within the law to his own ignorance and that of the officer.

(I covered this in the Arpaio video thread)




We see alot of talk about how cops should be going about it, but how many of us are cops or have experience in law enforcement? It's not cops just cruisin around eating donuts looking for mexicans to harass. It's cops on the edge of their seat wondering if this innocent traffic stop is going to get them shot by some desperate illegal. It's cops knowing from first hand experience that alot of gangbangers are among the illegal population and they are dangerous. Cops know what the situation really is on the ground, we do not.


The majority of police are ignorant to the law. They receive training that is supposed to be in accordance to the law, yet they never actually learn law. Police have quotas of traffic stops to make, to make sure they can generate enough revenue to keep the FOR PROFIT police organization afloat. So it is fiscally more sound for them to make 100 traffic stops, before solving 1 actual crime.

The entire system is based upon ignorance and false assumptions.

However, seeing as the Constitution supersedes any following act of legislation. Even despite the adhesion contract created with your application for a driver's license, police stopping you in your vehicle without an actual crime being witnessed or alleged is a violation of your right to privacy. It detains you from life, and liberty.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 



When I lived in Arizona, my wife and I worked very hard to afford a place on the nice side of town. Well wouldn't ya know, here's this cute hispanic couple living next door. The girl was illegal, with her obligatory anchor baby and welfare. Her boyfriend , also illegal, worked under the table at a construction job making nice money.

So they're here illegally, not paying taxes, and receiving welfare.


I would really like to know how you found out all this information about your neighbor...sounds stalkerish.

In general...illegal immigrants really don't go over to their neighbor and just tells them "HI..I'm illegal...and I'm on welfare...and I get paid under the table and don't pay taxes....nice to meet you".



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


ROFL that's exactly my point.

Being here illegally is illegal. It is not unlawful. Nor is it a crime. It is merely illegal.

And public perception has been bent using propaganda to make you ignorantly assume and reiterate that breaking the law is a crime.

When in fact the legal definition of crime, and that determined by the US Supreme Court is that for a crime to exist there must be an injured party.

- - - - - - - -

Not to belittle your frustration....




When I lived in Arizona, my wife and I worked very hard to afford a place on the nice side of town. Well wouldn't ya know, here's this cute hispanic couple living next door. The girl was illegal, with her obligatory anchor baby and welfare. Her boyfriend , also illegal, worked under the table at a construction job making nice money.


But obviously I can see how you're an injured party here :/ *rolls eyes*. So you must have invaded their privacy to determine his legal status, tax status etc.

Or did they happen to one day go, "Hey neighbor! I'm illegal and work under the table. Enjoy paying taxes sucker."

No you just drew assumptions.




So they're here illegally, not paying taxes, and receiving welfare.


You really are an injured party aren't you!

And no you don't have to wait for them to commit a second crime.

You have to wait for them to commit their first crime, or violation of statutory law that doesn't apply to them that we then ignorantly skew into some legal relation to charge them with breaking statutes which are unlawful to begin with.

MAKES SENSE.




For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.

Sheer v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

"Illegals don't have constitutional rights".

Yes... they do...

Because the Constitution never GRANTED us rights. It PROTECTS the rights we were INHERENTLY BORN with. Basic HUMAN RIGHTS.

You want to see how SB1070 treats people?




35. Actions by illegal aliens prohibited A person who is present in this state in violation of federal immigration law related to improper entry by an alien shall not be awarded punitive damages in any action in any court in this state.


So essentially you can steal from illegals who have RIGHTFULLY earned their property. And we won't offer them any protection in court.

"Improper" entry? So if they come across the border for a day through the border crossing, they're protected. But if not then eff em?

And how do we know if they walked across the border, or legally came across the checkpoint?

We don't.

So we now have broad legislation making it okay to target non-US citizens w/o Visas.

ITS OKAY TO STEAL FROM THEM. But murder and assault is still illegal. We still protect their right to not be injured. I guess we shouldn't do that either since they aren't here "legally", probably.
I can;t even being to address your own misguided assumptions. But since you are obviously psychic I don't have to tell you anyway.

So tell me, if being here "Illegally" is not a crime, why do they get punished if caught? Why do they hide, why do they forge papers, why do they need to be smuggled? If it's not a crime, why are they acting like it is?

And you can save your eye rolling and condescending tone.

Being an injured party is relative to the person feeling injured. Who are you to say my "pain" is inadmissable when you know NOTHING of my situation. You don't know if I lost my job to an illegal alien, you don't know if my sister was raped by by illegal gangbangers, you don't know ANYTHING about me.

The injured 3rd party is americans who have less than they could have if there were't illegals sucking up the money and resources. You can throw all the legal terminology around that you want, there is no disputing that there is less resources to go around with people not paying into the system but taking out without being lawfully entitled to them. If I get $10 dollars less in welfare because there is 1 million illegal aliens dipping into my pool, I am an injured party. I got less than I'm entitled because someone else is taking from the resources unlawfully.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Gigatronix
 



When I lived in Arizona, my wife and I worked very hard to afford a place on the nice side of town. Well wouldn't ya know, here's this cute hispanic couple living next door. The girl was illegal, with her obligatory anchor baby and welfare. Her boyfriend , also illegal, worked under the table at a construction job making nice money.

So they're here illegally, not paying taxes, and receiving welfare.


I would really like to know how you found out all this information about your neighbor...sounds stalkerish.

In general...illegal immigrants really don't go over to their neighbor and just tells them "HI..I'm illegal...and I'm on welfare...and I get paid under the table and don't pay taxes....nice to meet you".
I like the assumption that I had to be stalking somebody to find this out. Ever notice how women like to talk alot, especially to each other? SO let me see if I can clear this up, my wife+ his wife+ plus a couple drinks equals a loose tongue. And no, I didn't set it up, i fact I thought they were alright until my wife tells me the next day what she heard.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join