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: 8
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
9:00 am
July 29, 2010
AZ Capital Bldg.

AZ Declares it's succession from
the United States as a sovereign
entity.

Bill passes both chambers and is signed
live on National TV by the AZ Governor.

And declares 1070 a legal AZ law
and starts enforcement of law and also
declares Fed Judge's ruling as a non-binding
illegal act and denounces it's authority
to over-rule state law.

After signing, AZ Gov. Brewer gives
the Fed Gov the middle finger on TV
and walks off the stage.

/sigh

Well I can dream if I want to ....
can't I ????

I mean it's my dream right ???




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass
 


It basically allows officers to check the imigration status of anyone being investigated by the police or caught breaking a law. If they speed you can check. If you end up in the drunk tank for public intoxication they can check. If you're running an undercover investigation in to prostitution you can check.

They can also check when someone applies for a motor vehicle license.


Alabama


•287 (g) trained Alabama state troopers, working with motor vehicle licensing stations throughout the state, check the immigration status of all foreign nationals applying for driver's licenses. The partnership training from ICE enabled these troopers to identify 27 individuals who were later convicted of federal charges after using fraudulent documents in an attempt to obtain Alabama driver's licenses. In addition, 13 of these individuals were convicted of state charges including narcotics violations and possession of forged instruments.


287(g) allows properly trained state LEOs to do all of the things people praised the AZ law for. It even allows them to turn people over to ICE for deportation. No they can not just say "he looks illegal" and ask for his papers. However if somebody gets caught breaking anylaw they can be asked to prove their status.

It is making great strides to help clean out the worst elements of the illegal immigrant issue. It has also worked to get people from Laos, the Bahamas, and other countries returned to their rightful home.

Success Stories




•Team of 8 Texas deputies round up illegals without controversy. The Washington Times (11/12/09) reports on how the Harris County Jail in Texas has been referring about 1,000 suspected illegal immigrants a month to ICE without criticism since joining the ICE 287(g) program in August 2008. Read More

•Fugitive for 19 years, identified and processed under 287(g). The Dalton Daily Citizen (10/19/09) reports a man who had been on the run from U.S. marshals for 19 years on felony charges was in the country illegally. The Whitfield County Sheriff's Office in Georgia credits its partnership with ICE via the 287(g) program with identifying the fugitive. Read More

•Man charged with indecent liberties against a child, processed under 287(g). The Burlington (NC) Times-News (10/14/09, 36K) reports Isidro Tinayero-Mata has been charged with "with indecent liberties against a 10-year-old boy." He "is being held in Alamance County Jail under a $40,000 bond and has also been processed under the 287(g) Immigration and Customs Enforcement Program." Read More



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
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.


What is really funny is how she can strike down a state law without upholding the same federal law.

Maybe you can tell me just what kind of a judge she is when she goes against the the very same law the federal government REFUSES to enforce.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
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?


Because corruption is power. And by making the general public believe that any violation of the law is a crime, we then begin to fear questioning any "law" that is passed whether or not it is lawful. So we use them as an example that ANY violation of law is a crime. It's social manipulation.



And you can save your eye rolling and condescending tone.

Being an injured party is relative to the person feeling injured.


No it isn't. By that logic, an insult is grounds for a crime since you could perceive to be "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.


I'm not presuming to. I'm blatantly telling you that the examples you cited created no lawfully injured party.



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.


You aren't entitled to welfare, it's that mentality that is burdening our country into a lethargic mess of slaves needing guidance from a nanny state.

I personally believe we should eliminate welfare programs PERIOD. Hell they wouldn't even be needed if you could legally fish (for free) and EAT the fish verses throwing it back.

Or if you could take dirt and water and make your own house. It's economic slavery, and that mentality of limited resources fuels your rationalization against "illegals".



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 



Maybe you can tell me just what kind of a judge she is when she goes against the the very same law the federal government REFUSES to enforce.


Maybe you should start by proving they are refusing to enforce.

Just because they aren't enforcing to your standards, doesn't mean they aren't enforcing.

Look at my sig...Deportations up.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Wouldn't it be funny in an ironic sort of way is THAT'S when "they" took action. Was when Arizona tried to make it happen for themselves anyways. I can't help, but feeling an I called it in the near future...Crazier s*** has happened on my watch.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I am not suprised when Arizona's immigration law encounters resistance in the American judicial system, because from a purely legal standpoint this resistance has a strong constitutional basis.

Part of our constitution states that America's citizens will be protected against unlawful search and siezure.

The reason the law encounters resistance in courts is because there is no concrete way to distinguish a legal citizen from a noncitizen before you search them. For this reason, police would theoretically have the right to search anyone they wanted to just by declaring that they suspected the individual of being an illegal alien. This creates a tangible likelyhood that lawful American citizens would have their constitutional right against search and siezure violated, and thus the basis for the resistance encountered in the American juidicial system.

EDIT:


Originally posted by oniongrass

No they can not just say "he looks illegal" and ask for his papers. However if somebody gets caught breaking anylaw they can be asked to prove their status.


The reason this would still have a shaky constitutional basis is because the officer may have had probable cause to investigate the original offense, but because what constitutes probable cause to check for immigration papers is still very vague, it is debatable that the officer would have the right to demand to see your papers, and the contitutional right against unlawful search and seizure would still be in contention.

This problem could be circumvented by explaining what constitutes the right to accuse someone of possibly being an illegal alien (for example, that the individual has to have a firm grasp of the English language), however, it is pretty obvious what kind of additional controversy this would stir up.



[edit on 28-7-2010 by beansanmash]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Look at my sig...Deportations up.

that is a flawed stat
as most of those deported
have already been deported
more than once and get caught
again. ICE has turned deportations
into a revolving door at the border.
Or should I say .....

what farking border ????

So yea, if you count deporting
the same guy 3 times in a yr
the numbers do increase.
But that doesn't amount
to less illegal immigrants here.
it only means the turn-over ratio
increases. And that cost taxpayers
even more money by sending the
guy back 3 times.


[edit on 28-7-2010 by boondock-saint]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
This judge basically stated that if there is a federal law dealing with an issue, then the states cannot take it on themselves to enforce that law.

If I was a drug lawyer, the first thing I would do for my client is to file a motion to dismiss my client's state drug charge since the federal statutes classify the controlled substances and the states have no right to pre-empt federal enforcement.

I think this would be an interesting issue.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Nobody mentioned the parts that were left intact.




Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. § 13-2928(A)-(B): creating a crime for stopping a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers and for day laborers to get in a motor vehicle if it impedes the normal movement of traffic

Section 7 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 23-212: amending the crime of knowing employment of
unauthorized aliens
Section 8 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. § 23-212.01: amending the crime of intentional employment of
unauthorized aliens

Section 9 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 23-214: amending the requirements for checking employment
eligibility

Section 11 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 41-1724: creating the gang and immigration intelligence team
enforcement mission fund


The increased penalties for hiring illegals were kept. Stricter employment eligibility checks are still required. There were still some things left alone that could help if properly enforced.




Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-2929: creating a separate crime for a person in violation of a
criminal offense to transport or harbor an unlawfully
present alien or encourage or induce an unlawfully present
alien to come to or live in Arizona

Section 10 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 28-3511: amending the provisions for the removal or impoundment of a vehicle to permit impoundment of vehicles used in
the transporting or harboring of unlawfully present aliens


It is now a crime to harbor or induce an illegal immigrant to come to Arizona. You can also permenantly lose the vehicle used to transport the alien in to the state if convicted. Sounds like another step in the right direction.

She also upheld the portion of the law that makes it illegal for "officials, agencies, and political subdivisions" to set up sanctuary counties, townships, or neighborhoods. Unfortunately that same law may make it impossible for AZ, "officials, agencies, and political subdivisions" to stand up against the patiot act or other national laws they find particularly troubelsome.

Read the whole decision. I'm working my way through the thing. The judge made some valid interpretations based on the original intent of the law and the arguments presented. I haven't read the whole decision, but I think she may have been right in some of her opinions if not most of them.

I think she may have been right. It seems to me that Arizona handled the whole thing in a sloppy fashion from the begining and double talked it self in to a corner. Maybe they will learn something and address the issues she raised with responsible and more thought out wording of the law in the future.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown


Because corruption is power. And by making the general public believe that any violation of the law is a crime, we then begin to fear questioning any "law" that is passed whether or not it is lawful. So we use them as an example that ANY violation of law is a crime. It's social manipulation.



Ahh I see going the corrupted governement route. Well let me answer my question for you. They hide and forge documents and get smuggled because they know what they're doing is wrong, and if caught will face undesirable consequences. So setting aside the the criminal offense aspect(which I confirmed that it is NOT a criminal offense, yet) they are still morally wrong. Wrong is wrong, no amount of legal gymastics can over come that simple fact. Illegal is illegal, whether it's a criminal offense or not.


No it isn't. By that logic, an insult is grounds for a crime since you could perceive to be "injured".
Libel and slander come to mind. Serving hot coffee and having someone spill it on themselves may not be a crime, but that burnt person sure felt like it was, and won. It doesn't matter if YOU personally believe I'm injured, it matters if a judge and/or jury believes me. And judging by the amount of successful frivolous lawsuits flying around these days, it would seem that the injured party concept has some pretty loose standards.





You aren't entitled to welfare, it's that mentality that is burdening our country into a lethargic mess of slaves needing guidance from a nanny state.

Maybe entitled was the wrong word to use. Let's go with awarded then. I'm pretty sure you got the idea of what I meant to say, but I'll address it to appease your lawyerly sense of precision.


Or if you could take dirt and water and make your own house.
LOL after you sir

It's economic slavery, and that mentality of limited resources fuels your rationalization against "illegals".
Thanks for reading my mind again. Seriously though, my rationalization consists of, Illegal immigration is wrong, the people that do it are wrong, and when you do wrong there are consequences, consequences that should be uniformly and consistently enforced.

I don't buy the it's the governments fault reasoning. If the devil tempts you, is it the devils fault if you give in to it? No, you made a choice. These people made a choice, the wrong choice. Not syaing the governement isn't compounding the problem, but blaming anyone except the person responsible for their actions is just as grave offense as sucking up to the nanny state teat.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by beansanmash
 


Thank you. That was a very concise explanation of why this proposed law meets with such opposition. In a nutshell, this is a "papers, please" law. Laws are not merely about the intent that inspired them or supported them. They are about engineering changes in the way social order and justice are maintained. A law such as this would have extraordinarily broad ramifications. Some would argue that illegal immigration is a problem of such a scale that it begs these extraordinary tactics. I would submit that the values United States citizens generally hold in common wouldn't find the British, the Nazis, Al Q'aeda, or illegal immigration worthy reasons to sacrifice these fundamental protections from tyranny. The harms of illegal immigration are a shadow next to the known and horrific damages wrought by over-empowered government.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by JohnnyElohim]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


Who said all illegals forge documents? You're generalizing.
Libel and slander aren't merely insults. They must result in actual losses, directly related to the statement. i.e. loss in sales because someone lied about a component, or talked negatively of the component in error knowingly.


And as for laughing at the notion of dirt + water. The most well designed and built houses are typically brick or "superdobe". It's clean and sustainable.

You keep making leaps in what I'm trying to explain to you.

Simply crossing over the invisible border line, is not a crime. By all accounts, legal definitions, precedents, supreme court decisions, blah blah blah.

I'm not excusing any action take after crossing over that results in fraud, theft, or damages once here.

It's like you're immediately linking anyone who crosses over, to the second part. And no one is excusing the second part.

I'm merely stating that the first part is not a crime, and that not everyone commits an actual crime once here. But those that DO would naturally be found and brought to justice under the current legal system if we simply enforced the criminal laws we have in place already.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
Those who actually read the bill find quite a number of gross human rights violations being advocated by Arizona lawmakers. I didn't really expect to find any but there were clearly several of them. The Arizona judges have to do block several parts of the bill if they are civilized human beings, unlike the AZ lawmakers who passed the piece of trash. I never raised any objection to the bill until I actually read most of it.


The fact that you failed to specifically quote or cite a single phrase, sentence, or section of the Bill leads me to be highly suspicious of your comment, and your motives.

As an American citizen and US Veteran, I'll be more than happy to show any law enforcement officer my drivers license, my passport, and concealed pistol license. I have nothing to hide, and I'm more than happy to verify the fact that I was born in Washington State and am willing to hold everyone else to the same standard. We, too, have a border. Our border is crawling with border patrol officers and it's patrolled all the time. Go ahead and try to cross it illegally and see what happens. I've done it accidentally (we don't have a wall) and they were all over me. Isn't it interesting that people from Mexico can cross our southern border and not even be given a glance, and when people try to cross the northern border here in Washington State, the border patrol is all over it?

Sounds to me like we ought to send all of the border patrol from the north, down to the southern border, because they actually do their job.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I am pretty much disgusted with this ruling, although I saw it coming. just another snub at the american people. One thing I do not understand, maybe someone can clarify- isn't constitutional rights and exclusive to the citizens of the country? I mean why would all of the things written in the constitution and bill of rights apply to people of other countries, since they are not citizens. I think to be fair, mexico, canada and the u.s. should all share the same immigration laws. Lets all use mexico's laws and call it a day. problem solved.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 
I'll go one better,jam everyone from the Governor to the sate legislature knew a judge would over turn it but since it's an election year they went ahead in order to hoodwink the citizens into voting for them.So,yes of course Brewer's legal team will appeal this as long as it's to their advantage they will persue this all the way to the SPC.

[edit on 103131p://2526 by mike dangerously]

[edit on 123131p://2426 by mike dangerously]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Who said all illegals forge documents? You're generalizing.
I didn't say all illegals do it, I said why do they forge papers. But again, in an effort to appease your lawyerly sensibilities I amend my statement to SOME.

Libel and slander aren't merely insults. They must result in actual losses, directly related to the statement. i.e. loss in sales because someone lied about a component, or talked negatively of the component in error knowingly.
Same difference, simply pointing out that saying something can result in injured parties.



And as for laughing at the notion of dirt + water. The most well designed and built houses are typically brick or "superdobe". It's clean and sustainable.
I was only saying, when you do it yourself, you can champion that notion. If you are, good for you.



Simply crossing over the invisible border line, is not a crime. By all accounts, legal definitions, precedents, supreme court decisions, blah blah blah.
But crossing over the border in a way not approved by the government is illegal, and wrong. I'll take a page from your book, and say the reason it isn't a crime is because it serves the corrupt government's purpose. So in reality in probably SHOULD be acrime but isn't, because it makes money for the right people.



It's like you're immediately linking anyone who crosses over, to the second part. And no one is excusing the second part.

I do not automatically assume a person is a violent criminal because they crossed illegally. However, I am observing that the more people come illegally, the greater the statistical probability that some will commit a crime once here. If 1 in every thousand is a violent criminal, then for every thousand that come you get 1 more. And really, how much can you really do in america if you are illegal without some kind of fraudulent document? I would love to know out of all the illegals, how many drive without insurance, how many obtain fraudulent documents, how many commit welfare fraud, how many lie to get benefits or health care? You have a whole laundry list of likely crimes to be commited once they are here. Do they all do these things? Of course not. But the probability is high given the difficulty of operating inside the US illegally.

I am all for legislation that solves the problem humanely, constitutionally, and doesn't give the Gov more power. But I don't see that happening.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FNetV1
 


Sorry not even close to being true and either you are ignorant or simply a cool aid drinker.... I'm thinking a little of both.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I don't understand why people are so upset about this law. It doesn't address the real issue driving the problem--economics--and provides no productive solutions. SB1070 is simply political masturbation (and I was born, raised, and still live in Arizona--and I'll never leave the most beautiful place in the world).

If the government truly wanted to eliminate "illegal" immigration, I'd like them to first acknowledge the Native American holocaust, committed by European colonialists. Reparations are not necessary, because what has been done by previous generations cannot be undone, nor should innocent subsequent generations be held responsible.

You can't change history, and you can't apologize for things you didn't do, but you should at least learn from history-what will inevitably happen if the state can, and in fact are ordered to, ask for your "papers". Some might consider this possibilty--which I again label as "inevitable"--as necessary to maintain federal authority.

If "federal authority" is ineffective, and if State authority is "unjust", yet politicians rant about both aspects of jurisdictional law, I wonder if any politician, pundit, lawyer, or spectator (bloggers), has any clue about any aspect of this law.

Here is how you remedy the negative aspects of illegal immigration:

1) Legalize drugs. Eliminate the source of the cartels' income, and you eliminate the economic viablility of those cartels, putting them out of business. Legalizing these drugs within the United States will NOT increase consumption. Law has never deterred people from doing anything. Legalization will not encourage anything.

LET US NOT REPEAT THE ALLOWANCE OF TRYANNICAL ACTION, IN ANY FORM.

2) Eliminate minimun wage laws. Why would someone in Central America work for a dollar an hour when they could use their skills to work for 10 times as much utlizing the same skills for the same company here in the US?

If I was a Mexican working for a Walmart in Mexico, trying to support a family, and had the chance to utilize my skills in another economy where I could earn an enormous amount more money, I would jump that fence (no matter how tall it is or what its made of). You wouldn't?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mike dangerously
 


Thats just a stupid theory, you havent taken any of the current events going on down there at all into consideration. Please if your going to attack those who want this law to be in place (the vast majority of the country), then at least do it with some intelligence and not go about it in a Oliver Stone conspiracy approach....it just makes you look dumb.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join