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.

 

Supreme Court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law

page: 16
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Finally found exactly what parts were upheld and which were struck down.

Struck down

AZ RULING: Court has overturned sections requiring a) aliens to carry a registration papers



AZ RULING: Court has overturned section of AZ law: b) prohibiting illegal immigrants to seek work, saying fed. law overrides this state law.



AZ RULING: Court has overturned section of AZ law: c) allowing police to stop and arrest a person they suspect of being deportable (illegal)


Upheld

AZ RULING: SCOTUS UPHELD requirement that police try to get immigration status of anyone they arrest, but court ruled on procedural grounds



So, in is a win in my opinion for freedom. Police in Arizona can't just go up to someone and ask for their papers. All they can do is to try to get their immigration status during a valid interaction and they have a reasonable suspicion that they are illegal. However...the part of the law that allows them to do anything about it has been struck down...so they can't arrest them or detain them even if they find out they are in fact illegal. All they can do is notify ICE.


It's also a huge win for Obama and the Federal government because it really solidifies that the federal government can challenge and override state law.



It doesn't solidify that the Federal Government can override State law. It only solidifies that where the constitution grants power to the federal govt. state govt. cannot pass a law that is in addition to or over reaching of federal law.

The federal govt is still not legally able to pass laws on powers that are not enumerated to them.

Jaden




posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 



Ask any Cop anywhere. All Americans are required by Law to have proper identification on them at all times.

But Illegals don't?

What The F**k ?


No, they aren't.

If cops think that...then they are ignorant of the law.

About half the states have "stop and identify" laws...all that requires is that you give the officer your name and in some cases your address. You don't have to provide any "papers" at all...and you can't be charged with anything for simply not having "papers" on you.

If you are driving..you are required to have a valid drivers license...this includes "illegals" too.


I really wish people knew the law of their own country.


The problem with this is I have had Cops actually tell me this before. I have been told I could be arrested for failing to provide proper identification via a license or ID

You wanna tell the cop who told me that he didn't know the law? Good luck with that. How DARE YOU sir assume i dont know the law or need to know the law. When a cop is standing in front of you.. Law doesn't matter. It's the Cops Law that counts.

Think Hurricane Katrina. All those law abiding citizens who had their guns illegally stolen from them by Cops. Go ahead.. you tell them they can't take your gun because it's illegal. Not only will they take your gun, but they won't be very nice about it either. You may wind up in jail or the infirmary or both.
edit on 25-6-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp


"You can take my gun from my cold dead fingers"....

good luck with that....

Jaden



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 




Really?


Yes really. Look for sources on the other side of the issue. Your one sidedness doesn't really say much about your self claimed love of liberty.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Yes really. Look for sources on the other side of the issue.


Is this that old chestnut you have been preaching about how there are more deportations now, etc? I am not saying they aren't deporting more than before, or that they aren't catching people on the border. I am saying they aren't doing enough as they should. They are virtually only deporting illegals they identify as violent criminals. Passive known illegals like in the examples I gave are being left to suck on the American teet when we are already bone dry.


Your one sidedness doesn't really say much about your self claimed love of liberty.


If by one sidedness you mean American freedom, your darn right! I could give a flying f*@# about the rights or freedoms of other people in other places. I may feel that they may be in horrible situations, but that is none of my business. I am only concerned about them coming here and f-ing up our system and freedom.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


No I'm not arguing about American Liberty vs non American Liberty... I'm arguing American Liberty period, though I do care about the liberty of non Americans as well.

The Arizona law as it stood and to a significant degree, still stands is a threat to American Liberty.

As for deportation of violent criminals only?

LA Times and laws have gotten tougher even since then.


Overall, in FY 2011 ICE's Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations removed 396,906 individuals — the largest number in the agency's history. Of these, nearly 55 percent or 216,698 of the people removed were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors — an 89 percent increase in the removal of criminals since FY 2008. This includes 1,119 aliens convicted of homicide; 5,848 aliens convicted of sexual offenses; 44,653 aliens convicted of drug related crimes; and 35,927 aliens convicted of driving under the influence. ICE achieved similar results with regard to other categories prioritized for removal. Ninety percent of all ICE's removals fell into a priority category and more than two-thirds of the other removals in 2011 were either recent border crossers or repeat immigration violators.

ice.gov

That means roughly 60,000 border crossers or repeat immigration violators were deported in 2011.


Even as deportations have been rising, apprehensions of border crossers by the U.S. Border Patrol have declined by more than 70%—from 1.2 million in 2005 to 340,000 in 2011. This mirrors a sharp drop in the number of unauthorized immigrants entering the U.S. since the middle of the last decade (Passel and Cohn, 2010).

Pew Hispanic Center

I suppose Arizona is under the impression that the remaining 280,000 border crossers of 2011 decided to invade their state. Let's assume they did... with a population of 6.5 million approximately 4.3% crossed the border in 2011. So that brings to mind, exactly how effective is stopping every illegal "looking" person. How many legals do you have to stop to find one illegal?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


I do kind of feel like I'm trapped when I'm indoors/fenced in. I'm a lot like my dogs in that way. A huge electrified fence would make the border so hideous.

What makes you think tunnels wouldn't be possible? I digress, there ought to be ways to make a "border fence" if it must be built, look a little less Auschwitz-y.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
The Arizona law as it stood and to a significant degree, still stands is a threat to American Liberty.


I guess we will have to just disagree on this. I don't even know if I can see an infinitesimally small chance if it was enforced as written and not abused. I have yet to see a law written in the US that cannot be abused by corrupt officials, but it doesn't stop us from writing laws to stop bad people from doing wrong things.


As for deportation of violent criminals only?


If I said only I misstated myself. I meant to say criminal only, referring to illegals who do crimes other than that of simply being here illegally.


So that brings to mind, exactly how effective is stopping every illegal "looking" person. How many legals do you have to stop to find one illegal?


What that tells me is that they aren't just stopping people based upon looks. The law prohibits that. So unless there are suspicious circumstances or another crime being committed, illegals aren't being stopped.

I wonder what the crime rates in Arizona since its passing have been. Perhaps the law was keeping illegals on the straight and narrow. Or they were doing a better job of trying to assimilate into the US.

I don't live in Arizona, but I know I saw an increase in through-traffic where I live by what I suspect to be illegals. By suspect, I mean a tour bus with either texas or mexican plates stops at a chinese buffet in town almost daily. More often than not, hispanic men come out from the baggage carriage under the bus. Aside from that being illegal, I tend to think that by being there and their lack of english skills when I approached seems suspicious.
edit on 25-6-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous404
A huge electrified fence would make the border so hideous.


Have you been to the souther border? A fence of any kind would be an improvement on the view.


What makes you think tunnels wouldn't be possible?


Devices exist to detect digging, and tunnels. An increase in border fencing would have that. No system would be 100%. Perfection is not that goal, it is the ideal. Work towards that.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 




What that tells me is that they aren't just stopping people based upon looks. The law prohibits that. So unless there are suspicious circumstances or another crime being committed, illegals aren't being stopped.


The law did just that, allowed law enforcement to stop anyone until that part of it was struck down today, by SCOTUS. So was Arizona correct in passing legislation that allowed Fascism especially considering that their target is equal to approximately 4.3% of Arizona's population?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
The law did just that, allowed law enforcement to stop anyone until that part of it was struck down today, by SCOTUS. So was Arizona correct in passing legislation that allowed Fascism especially considering that their target is equal to approximately 4.3% of Arizona's population?


You keep leaving off the reasonable suspicion part. They couldn't walk up to joe sixpack (or jose sixpack) and just ask for proof of citizenship. Just like how in some states a cop can't just stop a guy walking down the street with a gun for identification without justification.

The size of the population is irrelevant to the issue, only the factor of are there illegals in Arizona. If yes, then the law serves to help ensure there are as few as possible.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


There is no way to reasonably suspect someone is here illegally no way to tell if someone is a citizen or not. Speaking a language other than English doesn't cut it.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
There is no way to reasonably suspect someone is here illegally no way to tell if someone is a citizen or not. Speaking a language other than English doesn't cut it.


An inability to speak conversational english is enough to suspect that the person is at a minimum a foreign visitor, which is enough to ask for identification. That is reasonable to most people. I additionally gave other examples besides language that look suspicious.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by Kali74
There is no way to reasonably suspect someone is here illegally no way to tell if someone is a citizen or not. Speaking a language other than English doesn't cut it.


An inability to speak conversational english is enough to suspect that the person is at a minimum a foreign visitor, which is enough to ask for identification. That is reasonable to most people. I additionally gave other examples besides language that look suspicious.



You said you didn't live in Arizona.

That's obvious.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 





An inability to speak conversational english is enough to suspect that the person is at a minimum a foreign visitor, which is enough to ask for identification. That is reasonable to most people. I additionally gave other examples besides language that look suspicious.


When immigrants apply legally for their family members to come to US after a long wait, what is the odd that these relatives speak conversational English?

Why should these people be burden just because they don't speak conversational English?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
When immigrants apply legally for their family members to come to US after a long wait, what is the odd that these relatives speak conversational English?

Why should these people be burden just because they don't speak conversational English?


You are reenforcing my point. When their families come, they are not citizens. If they aren't citizens, then they must have their immigrant card on them at all times. I have seen this first hand.
edit on 26-6-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


But you wouldn't know that unless you stopped a person. Speaking a language other than English isn't grounds to stop someone IMO. Lots of citizens speak their native tongue.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Just because they have an immigrant card shouldn't be a reason to burden them just because someone suspects they might be undocumented.


Do you believe in equality or not?

If you are going to ask one person to show ID, then make them all show ID.

Why pick on only those who don't speak conversational English?


And how about the ones who learned conversational English in their native country but are undocumented, how would you spot them?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321

When immigrants apply legally for their family members to come to US after a long wait, what is the odd that these relatives speak conversational English?

Why should these people be burden just because they don't speak conversational English?


Not only that - - Mexican isn't only a place you are born - - its a culture.

They're not going to turn European American - - just because they are born in America.

Even those here for generations may live in a total Mexican culture neighborhood. The men will learn enough English to understand what they need to. The women may stay mostly at home completely immersed in Mexican culture.

Kids of course learn English in school - - but it may be their 2nd language in their daily culture. At home they may speak only Spanish.

Again - - - they are NOT of a European culture - - - and they do not need to be.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
This is just happening so details are still coming out.

I am hearing conflicting reports as to which parts were struck down and which have been upheld...but it sounds like 3 of 4 of the key parts have been outright struck down.

Here is a link to the ruling...it's all legal talk so I don't know exactly what it says.
www.supremecourt.gov...


More details coming soon.



I'm not surprised by this, as the antagonists for over a hundred years have sought to displace the white heritage of America through mass immigration of non-Wasp populations. It's gotten worse in the past fifty years as the immigrants from Latin America and God knows where else are more unassimilable than the ones of yore. Things are going to get very bloody when matters come to a head.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightwalk
 


So do you get your robes and hood dry cleaned with that kind of hate speech? Jeez.

Howzabout all those brown people we ran out of their own country to be quaranteened on small patches of land and steal their water supply?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join