And can you show me where in that statement by AACOP any law is quoted, besides the actual bill itself?
Seems you have posted opinion and not fact. Care to provide some fact to back up SJP's bullsh!t?
Arizona's Immigration Law
- Thread starter DaSleeper
- Start date
Seems you have posted opinion and not fact. Care to provide some fact to back up SJP's bullsh!t?
It seems pretty factual to me. The Arizona police chiefs org doesn't seem to think they can or should enforce immigration laws. The US has dozens of cities that have passed local laws making it illegal for municipal officials to ask people their immigration status, including New York City, Washington, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Denver, and Miami. All of this effectively prevents local governments from enforcing immigration laws.
Immigration violations aren't even the kind of legal violations local law enforcement address. You can't arrest and put a person on trial for being an illegal immigrant in the US. Since there are no criminal law processes for such violations, calling immigration violations a "crime" is itself dubious.
All of this adds up to: asking local law enforcement to enforce these kinds of things is unfeasible.
You might as well ask local law enforcement to enforce the IRS's or EPA's rules along with this. It makes about as much sense.
Great, so what? They don't write the law, they don't make legislation, they just enforce what they're told to.
Whoopy? California has a couple other laws that are very similar to S.B. 1070. Actually, they were the first to head to the Supreme Court to defend them.
Your point?
Now, do you have any fact? Or just more uneducated, uninformed BS, backed up by your new comedy routine?
Have you read the law?
Researched it?
Read interviews of the Law Professor that drafted it?
Researched his cited case law, legal drafts and papers?
I have. I will be completely amazed if the Supreme Court strikes this down.
Great, so what? They don't write the law, they don't make legislation, they just enforce what they're told to.
Whoopy? California has a couple other laws that are very similar to S.B. 1070. Actually, they were the first to head to the Supreme Court to defend them.
Your point?
Now, do you have any fact? Or just more uneducated, uninformed BS, backed up by your new comedy routine?
Have you read the law?
Researched it?
Read interviews of the Law Professor that drafted it?
Researched his cited case law, legal drafts and papers?
I have. I will be completely amazed if the Supreme Court strikes this down.
Despite how many emoticons you post, the fact remains that immigration law in the US is not local criminal law. There are no indictiments, trails by peers, and convictions for immigration violations. The federal Department of Homeland Security enforces immigration violations, detains violators in special detainee facilities around the country, and gives them a hearing before one of the Department of Justice's approximately 200 immigration judges, who solely gets to decide whether to deport the violator or not.
No criminal trials in local judicial jurisdictions mean that there should be no local law enforcement of immigration violations. Like I said before, asking locals to enforce these federal rules that are somewhat distinct from the entire US Judicial Branch of government makes about as much sense as asking locals to enforce EPA or IRS violations.
No, that says that if the laws were enforced in the first place that particular crime would not have happened.
Any Federal Law can be and should be enforced by any law enforcememt official. (FBI down to local police force) The law of the land means just that.
The law of the land does not mean that. As the following 2004 report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) notes, there are two seperate distinctions that are important here. (1) The distinction among levels of government, i.e. federal, state, and local and (2) the distinction between criminal law and civil law.
Federal law enforcement agencies are forbidden by the Constitution of enforceing state and local criminal law unless a criminal crosses state lines, and the feds rarely choose to get involved in state and local civil law.
State and local law enforcement agencies traditionally enforce federal criminal laws (human trafficking of immigrants), but don't enforce federal civil law (arresting immigrants that are undocumented).
Source: http://immigration.procon.org/sourc...onLawTheRoleofStateandLocalLawEnforcement.pdf
State and local governments haven't traditionally enforced federal civil law, and they shouldn't.
So what happens if you are a foreign business owner in Arizona under US immigration laws do you still not need a visa?
How is enforcing the law going to prevent crimes by legal immigrants? Or do you want to deport the lot of then, both legal and illegal?
And where does it say that in the constitution? If there are multiple authorities enforcing the same law, what happens when they clash?
Let us say that Arizona authorities say that somebody is an illegal immigrant, federal authorities say that he is in USA legally, FBI says that the matter needs further investigation, CIA says that he is here on a temporary visa. Then what happens, do all these authorities fight it out? Or does Arizona have the final word, and all the other authorities must abide by what Arizona decides?
No kidding? I bet you don't even know why either.
The HLS may very well be involved, but USCIS is the main body for handling immigration violations. And they have relied on local Law Enforcement for years.
And yet you see local Law Enforcement at the scene when big ops go down...:lol:
Please provide your proof. Because from the laws that have been cited, you're talking out your ass.
So?
Key word, traditionally. The rest is just you talking out your ass. Because you obviously have no idea what laws you're talking about... :lol:
Did you even read that. I did, it doesn't support you like you think it does...:lol:
SCAAP, proves that the bulk of your objections, are based on false assumptions and ideological opinion.
But they have, just not on this scale, followed by more of your opinion.
It is a crime to be in the US illegally. That's why it's called illegally...:lol:
Where in the Constitution does it say they can't?
That's been happening since the invent of the FBI...:lol:
What if it rained Skittles on Thursday?
You know what would be nice, if either of you could provide some case law, instead of opinion. That would be awesome. I highly doubt I'll see anything even remotely resembling, but it would be refreshing...
Last edited:
Well guess what, the people of the state of Arizona made it a state crime for immigrants not to travel with their student visa or green card and not complying with the federal law. We are allowed to do that. Laws and jurisdictions are not that cut and dry here in the U.S.
That would never happen, Arizona or any other state cannot say who is a illegal or for that matter is legal immigrant. If someone is in this country illegally and or breaking the law they are subject to arrest. As to the Arizona law, the individual has to have broken a law (say broken into a house or even just commit a traffic infraction), when they run the computer check if he comes up clean it will go no farther. Keep in mind that you cannot work or have a drivers license without a Social Security number/card. You cannot have a Social Security number/card without valid immigration papers if needed. If your born here it is automatic. As for FBI and CIA fighting it out that is ridiculous.
Would you accept a Mexican if he went by the books, set up a company name then immigrated visa, green card and citizenship application free?
Read the law. It's swiss cheese.
Read the law. It's swiss cheese.
So, how would you tell the difference? How do you know whether of not someone is "legitimate"? Do they wear a sign??
Just askin'
petros: Of course I would, there are alot of hard working legal Mexicans (Hispanics) where I live. Every other country seems to be able to follow the law to the letter, just seems to be the border with Mexico shoots it full of holes.
:lol:
I read the law, the drafts and the preceding papers that were used to make the final draft, and followed them to both the Constitution and Supreme Court case law. The Law Prof that was the lead draft/researcher, used proven case law to draft S.B. 1070.
I have yet to see anyone, on any site I've discussed this on, prove their case of opposition to this Bill, using anything but hyperbole, ideology, emotion and opinion.
If you have some case law to back up your opinion, I'd love to see it.