Legal Showdown - Arizona's Immigration Law - Page 3

Steinhauer · 05-03-2010, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

No. that's not my intention. See my OP -

My intention is to show that Arizona's new immigration law is unconstitutional.

Until then - I must ask you to kindly stop filling this thread with pettiness unless you have anything to contribute such as legal precedents that support Arizona's new immigration law. What would help is if you can show me any Supreme Court case or related that allows the state to do the federal duty and enacting laws to make federal crime as state crime.

I believe I already did post a legal "document" (the 14th). I don't think that is petty.

There are a lot of federal crimes that are also state crimes. I posted one the other night but here it is again:

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/You...092767630.html

better yet, that is a state enforced federal law (the exact same thing Arizona is doing with immigration law).

**Jiro** · 05-03-2010, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

I believe I already did post a legal "document" (the 14th). I don't think that is petty.

which came from, in your own word, "an "ok" website". Yep... a petty argument.

and here's my argument which I used the actual Supreme Court cases here. Do you have anything such as the actual legal cases for rebuttal purpose?

Steinhauer · 05-03-2010, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

which came from, in your own word, "an "ok" website". Yep... a petty argument.

and here's my argument which I used the actual Supreme Court cases here. Do you have anything such as the actual legal cases for rebuttal purpose?

they are listed on the "ok" website and explained in detail. That was why I posted it.

**Jiro** · 05-03-2010, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

they are listed on the "ok" website and explained in detail. That was why I posted it.

sigh....

the. actual. legal. precedent. please. anything.

Steinhauer · 05-03-2010, 01:05 AM

In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- you read that right, the Ninth Circuit -- concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.”

ummm .... there you go.

**Jiro** · 05-03-2010, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- you read that right, the Ninth Circuit -- concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.”

ummm .... there you go.

it's a courtesy to provide a link

but thanks for providing a legal precedent. Now I'll read it up after you provide a link.

Steinhauer · 05-03-2010, 01:08 AM

but wait, that's not all .... for $19.99 including S&H you get this too (for free actually):

In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”

and ....

Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘ to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.

In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage."

In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a

lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."

in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.

In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.

Steinhauer · 05-03-2010, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

it's a courtesy to provide a link

but thanks for providing a legal precedent. Now I'll read it up after you provide a link.

send him an email, he is an attorney:

WalterMoore@mac.com

He also ran for mayor of LA in 2009.

**Jiro** · 05-03-2010, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

send him an email, he is an attorney:

WalterMoore@mac.com

He also ran for mayor of LA in 2009.

ah so that's him. I googled that name and he ran for mayor. I thought it's the wrong guy. interesting. well since you gave me quite a bunch of legal cases to read that in support of Arizona's new immigration law (which I hope it is otherwise I'll be

at you for wasting my time)...

now we can began the Legal Showdown

Steinhauer · 05-03-2010, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

ah so that's him. I googled that name and he ran for mayor. I thought it's the wrong guy. interesting. well since you gave me quite a bunch of legal cases to read that in support of Arizona's new immigration law (which I hope it is otherwise I'll be

at you for wasting my time)...

now we can began the Legal Showdown

Although you may not know this, I like you very much man. Have a good night.

**Jiro** · 05-03-2010, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Although you may not know this, I like you very much man. Have a good night.

oh me too, Son of Liberty. good nite

BradB08 · 05-03-2010, 02:00 AM

Arizona can enjoy their special place in hell.

Steinhauer · 05-03-2010, 02:05 AM

Quote:

A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE
18 ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT
19 PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

Quote:

ANY
27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE
29 VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
30 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

Congratulations, Arizona took it up a notch.

kokonut · 05-03-2010, 02:16 AM

All legally done with the Federal govt's blessing no less.

kokonut · 05-03-2010, 02:41 AM

Oh, yes, I forgot. At the govt's blessing, er, requirement for 70 years.

Quote:

Some people might not know that since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens who are in the United States permanently to carry on their person, at all times, the official documents proving that they are here legally — green card, work visa, etc. That has been the law for 70 years, and the new Arizona law does not change it.

What America is Michael Gerson living in? | Washington Examiner

Now, the calling of people "racists" is a bit wee too late and, well, rather disengenuous.

Quote:

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona | Washington Examiner

BradB08 · 05-03-2010, 02:43 AM

Being that Arizona is full of rich white men, not a surprise that you'd defend their right to throw the "brownies" off of their stolen property (which by the way, probably belonged to a Native American).

**** Arizona, **** their politicians and **** you all that support them.

kokonut · 05-03-2010, 03:15 AM

Throwing a tantrum doesn't help.

Steinhauer · 05-03-2010, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Throwing a tantrum doesn't help.

Its his "right" to say what he wants

I support his free speech.

However, I will use my rights now.

First and foremost, his behavior is "typical" of a liberal. They believe the law should only be applicable to "white people" and not "non-white" people.

Arizona's law does BOTH!

It applies to both, whites and non-whites. In fact, race is not even a factor.

Now, who just proved themselves to be a racist?

Steinhauer · 05-03-2010, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradB08

Being that Arizona is full of rich white men, not a surprise that you'd defend their right to throw the "brownies" off of their stolen property (which by the way, probably belonged to a Native American).

**** Arizona, **** their politicians and **** you all that support them.

I just wanted to quote you verbatim .... this is absolutely golden

kokonut · 05-03-2010, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Its his "right" to say what he wants

I support his free speech.

However, I will use my rights now.

First and foremost, his behavior is "typical" of a liberal. They believe the law should only be applicable to "white people" and not "non-white" people.

Arizona's law does BOTH!

It applies to both, whites and non-whites. In fact, race is not even a factor.

Now, who just proved themselves to be a racist?

I never said anything to the contrary about free speech. Just noticed the tantrums..er, use of certain colorful words.

CJB · 05-03-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

First and foremost, his behavior is "typical" of a liberal. They believe the law should only be applicable to "white people" and not "non-white" people.

I have no idea where you're getting this from. When did anyone ever say anything to this effect?

kokonut · 05-03-2010, 10:41 AM

Simple, the whole racist demagoguery attempts while ignoring the word "illegal."

CJB · 05-03-2010, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Simple, the whole racist demagoguery attempts while ignoring the word "illegal."

The point isn't that people of color are exempt from the law, the point is that the way the law is written inconveniences people of color to a much larger degree than white people, no matter what their legal status. All the training in the world doesn't make anyone, including police officers, blind to race, so race is going to be considered, and in this case, Latinos are going to get the bulk of the blow because of the associations between being illegal and Hispanic in the minds of many. Quite to the contrary of what you're claiming here: the law will lead to harassing a lot of Hispanic-looking legals of color and will end up letting a lot of white-looking illegals off the hook.

05-03-2010, 11:12 AM

I won't call it racial profiling however I do believe that profiling in general should be legal. If someone (anyone regardless of race) is suspected of something (anything that is illegal) then police should be able to stop and question. If the law suspected of being broken is illegal entry into this country or possible terrorist threats then the police should have the right and the power to investigate. Don't tie their hands behind their back and then ask them to go and do their jobs.

kokonut · 05-03-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJB

The point isn't that people of color are exempt from the law, the point is that the way the law is written inconveniences people of color to a much larger degree than white people, no matter what their legal status. All the training in the world doesn't make anyone, including police officers, blind to race, so race is going to be considered, and in this case, Latinos are going to get the bulk of the blow because of the associations between being illegal and Hispanic in the minds of many. Quite to the contrary of what you're claiming here: the law will lead to harassing a lot of Hispanic-looking legals of color and will end up letting a lot of white-looking illegals off the hook.

That "law" has been around for 70 years.

kokonut · 05-03-2010, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

I won't call it racial profiling however I do believe that profiling in general should be legal. If someone (anyone regardless of race) is suspected of something (anything that is illegal) then police should be able to stop and question. If the law suspected of being broken is illegal entry into this country or possible terrorist threats then the police should have the right and the power to investigate. Don't tie their hands behind their back and then ask them to go and do their jobs.

Good post. Exactly

Steinhauer · 05-03-2010, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Simple, the whole racist demagoguery attempts while ignoring the word "illegal."

absolutely correct.

**Reba** · 05-03-2010, 11:52 AM

I'm curious.

Suppose the Mexicans who cross our border illegally all looked like ethnic northern Europeans. That is, fair skin and hair, blue eyes, and tall. Then, would anyone have a problem with the current Arizona law?

**Jiro** · 05-03-2010, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

I'm curious.

Suppose the Mexicans who cross our border illegally all looked like ethnic northern Europeans. That is, fair skin and hair, blue eyes, and tall. Then, would anyone have a problem with the current Arizona law?

that's Daredevil and she's Cuban

Barbaro · 05-03-2010, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

I'm curious.

Suppose the Mexicans who cross our border illegally all looked like ethnic northern Europeans. That is, fair skin and hair, blue eyes, and tall. Then, would anyone have a problem with the current Arizona law?

There are plenty of Mexicans do have gray eyes. even my Mexican relatives do have gray eyes. My Mexican dad has a light skinned skin.

05-03-2010, 02:16 AM	#74 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	All legally done with the Federal govt's blessing no less. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

05-03-2010, 03:15 AM	#77 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Throwing a tantrum doesn't help. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

05-03-2010, 10:41 AM	#82 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Simple, the whole racist demagoguery attempts while ignoring the word "illegal." __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-03-2010, 01:05 AM	#65 (permalink)
Steinhauer Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,191 Blog Entries: 1	In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- you read that right, the Ninth Circuit -- concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.” ummm .... there you go.

05-03-2010, 01:08 AM	#67 (permalink)
Steinhauer Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,191 Blog Entries: 1	but wait, that's not all .... for $19.99 including S&H you get this too (for free actually): In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.” and .... Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.” In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘ to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’” In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding. In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving. In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage." In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations." in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens. In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.

05-03-2010, 02:00 AM	#72 (permalink)
BradB08 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Vermont Posts: 2,676 Blog Entries: 1	Arizona can enjoy their special place in hell.

05-03-2010, 02:43 AM	#76 (permalink)
BradB08 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Vermont Posts: 2,676 Blog Entries: 1	Being that Arizona is full of rich white men, not a surprise that you'd defend their right to throw the "brownies" off of their stolen property (which by the way, probably belonged to a Native American). ** Arizona, their politicians and ** you all that support them.

05-03-2010, 11:12 AM	#84 (permalink)
rockdrummer Guest Posts: n/a	I won't call it racial profiling however I do believe that profiling in general should be legal. If someone (anyone regardless of race) is suspected of something (anything that is illegal) then police should be able to stop and question. If the law suspected of being broken is illegal entry into this country or possible terrorist threats then the police should have the right and the power to investigate. Don't tie their hands behind their back and then ask them to go and do their jobs.

05-03-2010, 11:52 AM	#88 (permalink)
Reba Granny Terp Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: South Carolina Posts: 39,196	I'm curious. Suppose the Mexicans who cross our border illegally all looked like ethnic northern Europeans. That is, fair skin and hair, blue eyes, and tall. Then, would anyone have a problem with the current Arizona law?