Fed sue to block Arizona illegal immigrant law

Status
Not open for further replies.
What about Mayors????

obama chooses to sue after a State that has passed a law that closely mirrors Federal law saying it interferes.......yet he doesn't sue cities that have passed sanctuary laws that directly conflict/interfere with Federal law........kinda strange.

Politics,that is what this is all about.

those with sanctuary policy - they lose the federal funding/support.

and beside... 10th Amendment. The federal government may not compel the state law enforcement agents to enforce the federal regulations (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). Supreme Court has clarified this several times on several issues.
 
those with sanctuary policy - they lose federal funding/support.

and beside... 10th Amendment. The federal government may not compel the state law enforcement agents to enforce the federal regulations. Supreme Court has clarified this several times on several issues.

That's not a lawsuit.... :)

Sanctuary cities certainly "interfere" with Federal enforcement. Not only do they not enforce Federal law......they harbor those who break Federal law.
 
That's not a lawsuit.... :)

Sanctuary cities certainly "interfere" with Federal enforcement. Not only do they not enforce Federal law......they harbor those who break Federal law.

here's the lawsuit - Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) :)

so I say it again - The federal government may not compel the state law enforcement agents to enforce the federal regulations. Supreme Court was pretty specific about this.
 
as long as if it does not usurp the federal law and/or interfere with the federal government

Yes, I think everyone gets that.

So, how is a strapped Federal Government that is not enforcing immigration law being usurped by a State that is using its resources to enforce a Federal Law?
 
Yes, I think everyone gets that.

So, how is a strapped Federal Government that is not enforcing immigration law being usurped by a State that is using its resources to enforce a Federal Law?

see above.

and what resource? the state is using federal resource and federal money. and why should the state further inundate the strapped feds with petty cases?

I guess you prefer top priority on petty illegals than serious criminals.
 
The Story No One Talks About - The Terror Threat On The Border
It's important to note that while violent drug gangs crossing our southern border pose a great threat, an event greater threat that also exists - one you probably haven't heard about.

Public records show that each year thousands of illegal aliens other than Mexicans cross our southern border, many from countries that sponsor terrorism.

In fact, a recent report by 2 News Atlanta found one detention facility near Phoenix that was holding border crossers from Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan, and Yemen.

Why haven't you heard about this? Your guess is as good as ours, but the U.S. Congress obviously knows the real story.

A Congressional report titled "A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border," prepared by the House Committee on Homeland Security, states that during 2005 alone, the Border Patrol apprehended approximately 1.2 million illegal aliens, of which 165,000 were from countries other than Mexico.

"Of the non-Mexican aliens, approximately 650 were from special interest countries," the report states. "Special interest countries are those 'designated by the intelligence community as countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism."

"The government report also concludes:
-Aliens were smuggled from the Middle East to staging areas in Central and South America, before being smuggled illegally into the United States across the southern border;
-Members of Hezbollah have already entered the United States across the Southwest border;
-Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. The Venezuelan government is issuing identity documents that could subsequently be used to obtain a U.S. visa and enter the country.

"Terrorists sneaking into our country over our southern border pose a major threat to all American citizens," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president. "If we learned anything from 9/11, it is that a handful of bad people intent on harming us can create nearly unimaginable catastrophe." (source: America's 1st Freedom - July 2010 issue)

Now you see how Arizona's new immigration law is going to interfere with the federal duty which will seriously jeopardize the national security?

and ya'all are still saying feds is doing nothing? :roll: it's getting old. real old.
 
here's the lawsuit - Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) :)

so I say it again - The federal government may not compel the state law enforcement agents to enforce the federal regulations. Supreme Court was pretty specific about this.

Not a lawsuit against a sanctuary city.... :)

AGAIN..... Sanctuary laws do more than merely refusing to enforce Federal law. They harbor people that have broken Federal law. A direct form of Interfering :)
 
Not a lawsuit against a sanctuary city.... :)

AGAIN..... Sanctuary laws do more than merely refusing to enforce Federal law. They harbor people that have broken Federal law. A direct form of Interfering :)

trouble reading? must be the weather. I understand.

Again - there can't be federal lawsuit against sanctuary city if the Supreme Court clarified that the federal government may not compel the state law enforcement agents to enforce the federal regulations. Simple - the federal government can cut off the federal funding to sanctuary city. This will eventually lead to state passing the legislation to prohibit sanctuary policy anywhere in the state. Georgia has done that. Few other states have already done so. I hope more will follow especially New Jersey.

Secondly - it's "harboring" if they knew the immigration status but they don't as long as they don't ask.

hot weather today, eh? here's a lemonade for you, sir.
lemonade.jpg
 
trouble reading? must be the weather. I understand.

Again - there can't be federal lawsuit against sanctuary city if the Supreme Court clarified that the federal government may not compel the state law enforcement agents to enforce the federal regulations. Simple - the federal government can cut off the federal funding to sanctuary city. This will eventually lead to state passing the legislation to prohibit sanctuary policy anywhere in the state. Georgia has done that. Few other states have already done so. I hope more will follow especially New Jersey.

Secondly - it's "harboring" if they knew the immigration status but they don't as long as they don't ask.

hot weather today, eh? here's a lemonade for you, sir.
lemonade.jpg

So .... wouldn't the Federal Government be guilty of "harboring" by failing to do their jobs?

State resources are State resources, not Federal resources.

That is why you pay State Tax and Federal Tax.
 
...Secondly - it's "harboring" if they knew the immigration status but they don't as long as they don't ask....
If their status is legal then why would they even need sanctuary?
 
Secondly - it's "harboring" if they knew the immigration status but they don't as long as they don't ask.


:laugh2: Yeah right. Tell that to all the people who have been convicted for harboring criminals despite playing the "I didn't know" defense :laugh2:

It's politics pure and simple. :)
 
I couldn't find much on these sanctuaries. Any links pls?
 
Homeless people?
Homeless people legally in this country don't need sanctuary--they need shelter.

SANCTUARY

A place of refuge, where the process of the law cannot be executed.

Sanctuaries may be divided into religious and civil. The former were very common in Europe; religious houses affording protection from arrest to all persons, whether accused of crime, or pursued for debt. This kind was never known in the United States.

Civil sanctuary, or that protection which is afforded to a man by his own house, was always respected in this country. The house protects the owner from the service of all civil process in the first instance but not if he is once lawfully arrested and takes refuge in his own house. No place affords protection from arrest in criminal cases; a man may, therefore, be arrested in his own bouse in such cases, and the doors may be broken for the purpose of making the arrest.
Legal Definition of Sanctuary
 
Homeless people legally in this country don't need sanctuary--they need shelter.


Legal Definition of Sanctuary

But why are they called sanctuaries instead of shelters in Arizona? Sanctuaries imply protection from arrest. Either that, or Quasimodo suddenly bursts upon the scene, whisking them into a church and yelling "Sanctuary! Sanctuary!"
:dizzy:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top