Democrats and Obama working quickly to pass an amnesty bill!

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
StageLeft

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
They barely passed healthcare. I think it's going to be MUCH easier to sell an amnesty bill to the American public. Americans are substantially majority against it.
 
nobodyknows

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Tom said:
I think most of you think when I ask why it's illegal, what I'm saying is there aren't any good reason..

That isn't what I mean. I've heard a lot of discussion the last 20 years about what we should do about "illegals", but not too much rational discussion about why we make them "illegals".

I want to hear the reasons, I'm not saying they're wrong.

Yet..;)
Click to expand...

So do you let anybody who wants to come and live in your house? If your answer is no then what are your reasons? Those reasons are the "why" you speak of.

We don't make them "illegals", they make themselves "illegals" by coming here uninvited.
 
T

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
This Arizona "mirrors" Federal law is a widely publicized "talking point" for defenders of the law. It isn't accurate at all.

1. US citizens are not required to carry "papers" under federal law, they are under Arizona law.

2. Arizona law REQUIRES law enforcement to ask for "papers" if they have reasonable suspicion, fedral law doesn't.

3. It's outside Arizona's jurisdiction to pass laws about immigration. Even if the language was identical, it wouldn't "mirror" federal law because state law and federal law derive their authority frm different parts of the federal Constitution. Since they start from different authorities they can't be the same or have the same effect.
 
D

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Tom said:
This Arizona "mirrors" Federal law is a widely publicized "talking point" for defenders of the law. It isn't accurate at all.

1. US citizens are not required to carry "papers" under federal law, they are under Arizona law.

2. Arizona law REQUIRES law enforcement to ask for "papers" if they have reasonable suspicion, fedral law doesn't.

3. It's outside Arizona's jurisdiction to pass laws about immigration. Even if the language was identical, it wouldn't "mirror" federal law because state law and federal law derive their authority frm different parts of the federal Constitution. Since they start from different authorities they can't be the same or have the same effect.
Click to expand...


In California I am required to provide ID when stopped by a police officer so as to be able to identify myself. I can be detained by the police if I fail to prove my identity.

In San Francisco the lib-tard board of supervisors have decided to enact their own pro-illegal immigration policy known as the "Sanctuary City" clause. This clause blatantly ignores and breaks federal immigration laws by offering shelter from prosecution of federal immigration laws to illegals. This clause also allows illegals to apply for social services as the "SC" clause prevents city workers from asking those applying for social services for proof of citizenship.

Now please explain to me how Arizona is wrong again for enforcing our immigration laws? Or how Arizona is any different then California when it requires identification to be provided to police officers when a citizen is lawfully stopped? Please show me the USSC ruling(s) where states are rebuked from being allowed to have laws which require those stopped by officers from having to provide some form of identification to identify themselves?

If you are saying that Arizona is wrong to enforce the federal immigration law on a state level because it has no authority to do so then cities such as San Francisco (or states like California) are also wrong when they pass their own laws which violate and break federal immigration or yes....even federal drug laws, for all you pot heads out there.
 
Last edited:
blackangst1

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Tom said:
This Arizona "mirrors" Federal law is a widely publicized "talking point" for defenders of the law. It isn't accurate at all.

1. US citizens are not required to carry "papers" under federal law, they are under Arizona law.
Click to expand...

Will you please quote the statute that says this?

Tom said:
2. Arizona law REQUIRES law enforcement to ask for "papers" if they have reasonable suspicion, fedral law doesn't.
Click to expand...

Will you please quote the statute that says this?

Tom said:
3. It's outside Arizona's jurisdiction to pass laws about immigration.
Click to expand...

Not according to SCOTUS. You, sir, are chasing windmills. And youre a fine puppet of the uninformed left as well ;)
 
EagleKeeper

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Tristicus said:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/0...s-illegal-immigrant-g-civil-rights-violation/

You gotta be shitting me...
Click to expand...

I would hope that NYC appeals such a verdict.
But the judge wants to light a fire under the system; which is correct - it got attention to the problem.

Then the city needs to make a policy of stuffing them into a van and delivering the illegals to ICE offices and getting ICE to sign for them.

ICE does not want the headaches; so they refused to pick them up.
 
Svnla

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
Tom said:
you've set up a circular paradox, it's illegal because it's illegal..

I'm trying to get us looking at why we are doing things, maybe it doesn't make sense.

I'm not for open borders. It should be illegal to come here and commit crimes, or as a combatant.

I'm not as sure it makes sense to make it illegal to come here and work and be a good citizen. I think we are making it harder to identify bad elements and keep them out, if they can mix with good people who's only "illegal" act is trying to have a better life.

Seems like it's worth considering, since our current policy has basically never worked, and maybe can't work. And it's only been the policy for a few decades, it isn't how we used to do things.
Click to expand...

Let me make it easy for you. Paradox or not.

Do you let people come in your house uninvited and stay without permission? Yes or No. Very simple. Nothing paradox about it.

Again, It is NOT ILLEGAL to get here. It is ILLEGAL to get here ILLEGALLY. Trust me, I am a FIRST generation of LEGAL immigrant. I do believe I know a few things about LEGAL immigration.

Our current policy is working IF we have the gut to enforce our current Federal and State laws. The last time I check, it is illegal/against federal law to get here or stay here without permission. I also waiting for someone, anyone that could give me a name, just one, of a country on earth that would let anyone sneak in ILLEGALLY, and grant amnesty/path to citizenship to said ILLEGALS.

INA: ACT 211- DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 211. [8 U.S.C. 1181]

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and subsection (c) no immigrant shall be admitted into the United States unless at the time of application for admission he (1) has a valid unexpired immigrant visa or was born subsequent to the issuance of such visa of the accompanying parent, and (2) presents a valid unexpired passport or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality, if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General. With respect to immigrants to be admitted under quotas of quota areas prior to June 30, 1968, no immigrant visa shall be deemed valid unless the immigrant is properly chargeable to the quota area under the quota of which the visa is issued.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
EagleKeeper

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
dainthomas said:
What if I'd taken the house from someone else? Or is it OK if they're dead?
Click to expand...
You are tossing out a red herring.

currently, these people are here ILLEGALLY.

The issue is what to do with them.

There are LEGAL avenues that they could follow - they chose not to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom