Fed to sue and seek injunction of AZ illegal immigrant law

[nobodyknows]

No, because it violates MY and YOUR civil rights, not some illegals'. That's the part you keep missing, spidey.

And this isn't about have to show ID when asked either. IDs can be faked. This is about having to provide proof of citizenship on demand while on American soil or potentially face loss of citizenship, loss of constitutional rights, and deportation.

Still fear mongering I see.

Now show me your drivers license, registration, and proof om insurance or we will deport you....stat!!

 

[Nemesis 1]

Re: Throckmorton

Agreed. However note the SCOTUS case I link below ruled "reasonable suspicion is NOT required for police to question anyone about their immigration status.


Re: Vic

You have no "choice" between "a certain level of illegal immigration and sacrificing my 4th amendment rights by consenting to being forced to prove my citizenship on demand on American soil" because the SCOTUS has already ruled police can demand you provide immigration status, they don't even need "reasonable suspicion".

Also your statement about a "certain level of illegal immigration" is key. In many peoples' opinion this "certain level" is now far too high.

Case of MUEHLER et al. v. MENA of the SCOTUS:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/se...t al. v. MENA&url=/supct/html/03-1423.ZO.html



I belive there is already SCOTUS precident for allowing states to enforce federal immigration statutes. If so, this, IMO, completely undercuts the DoJ's argument about preemption.

When I find that case, I'll post back, but must log-off now for the day.

Fern

That interesting. I good lawyer would pick up on this , Start a class action suite against government. In the 70s US workers were required to show proof of citizenship to get hired . According to the case you sited those were illegal acts and many people would have had rights violated and loss because they couldn't prove citizenship.

 

[werepossum]

I'm pretty sure I did read your post. And if I misinterpreted it, I think it was due to your poor wording. It sounded like "not only are the illegals' rights being violated, but American citizens' are as well." If that wasn't your intended point, clarify and I will remove my banner of text.

I agree - identity theft is an issue. But not every illegal will have stolen an American's identity. We should at least try to curb the problem instead of having a defeatist attitude and letting these things slide. If a man's "identity" marks him as John Smith and he doesn't speak a word of English while he drives a van packed with mestizos, that looks like reasonable suspicion to me.

Some will slip through the cracks - I don't doubt that. But we should at least make an effort on this.

It's truly amazing that identity theft, rampant among illegal aliens, would be used as a poor excuse for not enforcing immigration law.

Enforce immigration law, get less identity theft. Refuse to enforce immigration law, get more identity theft. It's an extremely simple relationship.

 

[cubby1223]

Just think how much better the world would be if our country would just get serious about securing the border.

So many other issues will suddenly begin to correct themselves automatically.

But, no, it's more important for the political party that is in power to remain in power, than it is to do the right thing for the people.

 

[blackangst1]

No, because it violates MY and YOUR civil rights, not some illegals'. That's the part you keep missing, spidey.

And this isn't about have to show ID when asked either. IDs can be faked. This is about having to provide proof of citizenship on demand while on American soil or potentially face loss of citizenship, loss of constitutional rights, and deportation.

Can you show me ANY case law that supports this? ONE case where an american lost citizenship because he/she couldnt prove it on the spot? No? Ah didnt think so. More scare tactics I guess. Youre really reaching here man.

Also, youre wrong that citizenship must be proven. No where in the bill does it elude to that. Citizenship != here legally.

 

[daishi5]

No, because it violates MY and YOUR civil rights, not some illegals'. That's the part you keep missing, spidey.

And this isn't about have to show ID when asked either. IDs can be faked. This is about having to provide proof of citizenship on demand while on American soil or potentially face loss of citizenship, loss of constitutional rights, and deportation.

You keep saying this, even after other people cite supreme court cases that state you do not have this right. You cannot lose a right you do not have. If you missed it, I have quoted the post so you can read it, and move on to another objection to this law.

Re: Vic

You have no "choice" between "a certain level of illegal immigration and sacrificing my 4th amendment rights by consenting to being forced to prove my citizenship on demand on American soil" because the SCOTUS has already ruled police can demand you provide immigration status, they don't even need "reasonable suspicion".

Also your statement about a "certain level of illegal immigration" is key. In many peoples' opinion this "certain level" is now far too high.

Case of MUEHLER et al. v. MENA of the SCOTUS:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/se...t al. v. MENA&url=/supct/html/03-1423.ZO.html



I belive there is already SCOTUS precident for allowing states to enforce federal immigration statutes. If so, this, IMO, completely undercuts the DoJ's argument about preemption.

When I find that case, I'll post back, but must log-off now for the day.

Fern

 

[OutHouse]

You gave $500 to a Republican propaganda campaign aimed at getting out the bigot vote in November.

you are talking about the dems right?

 

[OutHouse]

No, because it violates MY and YOUR civil rights, not some illegals'. That's the part you keep missing, spidey.

And this isn't about have to show ID when asked either. IDs can be faked. This is about having to provide proof of citizenship on demand while on American soil or potentially face loss of citizenship, loss of constitutional rights, and deportation.

lol that is some crazy shit you belive there... hahahahahahah deport me because I dont have a DL, lose my citizenship because i dont have a DL, lose my rights all because i dont have a DL? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

deport me to where? hahahahahhaah

damn you are just batshit nuts and you have no fucking clue what this law is about. go read the fucking law before you embarrass yourself more than you already have.

 

[peonyu]

In this case, illegal immigration isn't the issue. If it were the issue the law would look very different, focusing on the employers who draw in the illegal immigrants. This law is race-based politics at its worst, pandering to bigots in a time of economic strife.

This issue is 100% about illegals. Its the Feds duty to enforce immigration, and they are not doing thier job. If they were, this law would not be needed...Since Arizona and many other states would not be over run with illegals.

And to claim its racism is silly. We gave a Amnesty already, to 4 million Mexicans. and that one was pro-claimed as THE LAST amnesty we will ever hand out...If racism was a issue in regards to Mexican illegals, they never would have recieved the first amnesty [since a racist nation would not do that].

 

[OutHouse]

In this case, illegal immigration isn't the issue. If it were the issue the law would look very different, focusing on the employers who draw in the illegal immigrants. This law is race-based politics at its worst, pandering to bigots in a time of economic strife.

Maybe Jan Brewer could better use those funds toward fixing the AZ budget mess she and the Republican Legislature have created. Nah, makes more political sense to pander to bigots. Jan was a half term wonder until Russell Pearce threw her this bone. Politically, it has worked very well; even in Arizona the press hardly mentions the AZ budget deficit anymore and the complete inability of the Republican Party to govern.

wow did you pull out the democrat playbook and turn to the chapter on how to play the race card? truly pathetic.

FYI in my travels i have noticed that the one who screams racism the loudest is normally the racist.

 

[Svnla]

So let me get this straight.

Your house is on fire, you call the Fire Department and no one is showing up. You and your family members begin to get buckets of water and try to put out the fire before the house is burn down to the ground.

The Fire Department is still no where to be found and yet their lawyers are threating everyone that "put out fire" is only for the Fire Department and you/your helpers need to stop right away or else.

Very logical and smart there. <sarcastic>

 

[Drift3r]

This issue is 100% about illegals. Its the Feds duty to enforce immigration, and they are not doing thier job. If they were, this law would not be needed...Since Arizona and many other states would not be over run with illegals.

And to claim its racism is silly. We gave a Amnesty already, to 4 million Mexicans. and that one was pro-claimed as THE LAST amnesty we will ever hand out...If racism was a issue in regards to Mexican illegals, they never would have recieved the first amnesty [since a racist nation would not do that].

Of course there is also a fact that Mexican is not a race hence the false nature of the claim that this is "racist law".

 

[Fern]

That interesting. I good lawyer would pick up on this , Start a class action suite against government. In the 70s US workers were required to show proof of citizenship to get hired . According to the case you sited those were illegal acts and many people would have had rights violated and loss because they couldn't prove citizenship.

Actually, there is another SCOTUS case that says states may make laws regarding the hiring of illegal immigrants ('preemption' doesn't apply). I.e., no problem with employers therefor requesting proof of citizenship under a state law.

Also, currently the federal gov requires employers to do just that (the prospective employee must prove citizenship or have an immigration status that permits them to work here).

Fern

 

[Fern]

There is no right to take welfare from the state anywhere in the Constitution, regardless of whether we're talking about citizens or illegals.

If you're arguing that the rights spelled out in the Constitution apply only to citizens, and not to non-citizens, then I'd say you don't know the Constitution. The only rights which citizens are granted over persons in the US Constitution are the rights to vote and hold political office.

BTW, if I haven't said this enough already (and I know I did in the other thread but it keeps getting ignored amidst all the ridiculous straw men), I totally support AZ's right to have their law. A right which is guaranteed to them by the 9th amendment. I think AZ's law is a political stunt and a certain failure, but that's their prerogative (and problem).

Hmmmm...

Reading this brings a question to my mind.

Remember we're broadly talking about state (AZ) respecting a Constitutional right of an illegal alien (as well as citizens).

The recent 2nd Amendment SCOTUS case involved the 14th Amendment. Did the 14th Amendment incorparte the 2nd so that states had to recognize the 2nd. I.e., the Constitution says the federal gov cannot infrige that right, but does the 14th work to say that states also can't infrige it?

The minority/liberal opinion was that the 14th did not incorporate the 2nd and therefor state were under no Constitutional obligation to recognize the 2nd. I.e., if the 14th doesn't incorporate a right the state is under no obligation to recognize it.

Now I'm wondering if the wording of the 14th - it uses "citizens" often - does not include non-citizens? If not, then the 14th wouldn't apply to illegals. If the 14th did not apply to illegals then the states would not be obligated to recognize Constitutional rights of illegals (the fed gov would though).

shrug, just a thought

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Case of MUEHLER et al. v. MENA of the SCOTUS:

Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/se...t al. v. MENA&url=/supct/html/03-1423.ZO.html

So, one big issue litigated in the above SCOTUS case was whether the police had the right to ask about a person's immigration status, and apparently for no other reason than to determine if they were here legally. (Note that the SCOTUS had previously ruled that 'preemption' was not violated if the inquiry was under state law and pertaining to employment type regulations, however that's not the case here).

Does it strike anyone else as odd, or even absurd, that if the police are NOT allowed to act on someone's immigration status due to 'preemption' they are still allowed to demand proof of immigration status? If so, for what purpose? Makes no sense because they would be Constitutional prohibited from doing anything. Why would the courts find a right for police to start down a path they are constitutionally prohibited?

Seems to me inherent in the police's right to demand proof of immigration status is the right to follow up on it (enforcement). Of course, prediciting what the SCOTUS might do is folly.

Fern

 

[her209]

So let me get this straight.

Your house is on fire, you call the Fire Department and no one is showing up. You and your family members begin to get buckets of water and try to put out the fire before the house is burn down to the ground.

The Fire Department is still no where to be found and yet their lawyers are threating everyone that "put out fire" is only for the Fire Department and you/your helpers need to stop right away or else.

Very logical and smart there. <sarcastic>

FAIL comparison is FAIL.

 

[Svnla]

FAIL comparison is FAIL.

Your reply is uber FAIL.

Oh, I forgot, my comparison needs to add "racist", "Bush's failure", "Republicans did it"...etc... right?

 

[Patranus]

So can a "progressive" answer this for me?

Why isn't the child of a diplomat granted citizenship if born withing the boundaries of the United States?

 

[her209]

Your reply is uber FAIL.

Oh, I forgot, my comparison needs to add "racist", "Bush's failure", "Republicans did it"...etc... right?

Whoa, defensive much.

 

[IronWing]

So can a "progressive" answer this for me?

Why isn't the child of a diplomat granted citizenship if born withing the boundaries of the United States?

If the child is born outside the confines of an embassy (which is considered sovereign territory of the guest nation) then there is no reason that the child would not be eligible for US citizenship under our Constitution.

 

[Patranus]

If the child is born outside the confines of an embassy (which is considered sovereign territory of the guest nation) then there is no reason that the child would not be eligible for US citizenship under our Constitution.

Except they aren't. Try again.

 

[blackangst1]

If the child is born outside the confines of an embassy (which is considered sovereign territory of the guest nation) then there is no reason that the child would not be eligible for US citizenship under our Constitution.

Diplomats are exempt from this.

 

[Patranus]

Diplomats are exempt from this.

But I thought that would violate the constitutional rights of the child?!?!?!?

 

[piasabird]

Why does the current Administration try to limit the press's access to the gulf? They dont even believe in the First Amendment!

 

[IronWing]

Diplomats are exempt from this.

Fascinating. No doubt you can offer up a case where a child born in the US to a foreign diplomat asserted (upon the age of maturity) American citizenship based upon birth and was denied?