Rhode Island already has the Arizona Immigration law

[nobodyknows]

Freedom-loving Americans abhor the idea of having to prove their innocence. I'm not going to waste my time explaining why.

Yet we have to produce a drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance every time we get pulled over. Refuse a breath alcohol test at a DUI checkpoint and see how that goes for you.

 

[blackangst1]

LOL... do you even know why AZ is being sued? Its because its seizing authority reserved for the Federal government via SB1070. In Rhode Island's case, its harder for the federal government to sue and prove that they enforcing immigration policy outside of what they are legally permitted to do. Now if Rhode Island was dumb enough to pass their own SB1070, that gives the feds a clear target and an easier case.

If murder can be both a state and federal offense (which it is) how do you think states are able to convict without preempting federal law?

:hmm:

edit: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pu...8Sc4PfBK7NAeVMAAAAFAAAAagkxAqCMAAABAAAAIcYBAA==

There are 3 types of preemption (which is the fed's claim):

Express preemption

Express preemption exists if a federal statute explicitly states that it preempts state law (and if Congress, in passing the statute, was exercising authority granted to it under the U.S. Constitution).Although express preemption can be unambiguous, often federal statutes expressing an intent to preempt are quite complicated and difficult to apply. In addition, like any statute, a federal statute expressing an intent to preempt is subject to interpretation by administrative agencies and the courts.

This doesnt apply, because no where does federal immigration law express this.

Conflict preemption
Under the Supremacy Clause, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is preempted.Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).A conflict exists if a party cannot comply with both state law and federal law (for example, if state law forbids something that federal law requires). Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963).In addition, even in the absence of a direct conflict between state and federal law, a conflict exists if the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..

This isnt it either, because AZ simply turns over suspects into federal custody, and the state, per the written law, is in no way not allowing the federal law to be enforced.

The thing, I think, the feds will argue is this:

Implied preemption
Even without a conflict between federal and state law or an express provision for preemption, the courts will infer an intention to preempt state law if the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to “occupy the field” in that area of the law. For example, the courts have held that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts state laws directed at conduct actually or arguably prohibited or protected by the NLRA or conduct Congress intended to leave unregulated

The problem with this law is, not only has the feds allowed conflicting laws (CA for example with its law similar to AZ AND sanctuary laws), but the feds have demonstrated, as I pointed out earlier, that they have no problem handing over enforcement to states i.e. RI. So the feds will have a tough time making this case before the courts.

 

[xj0hnx]

Yet we have to produce a drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance every time we get pulled over. Refuse a breath alcohol test at a DUI checkpoint and see how that goes for you.

Exactly, as well as the already mentioned fact that immigrants have to carry their "papers" with them. It's getting old hearing the reference to Nazi's everytime some talks about this law, "Show me ze papers"

 

[EagleKeeper]

Exactly, as well as the already mentioned fact that immigrants have to carry their "papers" with them. It's getting old hearing the reference to Nazi's everytime some talks about this law, "Show me ze papers"

People are concerned about valid US citizens being required to produce paperwork showing their citizenship. Non-citizens are REQUIRED by Federal Law to have their paperwork with them. Illegals are not able to provide such documentation; mainly because it never existed or has expired.

Yet unless a US citizen come to the attention of a LEO in AZ; there is no concern.
If there is a need to identify yourself; it is because of some other reason.
Then the LEO is required to verify your legallity in the US.

 

[blackangst1]

People are concerned about valid US citizens being required to produce paperwork showing their citizenship. Non-citizens are REQUIRED by Federal Law to have their paperwork with them. Illegals are not able to provide such documentation; mainly because it never existed or has expired.

Which has been federal law since (1965?)

Yet unless a US citizen come to the attention of a LEO in AZ; there is no concern.
If there is a need to identify yourself; it is because of some other reason.
Then the LEO is required to verify your legallity in the US.

Which is easily proven in 3 minutes by police.

 

[xj0hnx]

People are concerned about valid US citizens being required to produce paperwork showing their citizenship. Non-citizens are REQUIRED by Federal Law to have their paperwork with them. Illegals are not able to provide such documentation; mainly because it never existed or has expired.

Yet unless a US citizen come to the attention of a LEO in AZ; there is no concern.
If there is a need to identify yourself; it is because of some other reason.
Then the LEO is required to verify your legallity in the US.

I understand why people are whining about it, but if a cop can't make a judgment call about the immigration status of someone they have stopped, and are questioning, they probably shouldn't be a cop. Simple questions can lead to a pretty good idea whether someone is here legally or not.

 

[Jaskalas]

Here's an idea. Speak English and you won't have to show papers.

 

[blackangst1]

Here's an idea. Speak English and you won't have to show papers.

 

[EagleKeeper]

People are concerned about valid US citizens being required to produce paperwork showing their citizenship. Non-citizens are REQUIRED by Federal Law to have their paperwork with them. Illegals are not able to provide such documentation; mainly because it never existed or has expired.

Which has been federal law since (1965?)

Yet unless a US citizen come to the attention of a LEO in AZ; there is no concern.
If there is a need to identify yourself; it is because of some other reason.
Then the LEO is required to verify your legallity in the US.

Which is easily proven in 3 minutes by police.

So what will the bleeding hearts come up with next.

As long as the LEO is not supposed to do profiling but obey the law; there is no problem.

And they ignore/dismiss the fact that the LEO are getting additional training to avoid such issues.

But there will be at least one die-hard that will attempt a sting to "PROVE" themselves right.

 

[ElFenix]

Which is easily proven in 3 minutes by police.

unless, you know, they don't believe you.

 

[xj0hnx]

unless, you know, they don't believe you.

Not exactly a case of "we don't believe you, you are getting deported", the guy had a Mexico birth certificate, so which one was faked?

 

[pcgeek11]

Why does the fed sue a state that is aligned with federal law, but doesn't sue states that go directly against federal law ( Medical Pot ).

Things that make you wonder.

 

[blackangst1]

So what will the bleeding hearts come up with next.

As long as the LEO is not supposed to do profiling but obey the law; there is no problem.

And they ignore/dismiss the fact that the LEO are getting additional training to avoid such issues.

But there will be at least one die-hard that will attempt a sting to "PROVE" themselves right.

Yep. Thing is, Maricopa County has had THOUSANDS of lawsuits filed against them in the last few years for "racially profiling" and NOT ONE has come to fruition. AZ LEO are not newcomers to this game.

 

[Hammerman]

Why does the fed sue a state that is aligned with federal law, but doesn't sue states that go directly against federal law ( Medical Pot ).

Things that make you wonder.

I have wondered that same thing...Why aren't the Feds sueing Kaleefornya??? It is against federal law to sell, distribute, smoke, buy, etc.. pot.

 

[blackangst1]

I have wondered that same thing...Why aren't the Feds sueing Kaleefornya??? It is against federal law to sell, distribute, smoke, buy, etc.. pot.

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5614

U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws."

 

[JimKiler]

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5614

U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws."

This just shows how upside down government can be, not enforcing rules in CA for pot when they can and not caring so much that CA is not enforcing them. Then in AZ they are going after laws the feds should be enforcing and AZ is complaining they are not.

 

[blackangst1]

This just shows how upside down government can be, not enforcing rules in CA for pot when they can and not caring so much that CA is not enforcing them. Then in AZ they are going after laws the feds should be enforcing and AZ is complaining they are not.

/nod

 

[pcgeek11]

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5614

U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws."

That just amplifies what we were saying. The Feds are letting the states get by with laws that are against Federal law with respect to medical marijuana. But sueing AZ for laws that are fully cooperative with federal laws. It makes no sense.

1. The US Supreme Court refused to review the case. ( they made NO Ruling ).
2. The CA State Courts found that they were not preempted by Federal Law.

So all you stated is that The California State Courts said the state of California laws on Med Marijuana were OK Fine.

Meaningless post.

 

[blackangst1]

That just amplifies what we were saying. The Feds are letting the states get by with laws that are against Federal law with respect to medical marijuana. But sueing AZ for laws that are fully cooperative with federal laws. It makes no sense.

1. The US Supreme Court refused to review the case. ( they made NO Ruling ).
2. The CA State Courts found that they were not preempted by Federal Law.

So all you stated is that The California State Courts said the state of California laws on Med Marijuana were OK Fine.

Meaningless post.

Follow the post, Sparky. I was responding directly to another post. Not meaningless at all, considering what I responded to. It was an affirmation, in case you missed it

 

[blackangst1]

More states are following suit. Feds are going to busy sueing other states!

(not)


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ion-states-20100717,0,4454228.story?track=rss

Many states have their own regulations governing illegal immigrants. And five states have introduced bills similar to Arizona's SB 1070, which is the target of a federal lawsuit.

In fact, the number of immigration-related laws and resolutions enacted by states surged to 333 last year, up from 32 in 2005, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. And during the first three months of 2010, lawmakers introduced more than 1,000 bills and resolutions, though it's too early to tell how many will become law. Bills on topics such as employment verification and driver's license requirements are on the table in 45 states.

States have a long history of enacting immigration laws. In 1996, after Congress denied welfare to most legal immigrants, states stepped in with laws to provide safety net services. And following the Sept. 11 attacks, state lawmakers passed bills aimed at protecting national security.

Santos said the conflicting laws from state to state can create confusion. For example, a company may have offices in two states — in one that requires employment verification and in one that doesn't. "It is exactly those kinds of issues that need to be worked out at the federal level so that there is no question across the 50 states as to what the rules are," she said.

The feds need to get off their asses plain and simple and ENFORCE THE LAW. The only reform we need is enforcement of current law.

 

[cubby1223]

I'm not sure what was confusing about my original statment. I specifically said "Terry stop," not "traffic stop."

To reiterate: Rhode Island does not require people who are walking on the street or even in their own homes to carry and present papers when they're the target of a police investigation. Arizona does.

Nope.

Where are you getting your information from? The U.S. DOJ?

 

[Acanthus]

Situation: Hispanic neighbor annoys you, you call police and make up something like noise/deomestic dispute/whatever.

Hispanic person is required to show citizenship on conjecture.

Lets hope he lost his drivers license.