Judge Blocks Key Parts of Immigration Law in Arizona

Thanks for some (apparently) not so common sense on the issue.

 

Fair point. 'Over rule' was a poor word choice. Still, the state or city, as evidenced by the Chicago gun ruling, cannot pass laws that infringe on the authority of the federal government when those powers are clearly laid out in the Constitution.

 

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to point to the sections of the law that substantiate what you describe above.

Although I can point back to the Bush administration and see a lot of things that have whittled away at our freedoms--I can't see the same about this. What freedoms have we given up?

Can't argue with that.

But that's where you're missing the point. It's not "we're just giving documentation"; it's "we're giving documentation we're already supposed to be providing." There's been no addition to the existing federal law. The only addition is having the local police ask for the documentation you're already supposed to have on you.

I don't either, and have said similar about things that started happening 10 years ago. In this case, however, I see your position as more histrionic than having actual substance.

I am not one to say, "isn't your safety worth giving up a little?" Far from it. My problem with this situation is that Arizona has identified a problem that the federal government is supposed to be dealing with, but refuses to do so; so they enacted a law that supplemented existing federal law (not detracted from), while exercising their constitutional state rights.

If you should be scared of anything, it's the federal government telling the individual states that they don't have the right to protect their state's citizens. Because that kind of federal power extends all the way down to the individuals.

Now, since I'm also Air Force, let me remind you of something: Remember how we have Air Force instructions? And that each major command also has MAJCOM instructions that supplement the Air Force instructions? And how each wing, and sometimes even unit, has additional supplements?

Remember how the saying for those supplements was, they can be stricter than the Air Force Instruction, but they can't detract from it?

In essence, you have the same situation with Arizona. And what's going to be decided in the courts is whether this particular state law supplements existing federal law, or detracts from it.

Why not? Don't you pay taxes, so that policemen can be paid to protect you from people who pose an inherent risk to you and/or your loved ones? Aren't people who drive under the influence a risk to you and/or your loved ones?

I'm rather proud of the policemen and women who have to deal with the irate taxpayers, who basically hate them for doing what they're paid to do...until such a time as those same irate taxpayers actually need them....Kind of like our military....

 

The difference is that the Chicago gun law contradicted the right to bear arms.

There is no "right" to be in the U.S. illegally.

Regardless, the Arizona immigration law does not affect the immigration policy of the United States.

I do not buy that the Constitution grants the right of the federal government to ignore its own laws. The Arizona law simply instructs state workers to take steps to uncover evidence. If the evidence is uncovered, then the illegals are turned over to the federal government.

If Congress doesn't want them turned over to the feds, then there is a simple solution: change the law. Make them legal, and no issue will arise. The Arizona law doesn't take this ability away.

------------

Consider the first amendment:

What if the federal government simply stopped providing protection for free speech? Would states be obligated not to protect speech within their borders?

 

That - the heart of the federal case - is not what the judge ruled which kind of suggests it was a very weak case. Instead he picked on something else and that's being appealed just as it should be. I hope Arizona wins. I hope every other State enacts similar laws. I hope the federal government comes to its senses - if it has any left.

 

The only solution to this problem is a national ID card that citizens can use for everything including checking out library books.

 

Or buy goods, or sell them....

 

. Ok I quote the objectionable provisions. Key terms must be looked at and I'll highlight them

That provides a lot of Leighway for Arizona officer not only to act with illegal aliens but anyone they believe is an illegal alien whether true or not.

I can and do and have shown why.

This is problematic to many latins who are productive american citizens. And causes racial tensions throughout the country.

There are situations and places where you might reasonably not have such Id. American's are not required to carry id in all circumstances. I gave you only two senarios. Its provisions make it a burden to primarily latins no matter what their status. This is a situation of racial preference. Before long will we have to carry additional documents such as a Latin US citizen registration card? Or how about but all latins in internment camps until the boarder issues are settled?

I disagreed with it then as well.

Very good but this is where we are at.

Then sue the federal government.

Remember that little war in the 1860's. It settled that the states are subject to the federal govenment and may not over ride the federal government.

Yes and Arizona law is being more than more restrictive but urpsurping federal role.

People who drive under the influence should loose their freedom. And not be able to post bail or be let back into the community until jail time has been served. Not given second chances as they often are. I believe that is a greater deterent than road blocks. I don't want my family hurt by a drunk driver. I'd feel a lot better if I knew drunk drivers caught had the book thrown at them. Road blocks is another loss of freedom and allows for future misuse of the system. How about with arizona law they can just randomly stop people and people they think are illegal in the car (not the driver and don't have id) are detained and finger printed until citizenship is established? Random stops for dui checks is another loss of freedom. And setting us up for future misuse.

I am proud of the Police and the sacrifice and the jog they do. Just like I'm proud of our service men and women. However, we don't live in a police state. When we were in the air force we willingly give up our freedom by signing our life away so to speak. And I know in basic they told us we didn't really loose our freedoms but we did to allow them to regiment our lives. The civilian world is not governed in such a way. We are loosing our liberty. This is just one step. What will be next?

 

And freedom takes another loss.

 

Well put. Question, should the federal government have to pay for the damage done to the folks home who live on or near the boarder? Can the states go after the federal government for not enforcing their laws? I just saw a film on it with US boarder patrol, it isn't a nice picture.

 

Anyone who is afraid to have people know who he is and what he buys and where he goes isn't free. He is locked up inside his own pea sized brain.

Information is only economically/financially valuable when it is restricted. The BIG argument against national ID cards for buying and selling is that (even now) our owners know about us but we don't know about them.

I say eliminate all paper cash and go to 100% electronic transfer AND publish every transaction on the web, put a 2% transfer tax on every transaction (1% from each end), and cancel every sales, income and payroll tax.

 

Now that's an interesting approach. Can we sue governmental entities for not performing?

 

(anyone who thinks that information is private, isn't aware of what's actually going on. New cars and cell phones can be tracked; ATM and credit/debit cards establish trails; online transactions are "available" to establish buying/banking habits...freedom is more of an illusion than most people realize. The Panopticon truly exists, way beyond Jeremy Bentham's wildest dreams....)

 

I don't know, sounds good to me, but they and everyone else can sue me for not living up to my contract with them. They aren't living up to the law which is the same thing.
Are we going to pick out which laws we are going to enforce?
How about those houses that have been shot up and what not, that I saw on that boarder control deal.

 

You would have to demonstrate that the government specifically violated your personal constitutional right.

For example, the police has a general obligation to protect the public but no specific obligation to protect me unless the police specifically contract to protect me. For example, a 911 operator states that I need not shoot a burglar because an officer is only one minute away but the police never arrive and I get hurt. The 911 tape would be evidence of a contractual obligation.

And I have no illusion of privacy.

 

Way to turn freedom on its head.

I guess, then, citizens of totalitarian regimes are the most "free"?!

The blessing of physical, fungible currency is that people can make voluntary exchanges of goods and services anonymously.

The government has no right to know who everyone is, how much money they earn, what they "buy" and what they "sell." All that should concern the government is that it receives sufficient total revenue.

Hmmm. I am pretty sure that the Internet has revolutionized the spread of information. Many people have benefited from the free information available from the Internet.

I have also been very productive with Free/Open Source software and have been paid to use it. Such productivity and economy may never have come to be if the software I needed were not available or at a reasonable price.

The Internet, allowing businesses to compete on a wider scale can sell goods and services to more people. This introduces more competition and lowers prices for consumers. Businesses benefit by making profits through greater volume of sales rather than through higher margins per unit.

This argument is the same ridiculous and repulsive Keynesian argument that is self-defeating. Sure, when information is restricted it becomes more "valuable" because the supply is insufficient to meet the demand, thus commanding a higher price. However, the corollary is that productivity is removed to an even greater extent.

Think of what this argument leads to. The same argument can be made that restricting the use of machinery makes manual labor more valuable. Of course it does because productivity is stifled. Although manual labor would receive a higher pay, the standard of living for everyone is drastically reduced!

It is not money that makes wealth, but rather the purchasing power of that money in terms of available goods and services. Would two people stranded on an island with no hope of escape and no contact with anyone else be better off if they had $1 billion in paper money each on hand? Of course not! This would all be worthless paper because it could not be exchanged on a market for a desirable choice of goods and services.

If only we could just eliminate all technology and make people work on farms. No bulldozers because they take jobs away! Let 10 people dig with shovels instead of one with a bulldozer. No, wait, get rid of the shovels. Let 100 people dig with their bare hands. Everyone has a job! 100% employment! Then, we will ALL be better off. We will ALL be wealthier! Err, wait!

Those with whom we conduct voluntary contracts, we entrust with certain information, and we should be able to expect retribution by law if this trust is violated. Not so with a nanny state that gets everyone's information and has no higher power to enforce accountability.

As a computer programmer and one who has worked with information security, I can tell you that a central database in the world's superpower with everyone's information would be a grossly expensive security nightmare. Such a system would just be begging for hackers at home and abroad to infiltrate and exploit information for monetary and/or destructive means. These problems happen on a smaller scale with the distinctive and disparate databases that exist in various companies. Credit card fraud happens all the time and the lives of a few people are impacted. Imagine the utter chaos that would happen with a central database in the U.S.

I say get the freakin' government out of the banking system other than to punish fraud and force banks who take unnecessary risks to repay their depositors (some voluntary deals could be to pay the balance back in installments with interest).

Let the free market decide what works as money. Remove the restraints and taxes from precious metals. Allow competing currencies. Prosecute fraud to the highest extent of the law. No bailouts. Mmmmm, prosperity!

 

The judge's ruling has nothing to do with the points argued! It was NOT a ruling that addressed that the "infringement" the federal government claimed - a bogus claim in this case - but rather on the particulars of Arizona's law about how it wanted to enforce it. In other words, it didn't deny Arizona's right to make the law but set aside some of the particular requirements in it of how it would be enforced. We all know that this challenge will make it to the Supreme Court because we know the reputation of the 9th Circuit Court. It's going to be a long struggle. In the mean time, other States should enact their own similar laws and keep the pressure on the federal government. It is the federal government - Congress, President, and the Court - that are off base and not doing their job. The law suit was about arrogant power domain and about political favors to illegal aliens in hopes of gaining a whole new army of voters. The danger now is that these clowns in Washington will grant an amnesty to millions who reside in our country illegally. The real problem is the mass number of illegal aliens that need to be deported as soon as possible. What has the federal government done of any significance towards that goal? Nothing! This ruling just helped the illegal aliens - not the citizens - and was done shamefully in the name of "protecting" "rights" - rights that were no way in jeopardy from the law. No one was going to be harmed by the law unlike the gun rights issue which has long prevented people for having the means to defend themselves - a totally different matter.