rattsass Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 Sorry, but international borders and immigration fall under the scope of federal authority, so they absolutely have authority over a state trying to come in and usurp their area of authority. It's Arizona that is trying to crap on the Constitution here. It is amazing the gymnastics people will do to defend a federal government that won't even enforce it's own laws at the peril of its constituents. Arizona has people breaking into their house, and they called the cops (feds) but the cops tell them to deal with it. Ain't that America. If the feds failure to enforce border security isn't proof positive that the "war on terror" is a sham I don't know what it. Man, you people are so gullible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 It is amazing the gymnastics people will do to defend a federal government that won't even enforce it's own laws at the peril of its constituents. Arizona has people breaking into their house, and they called the cops (feds) but the cops tell them to deal with it. Ain't that America. If the feds failure to enforce border security isn't proof positive that the "war on terror" is a sham I don't know what it. Man, you people are so gullible. Living in Arizona myself, I must have no idea about the situation. Thanks for setting me straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 Living in Arizona myself, I must have no idea about the situation. Thanks for setting me straight. Based on your Avi and a fan of the Vikings why would you think anyone would put any sense to what you say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 On this fathers day I would like to publicly state that my father did me a disservice. He raised me to believe that right was right and wrong was wrong. I am thinking he raised me to be a member of the minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 People probably seem to forget it because it is simply not true. If it's not, then it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 If it's not, then it should be. Wiegie is absolutely right. The Constitution offers full protections to anyone within the borders of the US regardless of citizenship. This is why Bush went to such great lengths to establish Guantanamo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 Wiegie is absolutely right. The Constitution offers full protections to anyone within the borders of the US regardless of citizenship. This is why Bush went to such great lengths to establish Guantanamo. And why Obama hasn't closed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 (edited) Sorry, but international borders and immigration fall under the scope of federal authority, so they absolutely have authority over a state trying to come in and usurp their area of authority. It's Arizona that is trying to crap on the Constitution here. Completely wrong. State Sovereignty is upheld over federal incursion. If a States borders next to another country, State has authority over how to administer it's protection unless there is a federal region in that area such as federal buildings, etc. ETA Unless all states give up that right AND there is an all encompassing federal law that covers everything such as immigration. Edited June 21, 2010 by cliaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Completely wrong. State Sovereignty is upheld over federal incursion. If a States borders next to another country, State has authority over how to administer it's protection unless there is a federal region in that area such as federal buildings, etc. ETA Unless all states give up that right AND there is an all encompassing federal law that covers everything such as immigration. You might wanna read the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 You might wanna read the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. +1. I can't believe anyone could misunderstand that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 (edited) You might wanna read the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. +1. I can't believe anyone could misunderstand that. The context of this issue surrounds the safety and protection of the people who live in Az, correct? In government, the smallest jurisdiction has the greatest authority over the safety and protection of the people. In this instance, the federal government is attempting to sue Az on an issue that is, at it core, safety of Az citizens - immigration. Federal government cannot do that. ETA Think about it for a second. If the federal government had authority over immigration in relation to Az, why are we just now seeing them attempt to change their law? Edited June 21, 2010 by cliaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 The context of this issue surrounds the safety and protection of the people who live in Az, correct? In government, the smallest jurisdiction has the greatest authority over the safety and protection of the people. In this instance, the federal government is attempting to sue Az on an issue that is, at it core, safety of Az citizens - immigration. Federal government cannot do that. ETA Think about it for a second. If the federal government had authority over immigration in relation to Az, why are we just now seeing them attempt to change their law? Read this. It will help. The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as "the Supreme Law of the Land" (using modern capitalization). The text of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, both in the Federal courts and in all of the State courts, mandating that all state judges shall uphold them, even if there are state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government. (Note that the word "shall" is used here and in the language of the law, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted June 21, 2010 Author Share Posted June 21, 2010 Thanks at least for getting us off the left vs right BS which didn't take long to kick in (surprise). Anyway FYI to all, here's the clause in question: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. Not saying that you're saying this per se, but to say this means the feds can negate AZ's new law is IMO a severely lame reach and worse, if somehow used to win this bizarro case, could set a very dangerous precedent for the feds to simply negate any state law any time they feel like it because feds win over states like scissors cut paper (and the paper is the state laws). Basically as I see it, this is only valid if the AZ law directly conflicts with a federal law. Pretty sure it doesn't. IMO this is just another battle with the mindless Political Correctness Monster. And in this day and age.........well I applaud the effort, but good luck w/that AZ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 (edited) The government openly raided Josh Gordon despensaries during the Bush years eventhough it was state law. Those were established for the well being of citizens in those states as this law is claiming. I believe the government should pull all troops back home so we can guard our borders instead of guarding shacks in the desert. Instead of adding something new for the police to do, who are overworked and underpaid, shouldn't Arizona be targetting the businesses who hire illegals? How is a police officer picking and guessing who's illegal going to stop the flow? They all ready can't stop the massive amount of drugs and firearms being moved through out the country. But I don't see many businesses selling drugs and illegal guns. Could it be the consequences are too stiff? If Congress wasn't in the pockets of business owners then there wouldn't be such a big problem to begin with. Edited June 21, 2010 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 The government openly raided Josh Gordon despensaries during the Bush years eventhough it was state law. Those were established for the well being of citizens in those states as this law is claiming. I believe the government should pull all troops back home so we can guard our borders instead of guarding shacks in the desert. Instead of adding something new for the police to do, who are overworked and underpaid, shouldn't Arizona be targetting the businesses who hire illegals? How is a police officer picking and guessing who's illegal going to stop the flow? They all ready can't stop the massive amount of drugs and firearms being moved through out the country. But I don't see many businesses selling drugs and illegal guns. Could it be the consequences are too stiff? If Congress wasn't in the pockets of business owners then there wouldn't be such a big problem to begin with. I agree with you on the fining of businesses who knowingly employ illegals. The one aspect that makes me hesitate a bit when passing a law such as that is that "knowingly" is a very broad term. For instance, I am certain that at least one of the Mexicans I have working for me is illegal. We run checks on them, they all have either work visas, green cards or SS #. One of them could be using the valid SS of a hispanic US citizen w. the same name. So, if it came up in an ICE investigation that in fact one of my employees was illegal, even though he provided me with documentation, am I then culpable for "knowingly" employing an illegal and thus subject to a fine or suspension of my business license. I mean, let's face it, should I have done more due diligence than just accepting on the face of it that his SS/Work VIsa/Green Card was valid? Or, should I have suspected, since he is hispanic, that he might be illegal and therefore done a further background search... Or, if I did take the second step because he was hispanic am I then opening myself up to suit for racial discrimination and would that also be illegal profiling? BTW, the current admin is not in favor of fining businesses who employ illegals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 The government openly raided Josh Gordon despensaries during the Bush years eventhough it was state law. Those were established for the well being of citizens in those states as this law is claiming. I believe the government should pull all troops back home so we can guard our borders instead of guarding shacks in the desert. Instead of adding something new for the police to do, who are overworked and underpaid, shouldn't Arizona be targetting the businesses who hire illegals? How is a police officer picking and guessing who's illegal going to stop the flow? They all ready can't stop the massive amount of drugs and firearms being moved through out the country. But I don't see many businesses selling drugs and illegal guns. Could it be the consequences are too stiff? If Congress wasn't in the pockets of business owners then there wouldn't be such a big problem to begin with. Nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 People seem to forget Illegal Aliens DO NOT HAVE any constitutional rights cause there NOT CITIZENS!! While many argue that "We the People of the United States," refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) ) Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896) Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Plyler v. Doe (1982) In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 You reached pretty far back in the thread there. I'd be more interested in your response to some of the more pointed recent posts. TIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 The government openly raided Josh Gordon despensaries during the Bush years eventhough it was state law. Those were established for the well being of citizens in those states as this law is claiming. In that case the state law was in direct conflict with the federal law, and the Supremacy Clause would apply. I'm still waiting for someone to show me where the Arizona law conflicts with federal law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 I'm curious regarding point #3. Do you also feel this it is a waste of tax payers money to have more than one state challenge the legality of the new health care bill? Actually I do. I think all the states that find it objectionable should band together and file one suit together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 You reached pretty far back in the thread there. I'd be more interested in your response to some of the more pointed recent posts. TIA I only did so to remind people that illegals, as problematic as they are, do indeed enjoy protection under various Amenments within our Constituion. People seem to forget that we are humans first, Americans second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 I only did so to remind people that illegals, as problematic as they are, do indeed enjoy protection under various Amenments within our Constituion. People seem to forget that we are humans first, Americans second. Humans should live in the country in which they are citizens. People seem to forget that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 I'm curious regarding point #3. Do you also feel this it is a waste of tax payers money to have more than one state challenge the legality of the new health care bill? Actually I do. I think all the states that find it objectionable should band together and file one suit together. +1 Anything else, IMO, amounts to politcal grand standing by various governors and atty generals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Humans should live in the country in which they are citizens. People seem to forget that. Interesting, yet narrow at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Our pastor did an interesting sermon series recently on what the Bible has to say about illegal aliens. Generally, his comment was that for Christians, its more important to have our political beliefs line up with what scripture says than the other way around, and too often we have it backwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.