local

From the archive: This story is more than 10 years old.

Comments on

Supreme Court to review SB 1070 injunction

The Supreme Court announced that it will review the preliminary injunction that is blocking Arizona's controversial anti-immigration law SB 1070. While the case is technically a review of the injunction, and not a decision on the law's merits, a decision will be pivotal for SB 1070's future.
have your say   

11 comments on this story

1
1770 comments
Dec 12, 2011, 3:34 pm
-0 +1

What I’m wondering whether or not the masses truly understand is that the Supreme Court is just looking at Bolton’s injunction, not necessary the law itself.

The issue before the Supreme Court is how far states can go in creating their own immigration policies.

This quote is a direct result of the constant smear and deliberate misinformation perpetuated by the open borders crowd, and I’m disappointed in Dylan Smith drinking enough of the kool-aid to have put this line in an otherwise factual and informative piece. This is why it pisses me off so badly whenever a mass-media typewriter monkey calls SB1070 an “immigration law”. Arizona has never tried to set any immigration law or policy. All it was ever intended to do was to allow local law enforcement to enforce the laws the federal government set (hence the term “law enforcement”). In other words, where they lead we will follow…rather than the current way of doing things, which is “they set the rules, then they ignore the rules that they set, and we’re just supposed to do the same.”

In a brief arguing that the Supreme Court should not take up the case, Justice said the law upsets a balance of “law enforcement priorities, foreign-relations considerations and humanitarian concerns.”

To me, what that says is “we have the right to ignore the rules as we see fit, and we expect everyone else to follow suit.” This is and always has been retarded. If the feds don’t like a law, they should have them taken off the books. If they do like the law, then they should enforce it. But to be content with laws on the books and them thinking said laws shouldn’t be enforced is hypocritical and just plain old-fashioned stupid.

2
556 comments
Dec 12, 2011, 4:29 pm
-0 +2

@Bret Linden

The portion of SB 1070 that directs local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws was allowed to stand.

At issue are the parts of the law that differ from federal law, and, depending on your political point of view, may be at odds with federal law enforcement priorities.

3
179 comments
Dec 12, 2011, 5:09 pm
-2 +0

They are skewering the safety net for our elderly, single mothers and veterans. They must go home and straighten out their own corrupt nation’s political indignation. America is not the place of opportunity anymore as it’s been fleeced by our own policy makers, China, Mexico, India and other cheap labor countries. Our wealth is being washed away by unparalleled greed, corruption and the major influence of bankers and Wall Street. We cannot even get the Obama administration to approve the ‘Keystone’ oil pipeline, which will make us less reliant on Middle Eastern dictatorships that hate us. We have oil deposits in abundance that could power America for another hundred years, but the environmentalists have put a halt to that. My thoughts on Immigration law, that if there was any aspiration by our Maverick administrations to halt illegal immigration, they would have complied with the 2006 Secure Fence Act and enacted illegal entry as a FELONY? Instead we have years of disrespect for what the majority of Americans wanted and that is strict immigration laws, with no exceptions.

Millions of us can still make a difference, by contacting the do-nothings in Washington, before the Presidential election of 2012. Join the TEA PARTY and read their referendum for America’s future. Start calling your members of Congress and insist you want them to co-sponsor the Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) MANDATE of the Legal Workforce Act’, H.R. 2885. A need for a 100 co-sponsors has now been whittled from 100 down to 32, and then the bill can be read on the House floor, to get E-Verify now or in the next session of Congress. So far just one Democrat with a spine and thinking of working Americans have put his House seat on the line, by sponsoring this enforcement law.  Call 202-224-3121 and giving your name, address to the political aid, which will bring it to the attention of your legislator. Also ask your politician to sponsor to press for H.R.140, titled the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, which was introduced on Jan 5. 2011, by Rep. Steve King a Republican from Iowa; as of last month, the bill had 80 co-sponsors.
There will never be any kind of blanket amnesty, that’s the revelation of the TEA PARTY.

4
179 comments
Dec 12, 2011, 5:11 pm
-2 +0

But nowhere do voters hear that there is ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT such as the E-Verify option that doesn’t involve mass deportations or mass legalization. It costs nothing to enforce as access to E-Verify is free and simple verification on the computer.  What Attrition does do is:  Quickly (over a couple of years) moves illegal aliens out of their payroll jobs. Quickly takes away taxpayer-provided benefits and thereby causes a volume EXODUS.  Gradually over perhaps 10 year period, will cause illegal aliens to leave, reliving the major disruption in the job marketplace, specifically for low income labor. The Tens of Millions in the TEA PARTY members are not liable to fall for this clever fiasco.


NEWT GINGRICH IS NOT A TEA PARTY LEADER, AS HIS PLATFORM CONTAINS A ISSUE OF GIVING ILLEGAL ALIENS A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP.


Most readers do not want to spend their precious time in the coverage of the illegal alien invaders, when their occupied with family affairs or looking for a job. But the audience interested in the complicated matter of Immigration, can read the all the facts, costs at such pro-sovereignty websites as NumbersUSA, The Heritage Foundation, American Patrol and the Federation of American Immigration Reform. This is only a drop in the bucket of thousands of sites that demand immigration enforcement compliance. There are hundreds of billions of dollars that the U.S. Government and states are forced by liberal courts in pandering to majority ethnic groups. That they demonstrate in city streets demanding the same rights as citizens and legal residents. They come from every corner of the world, or passing through our borders every day and this must—STOP? The chief motivation is we cannot afford foreign nationals slipping into America, bringing their poverty and adding to this countries own homeless, sick and impoverished.

5
179 comments
Dec 12, 2011, 5:13 pm
-2 +0

With no conclusion in sight of the illegal alien occupation, a growing number of politicians namely Republican who symbolize the TEA PARTY membership are co-sponsoring the ‘Legal Workforce Act.’ It will rigorously apply an enforcement law, circumvented by decades of premeditated abuse by Washington. E-Verify has materialized as a champion and has been vigorously certified by thousands of trustworthy businesses. E-Verify has been a voluntary policy up to now, by companies large and small who have shown a patriotic outlook in a exceptionally divided society. Businesses are keen to display their loyalty with the USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services sign, as a mark of deference that they are not hiring unauthorized labor. But of course there is the other side of the blemished coin, of entities defiant to applying any law, which cuts across their enormous profits. Illegal workers can be exploited by threatening them with deportation and other insidious actions from ugly company owners. This is especially widespread amongst Contractors and sub-contractors such as in the building trades.

E-Verify on the other hand is being revised on a continuous basis and a day of reckoning in coming for all corporations and businesses. For every business that doesn’t agree with (ICE) Immigration & Custom Enforcement the majority of the general population want full compliance. This is why we must insist that Congress enacts H.R. 2885, a mandatory E-Verify with no loopholes, which criminal businesses can wriggle through. Both parties have done this since the 1986, so that illegal workers could be hired, as Democrats and establishment Republicans could do the favored bidding for the special interest groups.


Even now we see this with the clever manipulation of the people polls, which indicates the key population is in agreement with as a path to citizenship; as suggested by Former Speaker Gingrich. The polls don’t give voters the alternative of Attrition through Enforcement. Instead, they achieve through this engineering of the voters, to basically choose between mass deportations or mass legalization. ITS A STREAMLINED LIE, PUSHED BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA AND THE SO-CALLED PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT.THEY HAVE ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED THIS, THROUGH THEIR RADICAL POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AGENDA. In the case of a National Journal poll just released, voters were given a third choice of half-mass deportations and half-mass legalization (which is essentially the Gingrich Amnesty). Instead, they make voters fundamentally choose between mass deportations or mass legalization.

6
179 comments
Dec 12, 2011, 5:14 pm
-1 +0

Instead of the Department of Justice threatening the sovereignty of Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and very likely soon North Carolina,, why doesnt the DOJ chase down the instigators of the growing financial impact of Sanctuary states as California and Nevada. They have taxpayers money to outlay on The Fast and Furious gun walking fiasco and getting a US border Patrol agent murdered. We need the border sealed, to halt the Middle Easterners disguised as Mexicans entering through the massive open regions of fencing. That is a National Security issue, which will eventually lead to a massacre of innocent victims.  Instead of taking States to court for its policing laws; the Administration should occupy itself, with enforcing the laws already on the books. Subsequently, the original architect of anti-illegal immigration laws of Arizona as its policing laws is to be heard by the Supreme Court. Whether or not sovereignty states has a right to enact its own laws, when the federal government admits dismal failure to protect American citizens from invasion. That Obamas judiciary stating that a shortage of dollars makes it impossible to secure the border tight. This is an absolute ridiculous, when they are pandering to foreigners with $113 Billion dollars annually in financial support.

7
318 comments
Dec 12, 2011, 7:50 pm
-2 +1

well….... lets hope they vote for america and arizona so we can do something to try to control the swarm and criminals.

8
1770 comments
Dec 13, 2011, 9:36 am
-0 +0

@Dylan Smith

At issue are the parts of the law that differ from federal law…

Umm….I don’t think that’s right. Let’s look at them one-by-one…I’ll copy-and-paste each line from your story pertaining to the provisions of SB1070 that are held up.

Required police to determine the immigration status of those they arrest and hold them until that status is learned, and check the status of those they stop and detain, if they suspect them of being in the country illegally.

How does this differ from federal law? Yeah, on paper the Fourth Amendment says we can’t arrest anyone without a warrant, but that was kicked to the curb decades ago, in the same trash bin with the Tenth Amendment. Looooooong before SB1070 was ever conceived, SOP for cops was always to run an arrestee for warrants and other background issues. Even Dupnik has stated that his cops always look at immigration status of those his cops suspect of being in the country illegally…and according to him this is the…what did he call Arizona in front of a national audience? The “Mecca of hate and bigotry”? All SB1070 does here is take the choice away from the cop whether or not he wants to do that.

Allowed police to make warrantless arrests if there is probable cause to believe people have committed public offenses that make them removable from the country.

Again, from the disregarded section of the Fourth Amendment…warrantless arrests have been going on for decades, based on probable cause. Of the four things Bolton held up, this one is the most confusing. Being here illegally is a crime, hence the term “illegally”. It is the feds and their immigration laws that made said person here illegally. So, this provision most definitely does not conflict with federal law.

Made it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work.

Dylan, this is one section where you may have a point. But, if you do, it’s a weak one. It’s a federal crime to hire border jumpers. Saying it’s OK for a border jumper to seek work but not OK to hire a border jumper is akin to saying it’s OK to sell cocaine but not to buy it. When you think of it in those terms it sounds retarded, right?

Made it a crime to not apply for or carry alien-registration papers.

I honestly don’t know where to start here. How in the world is this not a violation of federal law???

9
556 comments
Dec 13, 2011, 10:05 am
-0 +0

@Bret Linden

In a rough take, here’s the argument made by the Justice Department:

1. Requiring local police to hold everyone who they give a traffic ticket to if they don’t have their wallet on them? No, that’s not in federal law.

2. That provision doesn’t relate to current status, per se. It also applies to a resident alien. The federal process for determining when someone is to be removed from the country works differently.

3. The point that is argued is that states can make laws that are ancillary to federal immigration law - such as the ones that deal with employers hiring illegal immigrants, stopping on a roadway to solicit a worker, etc. - but creating a new state crime, with penalties and an enforcement structure that may differ from the federal, violates the Constitutional mandate for a uniform system.

4. Same as #3: The Constitution requires a uniform system. Creating state laws, with state penalties, is a violation of that.

Federalism works both ways. The Constitution says there are powers that are reserved to the states - can the feds jump in if they say that the states aren’t doing their job enforcing those powers? Regulating naturalization (read: immigration) is a power reserved for the federal government.

10
1770 comments
Dec 13, 2011, 11:45 am
-0 +0

@Dylan Smith

Intelligent arguments all. Not saying you’re right or I agree with all of them, but I compliment you on laying it out well.

I do want to address your #1. I can say with certainty, and from personal experience, that regardless of your legal status, color, accent, whatever…if a cop chooses to shake you down, and you don’t have your ID on you (or just refuse to show it), the cop is going to do absolutely everything in his power to inconvenience you… up to and including putting you in cuffs, sticking you in the back of his car, taking you to jail…

In their worst decision since Dred Scott, the Supreme Court incorrectly ruled in ‘04 in the Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada that a cop can demand ID from you, pretty much any time he wants. This is, in effect, granting law enforcement the right to “demand papers” from anyone: citizen, legal resident, or anyone else.

I hate the “papers” part about 1070 also, believe it or not. But anyone who is angry with this provision has their anger misdirected. If Hiibel is good, then 1070 is good, as Hiibel already set the precedent. I’m OK with people being mad about this, but they really should be mad at the Supreme Court for the Hiibel decision, as I am.

Anyone who wants to organize a protest against the Hiibel decision at the Federal Courthouse or someplace similar…you have my word I’ll take a day off of work and stand with you in protest. But if you’re going to hate the “papers” thing, at least put the blame in the right place.

11
556 comments
Dec 13, 2011, 11:56 am
-0 +0

@Bret Linden

Not exactly my arguments; just a rough assessment of what Justice is saying….

I don’t remember the particulars of Hiibel; it’s been a while since I looked at that one. IIRC, yes, the police can ask you for physical ID, and you can be required to verbally identify yourself in the course of an otherwise legitimate contact, but there’s nothing that requires you to carry a physical ID.

— 30 —

{/exp:weblog:entries}

Best in Internet Exploder