I-A-B Poll: Arizona Immigration Law: Yay or Nay

Submitted by: fancylad 7 years ago in

There are 9 more states backing the Arizona Immigration Law. The law could go widespread. Are you for or against?
There are 153 comments:
Female 72
@silverthreaed You must obviously not need to have the Governments help or you would have voted otherwise. i am not saying I would not be ashamed to accept the help, but when my daughter came down with a staph infection that required surgery and being told I don`t qualify for help because I make$24,000 a year for 3 people and have to pay out of my pocket, thus meaning Ramen drating noodles for a month,because ILLEGAL immigrants get the money I am somewhat put out. I know improper English and run on sentence. I don`t care.
0
Reply
Female 72
I am against it. we are spending almost 46 billion on illegal immigrants who send half their wages home, yet I who am a citizen who makes below the poverty level in pay am struggling to support my kids, cannot qualify for benefits. My kids and I have been without health insurance for 4 years. if you wanna come here be a citizen and THEN you should get benefits. Anyone who questions this email me and I shall provide you data with the sources. [email protected]
0
Reply
Male 80
that poo`s drated up
0
Reply
Male 3,431
I vote yes, but I also figure that if the Federal Government isn`t taking a more active role, (Which they don`t appear to be) then it will have to be settled at a lower level.

Better this than to have armed militias patrolling the border without a consideration for the rule of law.


0
Reply
Female 4,084
put the employers in JAIL, don`t just fine them.

when i got my present job i had to show driver`s license, social security card, and also court papers proving my name change. obviously in the case of illegals none of this is happening.

put the waltons (of wal-mart) and the tysons (of tyson foods) in PRISON, real PRISON, for an extended period of time as they are the some of the biggest violators of the law, at least in my area of the country.

if the jobs dry up there`s very little incentive for people to be here illegally. its wrong for these big companies (or anyone, for that matter) to get away with exploiting these people for their own financial gains.

eliminate corporate evil and help solve the multi-faceted social problem.
0
Reply
Male 222
Im hoping for a Civil War so we can start killing each other.
0
Reply
Male 45
they dont even pay taxes. thats my only beef.
0
Reply
Male 39,929
Agreed, AZ`s law {and in the states that follow} will not solve the problem. But it is a first step towards solving a problem that the Federal Government {Republican and Democrat} has not just ignored but even encouraged to grow.

It`s a start to a solution.

This is the people of AZ saying "I`M MAD AS HELL AND I`M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE"

Trite but true
0
Reply
Male 1,299
For the record; Taylor Stone said (although I am paraphrasing:)

"I agree with a DickenMcHunt..."

Taylor Stone is gay. He wants a boomstick in his juice crevice.

Joking aside, I believe that argument is really the only legitimate argument. Immigration is a broken system, but the irrational response is not an accurate response. Doing what we would like is not necessarily what we should do. If we examine the facts the problem isn`t going to be solved by this bill, so why bother? Before this bill was passed Lindsey Graham was leading a bi-partisan committee to deal with immigration, this comes out of left field after Arizona outlaws cultural learning classes (namely Spanish Culture and History classes,) after an Law Official (not in Arizona) shoots and kills a Mexican child ACROSS THE BORDER; is it really any wonder why racism was brought into the mix. This law is incendiary and ineffective, it should be killed and reworked into something WORTHWHILE fo
0
Reply
Male 2,688
I have to agree with DickenMcHunt. The major issue with this bill, at least for me, was always that it was an ineffective solution to an issue that isn`t the bulk of the problem. Its like trying to sabotage a car by cutting the A/C. Sure you made the ride less comfortable, but the car can still get you to your destination.

And blaming the Mexicans for taking your job is wrong too. Blame the companies that are willing to hire them. Companies are always looking for cheap labor over domestic labor... Its all about money. If they were to make it less profitable to hire illegal immigrants, there`d be less of a problem. (i.e. major tax incentives for keeping domestic employees, major fines for hiring illegals) Make businesses have to produce evidence of all their employees every year and have them checked on randomly.
0
Reply
Male 1,073
Why is the ID carry law being called new when even resident aliens (green card holders) are required to carry their card at all times?

"The Permanent Resident Card, Form I-551, is issued to all Permanent Residents as evidence of alien registration and their Permanent status in the US. The card must be in your possession at all times."
0
Reply
Male 39,929
"rally them together and re-form the union "

a union of unemployed people? how exactly do you go out on strike ?
0
Reply
Male 1,299
I haven`t seen a SINGLE ISSUE that this bill will solve. Never mind if it`s constitutional, if it`s legal, or if it`s racist. How about we ask: "Is it it going to do anything?"

The answer is: "F**k. No."

So instead of doing political ballet to satisfy perceptions and skirting around the real issues, how about we focus on REAL solutions, that will have REAL and MEASURABLE impacts on America and the economy.

We`ve got lobbyists as legislators, we have conglomerates that control majority market shares of the cigarettes we buy AND the cereal we get our kids, AND the lunch meat we bring to the factory where we manufacture the Tupperware container that we brought our lunch to work in (Altria.)

This law is a joke on every level. It`s NOT an effective way of dealing with the immigration issue (which IS an issue and Gerry is not a racist for thinking so, fags) yet does so in a way that is utterly retarded...

I really hope America
0
Reply
Male 1,299
solve all the problems this stupid bill is trying to solve AND MORE.

We`re swatting flies and we`ve got a rat infestation. Lets look at REAL problems. Anti trust laws have been ignored for the past 50 years. Deregulation has crippled consumer protection and job security. American primary education is the worst among major global economies. This bill is non-enforceable, possibly in violation of constitutional law, possibly in conflict or superseded by federal law and it doesn`t even do a good job of fixing the problem it`s trying to stunt.

Instead of having cops enforce it, have businesses enforce it and if they get caught hiring illegals deport `em, fine the company and raise their taxes. I already have to present my birth certificate, drivers license and passport- what`s proof of citizenship?

We definitely have a mess in America, but illegals are the powdered sugar, not the pastry. We have MUCH, MUCH bigger, more fundamental issues that are causing what ille
0
Reply
Male 1,299
"But I`ll tell everyone from the packing plant who`s unemployed now that you said they should enjoy this rich lifestyle illegals have brought to them."

Instead, how about you rally them together and re-form the union that protected their jobs. Big Business devastated the union system, thus destroying the American Industrial worker. Mad at Mexicans? Get mad at Wal-Mart, instead. Get mad at the fagtwats that bypassed Truman`s veto to pass Taft-Hartley. Get mad at the fact that the American government cares more about American Businesses than American People.

Mexicans didn`t f**k you, Mexicans AREN`T the ones f**king you; they`re a false problem. A bigger issue is enforcing LEGAL employment. If all businesses had to prove citizenship, they couldn`t get jobs. Unionizing labor workforces would assure job security. Raising taxes on corporations and the top 5% of Americans, lowering them on small businesses and the other 95% and eliminating capital gains tax would
0
Reply
Male 39,929
"boldly ignores federal control over immigration "

If the Feds had exercised any control we would not all be talking about this.

They refused to act for over 30 years. I`d say they Abandoned their responsibility and the states are picking up their mess.
0
Reply
Male 877
...yere gonna need yet more privately run prisons to house em all...Half of the US will be locked up the other half will have a prison job connected with it...problem/solution...
0
Reply
Female 92
if you want to kick out illegals go right ahead... but don`t complain when no one wants to do their dirty jobs and everything goes to s*it
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Helps me relax in a strange way...
0
Reply
Male 2,402
Gee whiz. Somebody has a sh**load to get off their chest.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"the Law in AZ is a copy of the federal law."

It deserves repeating that this is BLATANTLY FALSE. Not just arguably, or maybe, or "thats just what Democrats say," but demonstrably false. I JUST SHOWED YOU how it creates a brand new state crime, a crime that would be entirely unnecessary if the law was in fact a "copy."

No, now Arizona can prosecute immigrants (LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, mind you!!!!!) for being immigrants under state law. People aren`t talking about this aspect - I didn`t realize it until just now, but its even more of an intrusion into federal policy. It boldly ignores federal control over immigration and will throw LEGAL IMMIGRANTS in jail under STATE LAW for not carrying their papers.

I repeat it because I know how right-wing talking points spread under the radar, and I see several of you repeating this blatant falsehood.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can ADD to or TAKE FROM the force and effect of such treaty or statute." Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941).

The POLICY for this is to avoid a patchwork of laws in a field where national uniformity is required. Arizona has criminalized "willfully" failing to either register or carry immigration documents. The Feds have their own regulations regarding immigration documentation, and their own penalties, and are solely responsible for criminalizing failure to comply with immigration ID requirements. Arizona cannot make up its OWN immigration law.

Its not hard to understand, its just hard for people who don`t agree to accept that they can`t always legally do whatever the hell they please.

0
Reply
Male 4,014
*pull resources from solving murders, rapes, etc.

That is why an ARIZONA SHERIFF has sued to block the law.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Here is an example of the law`s impermissible, direct regulation of immigration. The law specifically created a NEW STATE MISDEMEANOR based on failure to carry ID. NOT "just a copy," no, new STATE IMMIGRATION CRIME:

"creates a new misdemeanor offense for the willful failure to complete or carry an immigrant registration document under certain circumstances"

Link

Just because the preamble says it doesn`t intend to conflict with federal law doesn`t matter. The preamble has no legal effect, and as easily shown, the law does more than that.

Even more radical, it ALLOWS a citizen to SUE THE POLICE to FORCE them to fight immigration. People don`t realize how ridiculous this is. Arizona Sheriffs can be FORCED to drop everything and enforce immigration laws, even if it means they have to pull resources from
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"the Law in AZ is a copy of the federal law."

Say that all you like, repeating it doesn`t make it true. Federal law contains NO COROLLARY of the "reasonable suspicion" aspect of the law.

And if its just a "copy," then why was it passed at all? The state could have just enforced federal law.

NO - SERIOUSLY - IF THAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT, don`t you see that it makes no logical sense to pass it in the first place?

And if you don`t understand FIELD PREEMPTION, which I`ve detailed below, don`t worry, the courts will make you familiar with it very soon.

Gerry1of1 said: "How can a law, which mimics federal regulation be in violation of federal law?"

LAST TIME GERRY - BECAUSE THE STATES CANNOT LEGISLATE IN THE FIELD OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, WHICH ENCOMPASSES IMMIGRATION.

If you don`t like it, or understand it, well, thats your problem (and Arizona`s), its just the way the framers setup our country.
0
Reply
Male 1,370
For, because it`s just the law.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
What I find most comical about the entire thing, is the Law in AZ is a copy of the federal law. This is a state`s way of saying it is going to enforce a federal law.
0
Reply
Male 39,929
The feds failed to act. Not just once or twice... but after repeated problems over a 30 year span. so naturally the states took action. what did that expect?

How can a law, which mimics federal regulation be in violation of federal law?

For us in the border states it`s about survival. The illegals DO take our jobs and DO soak up services for free. It`s not racism... not my fault they are all mexicans. That`s just a plain fact.

My neighbor is mexican decent... she feels the same way I do. They are starving us out. it`s not a constitutional "ethical" dilema... THEY ARE STARVING US OUT. It`s just that simple. It`s not a matter of racism or liberalism or any "ism"..... THEY ARE STARVING US OUT.

What do you not get about that? Oh... you got a job, that`s what you dont` get. Wait till your`s is gone and we`ll see how strong your "constitutional convictions" are
0
Reply
Male 188
Having already explained or seen others explain how this law DOES NOT allow cops to arrest or ask papers of people for no reason, I`ll ask that the next person who plans to write that it does just keep it to themselves, even if they think it`s true.
0
Reply
Male 343
my response: Other: Do it mofo
0
Reply
Male 527
The thing is, I don`t like the law because it allows police to search without probable cause. Thinking someone is doing something illegal is not probable cause. If that`s all it took is "thinking", then warrants would be handed out as prolifically as Kleenex. The thing is, Congress hasn`t come up with anything better yet. There`s talk about shoring up the fence, or eliminating "anchor baby" status, but until they start going after the employers that hire illegal immigrants, we will never solve this problem.
0
Reply
Male 770
This has been an issue long before Arizona made that law. I`ve always said that if someone wants to immigrate they should follow the laws we have for it. I was once called racist to my face for that. Apparently I didnt understand what they have to go through to get here. How did we get to a point that saying "I think people should obey the law." is a racist statement? My grandfathers, on both sides of my family, had to obey the law when they came here. What is so different now?
0
Reply
Male 152
"That`s already the rule in Mexico, so I don`t see how it`s unfair that we`re doing the same thing."

So, our laws should be like Mexico`s? Like being very strict about immigration?
0
Reply
Male 188
Wineckap, That`s reason enough since congress hasn`t been paying attention before now. Neither has the white house.

By the way, Lerie, I don`t know where in South America you are, but chances are they already do.
0
Reply
Female 612
"Also, I expect my government to start asking American tourists for visas."

That`s already the rule in Mexico, so I don`t see how it`s unfair that we`re doing the same thing.
0
Reply
Female 12
That AZ law and any other law that states intend to pass that does anything to regulate anything to do with who is here legally or illegal is absolutely against the U.S. Constitution for a number of reasons. The only intelligent reason for passing one of these laws is to get Congress`s attention.
0
Reply
Male 317
so to the 190(as of now) idiots who put other....what other option is there???
0
Reply
Female 1,264
I don`t really care. It`s your country and you can do whatever you want.
Also, I expect my government to start asking American tourists for visas.
0
Reply
Male 188
@Simim23, For the millionth time on IAB, people cannot just be pulled over because they look mexican. they were pulled over for a significant reason such as speeding or if the vehicle is unroadworthy and unsafe. THEN the officer can ask for proof under the predefined circumstances.

@DickenMchunt, the law does effect the volume of illegals and is not intended to effect their entrance into this country. I have no clue what "damage" you`re refering to that the bill does, if it exist.
It is a "treatment". It`s intended to be. As I said before, the only way to "cure" this problem would be something like Deadmeat553`s suggestion of a wall with mines and gunmen. I don`t think that is in our best intrest at the moment.
0
Reply
Male 768
I don`t see much of a problem, if it`s done right your proof will be about the size and shape of a license. Put it in your wallet and you`re good.
0
Reply
Female 667
I`ve missed IAB polls.
0
Reply
Female 1,427
"You can also be brought and held at the station in many places without ID due to vagrancy laws."

True, true. But in most cases, if you`re walking from store A down the block, to your house, nothing`s gonna happen.

Unless, of course, you`re in Arizona and you happen to look hispanic.
0
Reply
Male 94
@simim23
You can also be brought and held at the station in many places without ID due to vagrancy laws.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
There is no question that we need a better immigration process and stricter immigration laws, I firmly believe this. I must state again that this bill is non-enforceable and there MAY BE a case presented that it is either in violation of constitutional law or superseded by federal law. The proposed law is a joke and really should be repealed and revised.

FACT: Georgia and California have the largest illegal immigrant populations.

FACT: More than half of all illegal immigrants entered the country legally and overstayed their visas.

The law as it is proposed doesn`t resolve either issue (volume of illegals and entrance into the country.) It`s treatment (if it can be called that) rather than a cure; and if it`s a treatment, it`s probably chemo because it`ll do almost as much damage then it resolves.
0
Reply
Female 1,427
"Even a white guy can get hauled off to jail if he is pulled over without having I.D. "

Only if he`s driving. If you`re walking down a street without ID, you cannot be arrested for it.

The only reason you have to have a driver`s license while you`re driving is to show you`re licensed to drive, obviously.

But if you`re in a car and not driving, or you`re walking, biking, etc. you do not have to have a form of identification on you.

Which is why these laws are stupid: you could have someone get pulled over because they look like an illegal immigrant, even if they aren`t.

They shouldn`t have to be carrying ID, but now the cop has the potential to drag them off to the station until they can prove he`s a legal immigrant. Even if the citizen isn`t under arrest, it still takes up time and is a big inconvenience to be brought over to a police station and be made to wait.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
@CrakrJak: "A citizen can be detained by the police for up to 24 hours just for the suspicion of a crime. During that time they can, and likely will, fingerprint you, take your picture, question you with or without a lawyer present, and be `Mirandized`."

This is not 100% accurate. Police can detain you until they determine if there is probably cause for an arrest. Typically this lasts less than 24 hours. If you are being detained as a material witness, you can be detained for 24 hours, and it will be disclosed to you that you are being detained for that purpose. They must certify your knowledge of your rights before charging you with a crime or interrogating you. They cannot finger print you or photograph you unless you are being charged with a crime (state laws may vary on this, it seems.) You legally cannot be refused a lawyer if requested, interaction should cease until representation arrives.

Know your rights kids.
0
Reply
Female 141
How the fu ck can you have "Other?" You`re either for it, not for it, or not sure. What else is there?
0
Reply
Male 188
Just about every country on earth except us requires a passport or some kind of proof of residency for things you all would consider wierd, like paying for food.
the Mexican goverment has no respect for us or our immigration laws, so we`ll just have to deal with it.
Nobody wants us to end up with a North/South Korea kind of no mans land inbetween us, so we`ll just have to use this.
0
Reply
Male 139
"If the Feds do not protect states... states have the right to protect themselves. "

exactly
0
Reply
Male 58
To everyone saying that one shouldn`t be arrested just for not having proof of citizenship:
Even a white guy can get hauled off to jail if he is pulled over without having I.D.
The only people that should be whining about the AZ law are the people that have good reason to: those with legal right to live here.
And personally, they can go thumb their holes.
0
Reply
Male 58
Ask anyone from an overseas country and they`ll likely tell you that it`s a fair bet we have immigration laws already....
Enforcing them is a different story when it comes to those who can just run across a river..
@beerbaby... all states have the right to usurp federal laws, unless the judicial branch of the federal govt deems it unconstitutional. It is why some states have made it legal to smoke medical marijuana, and why prostitution is legal in the state of Nevada (outside of Las Vegas county - which shows that local govt can also usurp the state, but that`s neither here nor there)
0
Reply
Male 39,929
Racial profiling?... okay let`s go there.

Racial Profiling is a tool. Yes it has been misused in some cases, but that does not make it inherantly bad. Just as a hammer can build a home or shatter a skull.... it`s a tool.

Sometimes, Racial Profiling is spot on.
Average terrorist is an arabic looking male ages 21-30 .... That`s a Racial Profile and its also true.

Deal with reality people. Don`t make up problems.
0
Reply
Female 112
I completely agree with rikakitty. It would open way too many doors for people to take advantage of the law and use it for immoral purposes.
0
Reply
Male 39,929
Preemptive Right doesn`t grant exclusivity of enforcement. It gives sole power to negotiate treaty and make international policy.... enforcement is a differant matter.

If the Feds do not protect states... states have the right to protect themselves.
0
Reply
Male 149
I`m for it, but i wish that I didn`t have to be. I think it would be smarter to just start making a great wall of the USA and put snipers on it and fill the surrounding ground with mines, and have only like 5-10 entrances in which they walk into and room and nobody gets to leave (unless going back to mexico) for like and hour during which it would be double checked that everybody has papers.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
It`s just plain economically dumb. When you are paying two to three times more for your fruits and vegetables don`t whine.
0
Reply
Male 84
How about this. If AZ can go around the federal government on this (which is what some of you want), whats to stop them from entering into a military alliance with a foreign power? What`s to stop them from secession? Doesn`t anyone remember that the Union won the Civil War? State`s rights... bunch of bullpoo.
0
Reply
Female 683
It`s too close to racial profiling for my tastes. If we allow this to happen, it`ll give way for even more unconstitutional laws. What will they want next year? Nope, nope, nope. Don`t like it.
0
Reply
Male 188
If the Federal goverment wanted to be in charge of the situation at the Mexico border, they should have done something. I think it`s rediculous that they won`t let anyone else do their job for them, but also refuse to do it themselves.
0
Reply
Male 1,360
i think one one hand yes the law should be passed, but on the other hand, law enforcement tends to abuse their power. there is a lot of grey area since a law like this has never been passed before, it`s technically giving the police carte blanche to harass anyone of hispanic origin or a tan.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Yes, Green Cards have to be carried at all times, I`m convinced. But its besides the point on the preemption question.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
CrakrJak - people can be arrested for PROBABLE CAUSE that they committed a crime, not mere reasonable suspicion. If someone is Hispanic race, lacks any documents in their pocket, but is in fact a U.S. Citizen, and moreover can provide real name, address, Soc. Sec. #, whatever, if that person is arrested under Arizona`s law, I just don`t think failing to be able to prove you`re a citizen is probable cause to arrest a person for being an illegal immigrant.

The law strangely puts the burden of proof on the suspect AT THE SCENE, rather than require the government to show probable cause for arrest.
0
Reply
Male 141
I say let `em all in! They make great food, they work hard, and they make GREAT food. Lets just consider Mexico a new state and start paroling the Mexico/Guatemala boarder, it`s a lot smaller.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
goaliejerry: a citizen can be detained by the police for up to 24 hours just for the suspicion of a crime. During that time they can, and likely will, fingerprint you, take your picture, question you with or without a lawyer present, and be `Mirandized`.

That`s anybody, Citizen or not, Whether or not you are carrying ID. You may beat the rap, But you can`t beat the ride.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
My view, better expressed by Con Law Prof Walter Dellinger:

Giving [The Feds] control over immigration into the [US] was a major decision made by the framers .... That is neither a liberal nor a conservative position... Given the freedom of movement within the United States and the implications of immigration for domestic national issues and foreign policy, it is unthinkable to leave immigration policy to thirteen or fifty different states. Calibrating the right combination of enforcement tools to utilize is at the core of the national power over immigration, and state laws are preempted whether they purport to add to or subtract from the system put in place by Congress. Whether current federal enforcement is adequate or not, whether Arizona`s law is wise or not, whether suing is good politics or not are all beside the point: it is essential that the federal government`s control over immigration into the United States be protected from state interference."
0
Reply
Female 81
I don`t really think it`s right that immigrants have to carry their papers with them at all times. I`m not supporting illegal immigration, but if someone gets pulled aside or whatever just because it was assumed they were illegal just because of an accent or how they look, wouldn`t that fall under profiling??

I`m from Germany and i have my greencard but I`d rather leave it at home where I know I can`t lose it instead of having it with me where i could possibly misplace it.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
The right wants a solid fence - the left wants comprehensive reform. Goddamnit, why can`t we just do BOTH??? Each side has to give something to get something. Each side will feel like it didn`t get all it wanted, and THAT is the surest sign of a good bargain.
0
Reply
Male 496
I`m saying that you might be able to argue that Hines v. Davidoff may not apply in this instance. Ordinarily a state may not be able to legislate in an area occupied by the Feds. This is based on a delegation of sovereignty from the States to the Feds, giving up the right to legislate in a particular area while obligating the Fed government to take action and effectively legislate within that sphere. If the Feds demonstrably fail to protect the state, the Feds can`t sit back and point to the Supremacy Clause to prevent the states from protecting themselves; rather like a necessity argument.

These kinds of arguments going back to the original formation of the government are admittedly usually a bit of a stretch, but I could see it applying in this case...
0
Reply
Male 39,929
To Clear Up Confusion:

The Arizona law does NOT require everyone to carry papers or prove citizenship. It allows cops to ask for proof of residency if they have "due cause to believe the persson has violated immigration laws" and ONLY if they stop you while enforcing some other rule/regulation.

Meaning they can`t just stop and ask everyone they see and ask for papers. You have to do something wrong frist AND you have to fail to have valid identification.

my mom was an alien... she had to carry a green card wherever she went.

Only people violating the law could be opposed to it.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
kilroy - if Arizona doesn`t intend to hand them over, why arrest them? Arizona itself cannot criminalize being an illegal immigrant, that too is the exclusive realm of the feds.

On the other hand, I`ve reconsidered something I said - the states can hand over every illegal immigrant they want to the feds. And the feds can decide who to deport or not. But again, the feds do not have unlimited resources, and the chief executive has to make tough calls on how strongly to enforce certain laws.

I`ll just leave with this - Immigration laws ARE being enforced every day. There are millions of illegal immigrants here, its a massive problem, and enforcement is expensive and time consuming. The President has to make tough calls on where to spend money - enforcing immigration, enforcing drug laws, funding government agencies, waging wars, dealing with foreign governments.

Its fair to argue with how much $$ is spent where, but its not an easy task for anyone.
0
Reply
Male 496
There is more than just deportation here... it`s the failure of the federal government to stop MILLIONS of people crossing into the country illegally, which has a direct bearing on the safety of Arizonans. If the Feds were doing this job- whether via reform or using the necessary manpower- this would not be the case. I`m not saying it`s easy, just that the job isn`t being done. It`s not an issue about whether "enough" enforcement is happening, it`s about the total lack of effectiveness of that enforcement.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Yeah, I just learned that, but its irrelevant to field preemption, and doesn`t address concerns over citizens being detained, who are NOT required to carry citizenship documents.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Goaliejerry: [quote]ONLY in Arizona will immigrants (legal or otherwise) be REQUIRED to carry papers on them out of fear of getting hassled.[/quote]

Not true, The Federal law states that all legal migrants carry their `green cards` with them at all times. That`s the law in all 50 states.
0
Reply
Male 496
11-1051(D) is the only section regarding turning illegal aliens over to federal authorities. It states:

"A law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is in the agency`s custody to a Federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into Federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction fo the law enforcement agency."

No requirement mandating officers to turn illegal immigrants over to the authorities, only explicitly stating that officers may cooperate with the feds. Which is something that they can do anyway...
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Its likely a closer call than either side appreciates.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"Yes they do. My wife is required to produce her "green card" if asked about her status. It must be on her person at all times. <- Federal mandate"

You`re right, I didn`t know that, now I do. That still doesn`t allay concerns of CITIZENS being detained under the law, who themselves are not required to carry papers.

I still think field preemption will apply, and I do not think this qualifies as a case of "first impression," because Hines v. Davidowitz involved a state immigration related law that did not conflict in any way with federal law, and was struck down.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"I believe there may actually be a natural law argument to be made here- that if the Feds can`t or won`t (and there is some evidence that failure to enforce the border is wilfull- being used as a Democrat political bargaining chip to pass comprehensive immigration reform)- the Feds cannot then rely on the Supremacy Clause to the detriment of the welfare of states. Essentially, if the Feds can`t or won`t do it, they can`t prevent the states from doing it themselves, esp where such basic safety/security concerns are at issue."

You can NEVER force the feds to "enforce" a law which you decide isn`t being enforced enough. BTW - Deportations happen DAILY, so its just silly to say there is no enforcement happening. Its just not to the level Republicans want.

You can`t sue a local prosecutor who declines to indict a murderer, just as you can`t sue or force the President to change the manner in which he chooses to enforce the laws.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
wow, interactive!
0
Reply
Female 414
Oh and as Shadowkin said... there were laws already in place but were never enforced which is why they had to do new ones... which probably aren`t gonna get enforced either
0
Reply
Female 414
I think it just depends... it is a serious problem in certain areas such as AZ, southern cali, TX, and even here in NV.. lots of people will see it one way because they aren`t directly affected by it, while others will see it the other way because they are
0
Reply
Male 188
"They ALREADY had this power. No new law was required, nor allowed under field preemption. Like I said, ONLY in Arizona will immigrants (legal or otherwise) be REQUIRED to carry papers on them out of fear of getting hassled. The feds do not require legal immigrants to carry papers, yet now when they travel to Arizona, Arizona has a "special" law relating to IMMIGRANTS."

Yes they do. My wife is required to produce her "green card" if asked about her status. It must be on her person at all times. <- Federal mandate

Thats federal. Local cops can enforce it. The new law is to normalize the states internal position on enforcing the federal law. By enforce they mean determine status and turn over to the Federal goverment. Not deport or judicate, process or jail or an final measures. Just determine if a breach has occured and hand them over to the correct authority. Same would go for ATF for gun violation, or Tres. for counterfieting
0
Reply
Male 496
Second,

If the Supremacy Clause is implemented (which admittedly it may be), I believe this is a case of first impression. This is the first Supremacy Clause case where the Feds have Constitutionally "occupied" an area of law yet FAILED TO CARRY OUT their duty within the sphere the government occupies.

I believe there may actually be a natural law argument to be made here- that if the Feds can`t or won`t (and there is some evidence that failure to enforce the border is wilfull- being used as a Democrat political bargaining chip to pass comprehensive immigration reform)- the Feds cannot then rely on the Supremacy Clause to the detriment of the welfare of states. Essentially, if the Feds can`t or won`t do it, they can`t prevent the states from doing it themselves, esp where such basic safety/security concerns are at issue.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Tried to edit a post but it wouldn`t display properly, but whatever, strong feelings all around, the court cases should be enlightening. Gotta get my ass back to work
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"A person guilty of this offense will be fined and/or sentenced to confinement according to AZ law and released afterward."

Any illegal immigrants found will be handed over to the feds.
0
Reply
Male 496
First,

A law making it a state crime to be in the United States illegally doesn`t necessarily violate the Supremacy Clause. AZ only makes it a STATE crime to be in the State of AZ while not being legally present in the USA, but does not coerce the Federal government to allocate resources or deal with immigration specially in AZ in any way. A person guilty of this offense will be fined and/or sentenced to confinement according to AZ law and released afterward.

0
Reply
Male 4,014
"Every state has had the right to arrest `illegals`."

They ALREADY had this power. No new law was required, nor allowed under field preemption. Like I said, ONLY in Arizona will immigrants (legal or otherwise) be REQUIRED to carry papers on them out of fear of getting hassled. The feds do not require legal immigrants to carry papers, yet now when they travel to Arizona, Arizona has a "special" law relating to IMMIGRANTS.

You see that, right?
0
Reply
Male 1,299
"If I earn half what I earned 30 years ago then my standard of living has increased?"

Nobody said anything like that, nice try though. Fact of the matter is goods cost the same or less and the percentage of people buying high-end goods has increased. Don`t get mad at me.

"You say becuase they invented the I-phone? You really have your priorities wrong."

The fact that the majority of people have willingly purchased an expensive device, with an expensive monthly plan indicates that the standard of living has improved. The availability and rapid consumption of computers, high-speed internet and HDTVs provide further evidence for this.

"But I`ll tell everyone from the packing plant who`s unemployed now that you said they should enjoy this rich lifestyle illegals have brought to them."

Blame your government, not the illegals. That`s like blaming the roaches when someone else drated up your house.
0
Reply
Male 232
Honestly I just say drat it. Let everyone in. Just completely stop giving a sideways poo. Eventually when this country is ultra over crowded with people from 3rd world countries, and in turn this country turns into a 3rd world country, then we can all start bitching.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
@sidka Yes everyone is required to carry proof of citizenship. It is the law. Every time you get pulled over, that is the first thing the officer asks to see.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
It is also important to mention that this law does not mean that officers can or have to racially profile people (which is wrongfully illegal). They need "reasonable suspicion" which is a lot more than someone who looks mexican, but it isn`t quite as much as "probable cause."
0
Reply
Female 5
I wouldn`t care if they would enforce the law in all directions. That means looking for illegal Africans, Asians, and Europeans as well. Instead, it`ll be law enforcement`s favorite excuse to harass both legal and illegal Hispanics. Do the white, Asian, and black people have to start carrying proof of citizenship, too? No, because no one`s going to ask them for it.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
This law actually doesn`t even do anything except maybe a political statement. They need "reasonable suspicion" (which is a legal term) to be able to check someone they reasonably suspect to be illegal. They already have this power because if they reasonably suspect someone is in the country illegally (which is a crime) they can ask for ID. This absolutely is not against the constitution.
Also either now or before the law was passed, all the individual has to do is to show the officer his license or other documentation (which is required by law to have with you) and he`s on his way. If he doesn`t have a license, the officer just has to call up I.C.E. and check his legal status.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
goaliejerry: AZ isn`t regulating `immigration`, It is arresting Illegal Aliens not legal migrants.

Every state has had the right to arrest `illegals`.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
goaliejerry: If the federal government was actually DOING the job it`s mandated to do by law, The individual states wouldn`t feel the need to do it on their own. Besides, The border states have always had more money spent on them in the area of border security. Quit making a straw doll.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"I don`t understand. Isn`t the Arizona law basically just a reiteration and a proclaimation of the federal immigration law?" NO, because racial profiling is unconstitutional and NOT part of federal law, but thats not even the main reason why.

States lack the power to legislate AT ALL in the field of immigration. Doesn`t matter how you phrase the state law - you can say it just enforces federal law, or whatever - they simply cannot do it. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941).
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Since Obama won`t enforce the illegal alien laws already on the books, I believe it is well within any states rights to enforce the law when the federal government won`t do their job.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"Arizona is only looking to ENFORCE the existing immigration law - not make their own regulations. They only inquire about immigration status AFTER they are involved in enforcing another law IF they have reason to suspect.

So simple, yet so misunderstood."

Fancy this argument - lets say Arizona is allowed to do what it wants. It rounds up a very large number of illegals into cells, then calls up the feds, and says "We got some, here you go, deal with them, since only you have the authority to deport them."

Guess what that did? IT GAVE ARIZONA THE POWER TO TELL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HOW TO SPEND LIMITED FUNDS ON IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT. Now because of a STATE law, the Feds will have to spend extra money in ONE STATE to deal with the problem.

The states cannot dictate to the feds how to spend federal dollars, which in effect is what will happen.

FIELD PREEMPTION - STATES CAN`T LEGISLATE IN THE FIELD. Period.
0
Reply
Male 490
I don`t understand. Isn`t the Arizona law basically just a reiteration and a proclaimation of the federal immigration law?

How is it wrong to ask for proof of citizenship?

I understand the implications.
If 70% of Arizona`s illegal immigrants happen to be Mexican and they wish to find the majority of illegal immigrants, it intentionally or unintentionally will lead to racial profiling.

I don`t mind being asked for proof of citizenship. People should carry some form anyway.

Just because they are fellow humans and thriving in American (relatively speaking) doesn`t mean they aren`t subject to immigration law. I`m all for people coming to America for freedom.

Just do it legally, please, like everyone should.
0
Reply
Male 39,929
"Illegal aliens hardly impact the bottom line."

The Bottom Line is whether or not we can get a job.... oh, no that`s the Unemployment Line.... never mind.
0
Reply
Male 39,929
DickenMcHunt - so, by your logic, If I earn half what I earned 30 years ago then my standard of living has increased? HUH? You say becuase they invented the I-phone? You really have your priorities wrong.

But I`ll tell everyone from the packing plant who`s unemployed now that you said they should enjoy this rich lifestyle illegals have brought to them.

then they will get that fashionable noose from the other post and use it on you.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
If there is one constant trend in America, it is that willful violations of the Constitution do not stand. We saw during the Bush years NATIONWIDE efforts to ban "gay-marriage," despite protests that this was nothing but anti-gay animosity carried out but majority vote.

However, in the last month, a federal dist. court held the Defense of Marriage Act (Defending from who? THE GAYS) unconstitutional as violative of Equal Protection. In the last week, the D.C. Circuit Court (the highest Court in D.C. for local issues) held that the challengers could not have a ballot initiative to overturn D.C.s pro-gay marriage law, in part because doing so would be for no other reason than to discriminate against gays.

IF YOU TOOK A POLL IN THE SOUTH DURING THE 50`s, you`d get majorities saying blacks shouldn`t go to school with whites. Modern Republicans fail to see the parallels, BUT YOU CANNOT JUST VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THE MAJORITY WANTS TO.
0
Reply
Male 552
Troll post won. This was a fake poll to urk ire.
Anyone feel duped?
0
Reply
Male 1,299
@Gerry1of1

The cost of a McHamburger in 1983 was $0.39 adjusted for inflation that equals $1.00 exactly.

A McHamburger in 2010 costs $0.89; the cost of food has dropped. The reason the difference isn`t noticeable is because of Increased Demand, Inflation and Larger Profit Margins.

McDonalds makes more money from the cheaper burger in 2010 than they did off the one in 1983.

Our standard of living has done nothing but increase year after year. 5 years ago, only corporate douche bags and doctors had smartphones. Now, more people have smartphones than regular phones.

Illegal aliens hardly impact the bottom line. That said I am FOR stricter immigration laws and even MORE FOR a revision of our naturalization process. I believe that the law in contention, however, is a load of horse jizz.
0
Reply
Male 6,693
They are going to do what ever they want anyway.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
DEMOCRATS - Its too early to make the (probably valid) argument that the law will lead to racial profiling. Courts would want to see concrete examples of racial profiling before enjoining on 4th Amendment grounds.

Stick with the Field Preemption argument, since it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that the feds have exclusive authority in the realm of immigration. Its OK if people don`t understand why (its esoteric, and once you start trying to explain it, someone with their mind made up just won`t listen and will think you`re making it up). Judges understand, even Conservative ones.

Field preemption is not that hard, but it takes some legal knowledge to wrap your head around it, and field preemption arguments are VERY RARE. Why? Because most law makers understand problems with field preemption and avoid the "field," just not in Arizona.

This is the approach the DOJ is taking, and it knows what it is doing.
0
Reply
Male 2,344
people are always so willing to give away their freedoms when they dont realize they are...

you think the gov will be content to keep this law contained to a certain group? BS, like the patriot act it will be used to forever and antyhing they can shoe horn it into...most likely your ass.
0
Reply
Male 9
I said everyone but the canadians! Lol JK`s it was the French
0
Reply
Male 188
"Something tells me that if Mexicans were white and spoke english we wouldn`t be having this debate right now."

It would be much better if they did and were like Canadians. Then the race card would be a moot point.

Assimilation is a concept that was woven in the intent of immigration in the US. Unfortunately is isn`t mandated in our legislation. I bet if more pride in this country and customs and language were observed in immigrant communities there would be less friction and more support for their cause. This seems to change over the last 30 years. Nver used to see people waving the flags of origin except on festive holidays which was a possitive thing. I now see flag poles with american flag and a mexican flag in front yards, at rallies and protests.
0
Reply
Male 2,344
make whatever compliant you want about illegal immigrants. it oesnt matter this law is one more step in the direction of a controlled police state where the police will be used to monitor and subdue the population.

I used to be against private gun ownership but since bush, the patriot act, warrantless wire tapping and these types of laws, i see a real need for gun ownership.

if you are in favor of this type of law remember, the government has never been content with what you give it. you give them this next they will make it MANDATORY for EVERYONE to stop at check points to prove they are a US citizen, tell them where you are going and what you are doing.

by they way they already have checkpoints like that without the proof of citizenship part...so dont think this won`t happen.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
If they stay in Mexico they get to live in pooty conditions, with a weak government, with extremely elevated risks of violence and crime, with little pay and no benefits. If they risk everything they have and come to America they can work under the table for mildly better pay and semi-decent life. Of course if they ever drat up on the job all their boss has to do is report them and they go back. They can`t get work Visas, because then they cost to much, they price them selves out of the market. And so they`re caught in a Catch 22.

Either way life is going to suck balls, why not suck balls in America?
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"How does field preemption apply here when the state law doesn`t conflict with the federal law?"

Field preemption does NOT require "conflict."

Conflict preemption does. These are two separate preemption doctrines.

When the federal government has "occupied the field," states lack authority to regulate in that field.

That is to be distinguished from Conflict Preemption, which exists only where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible.

The Supreme Court has held that foreign relations in the EXCLUSIVE domain of the federal government, and applies field preemption to state immigration laws. Note that the case I cited - Hines v. Davidowitz - involved a state immigration law that DID NOT conflict with federal law, but the court struck it down anyways.

Federal Preemption is complicated, but immigration falls under field preemption, NOT CONFLICT.

0
Reply
Male 39,929
the 14th ammendmant was created to grant protection to slaves born in this country. NOT as loop hole for people to break our immigration laws and have an anchor-baby. They can take the kid with them when they leave.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
@broadzilla
"Why should hard working citizens be left covering the tab for people who REFUSE to contribute to our society?"

Refuse to contribute to our society? They`re the only reason that you can get a double cheese burger for under a dollar at McDonalds. They contribute to society in a more direct way than the majority of middle class families. Mommy and Daddy are working at Fidelity Cisco Whatnot Inc. and Juan is breaking his back picking potatoes, pruning grapes, herding cattle, crawling under decks, mowing lawns. Most migrant workers that I have met are either single, or they left their family back home. If they got work visas the people that hire them would have to cut paychecks, get involved with the IRS, be liable for them on the job and off the job... they would have to pay them minimum wage; that ain`t going to happen. Getting a work visa means committing financial suicide to these guys. (Continued...)
0
Reply
Male 39,929
In 1980 a job at the packing houses paid $16.50. Good money in those days. Now, in 2010 that same job pays $8.00 thanks to a shanty town of illegal aliens taking the jobs.

Did any of you see a discount on the cost of your meat? The money saved, not just salarie but in benefits as well, just went into the pockets of a couple rich guys.

stop illegal aliens. It`s about protecting our standard of living.

But I`m sure someone will say I`m a racist becuase they can`t find a logical reason to argue my point.
0
Reply
Male 188
Good Call on the 14th amendment. The people in question are NOT authorized or documented vistors so they do not even require the pseudo protections visitors are extended.

Human rights sure... civil rights naw. They`re not citizens or guests. They gave our system the middle finger when they ran around the process in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 153
"Something tells me that if Mexicans were white and spoke english we wouldn`t be having this debate right now."

I think we would. Immigrants are immigrants just look at American history with the Irish and other immigrants from Europe.
0
Reply
Male 1,788
Whether you agree with it or not, the fact of the matter is it`s against the constitution. It`s really as simple as that.

Oh yeah, and I`ve returned.
0
Reply
Female 24
The immigrants lose their amendments rights as they are not citizens.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
@tws8631

Several people have pointed out how it does conflict. Obviously both sides of the case would need to be argued in front of the Supreme Court who would ultimately determine if there is a violation or not, so none of US can say so definitively but the flaws are more gaping than a Victorian hookers snatch.
0
Reply
Male 1,073
The survey isn`t relevant to the issue. The first choice votes yes for `an immigration law`, but the says the `states should be able to regulate who comes and goes`. That is NOT the current issue.

Arizona is only looking to ENFORCE the existing immigration law - not make their own regulations. They only inquire about immigration status AFTER they are involved in enforcing another law IF they have reason to suspect.

So simple, yet so misunderstood.
0
Reply
Female 3
Indded, the path to citizenship is difficult and long, but why not have a work visa and pay taxes since the immigrant is living here, using city services and sending their children to school? Why should hard working citizens be left covering the tab for people who REFUSE to contribute to our society?
0
Reply
Male 1,299
@PhilF1203

I was going to say the same thing. I have several friends that have been trying for years to become US citizens. Two are British, one is German, another is Moroccan. I thought getting my passport was a pain in the ass, until I washed my social security card... becoming a legal citizen is easily 10x harder and 100x more difficult.
0
Reply
Male 2
Being Hispanic IS NOT probable cause for interrogation. Period.
0
Reply
Male 99
PS this question is drating retarded

the question is not about Arizona`s Immigration Law, but about AN immigration law.

this poll is stupid.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
@Doomcandy
That Amendment is not in violation.

@Keyh
"`of citizens of the United States.` they`re not citizens of the United States, nice try though."

And how do you verify if they`re not US Citizens or not, without violating that law? If you violate that law and they are citizens you have violated the constitution which is a federal crime, and therefore cannot be executed.

This is the flaw; the bill is non-enforceable.
0
Reply
Male 99
Rebuttal*

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
0
Reply
Male 316
@goaliejerry How does field preemption apply here when the state law doesn`t conflict with the federal law? I don`t quite get it. Also, I don`t think repubs are the only ones that disagree with the issue.
0
Reply
Male 2,049
Looks like the Arizona Diamondbacks won`t be having have a team next year. J/K
0
Reply
Male 3
@alliZILLA - You realize how hard it is to become a citizen? Do you honestly think that a majority of illegal immigrants don`t want to become legal? And "lazy"? How about you relocate to a different country, find a job, and support a family. God, I was born here and I still understand their side.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
@Volsunga

Personally, I believe it would be a difficult case to mount in terms of "constitutional violations" but that is not to say that the law isn`t wrong, immoral or against federal laws outside of the constitution. However, I pulled up the constitution and I could see a valid argument being made that the Arizona Bill violates or promotes the violation of the following:
0
Reply
Male 1,299
8th Amendment of the Constitution: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9th Amendmnet: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
OH SNAP!
0
Reply
Male 226
@doomncandy

The law adheres to that.
0
Reply
Male 226
@u_jesse_u

"The 14th amendment to the constitution states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

"of citizens of the United States." they`re not citizens of the United States, nice try though.
0
Reply
Female 128
Amendment 4:Search and Seizure
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

0
Reply
Male 170
agreed poorly worded question. Should immigration be regulated? Yes. Should the laws be based on racial profiling and fear mongering? No. If you don`t think this goes directly against the constitution, well, you`re wrong. The 14th amendment to the constitution states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
0
Reply
Male 1,193
You know the presidents suing Arizonia right? States unconstitutional
0
Reply
Female 24
Although it may not be right for Arizona to regulate its own state, political leaders are crying out to the Mexicans because they have voting power.

IF YOU WANT TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY SO DAMN BAD, GO BECOME A CITIZEN AND PAY TAXES.

Lazy bastards >:K
0
Reply
Male 2,592
Where`s the "We should make Arizona part of Mexico" box?
0
Reply
Male 4,014
In law school, the single most common example of "field preemption" given is IMMIGRATION. Its in textbooks, its been taught without controversy. Oh, but now that Republicans disagree, its suddenly a "controversy."
0
Reply
Male 81
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door"
0
Reply
Male 552
The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure.
------
Racial Profiling is, indeed, basically the `probably cause` they use to ask for these papers or `sieze` them.

Rebuttle?
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"If you say its against the constitution, I`m curious as to see which part you think its against."

lol, its violates the constitutional grant of power to the federal government to deal with foreign relations. As a subset of foreign relations, only the feds can regulate immigration - i.e., how the country handles foreigners within our borders.

Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941): "That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787, and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court. . . . The Federal Government, representing as it does the collective interests of the forty-eight states, is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties."

Ok?
0
Reply
Male 552
If you say its against the constitution, I`m curious as to see which part you think its against. saying something is "against the constitution" is a bad tactic if you can`t back it up. Rarely do people who use that phrase know what they`re talking about.


Here, lemme take a crack at this:
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
----------------

Racial profiling refers to the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor (or sometimes as any factor at all) in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest). The practice is controversial and widely considered inappropriate and illegal.
---------
0
Reply
Male 136
But again, what do I know, I`m Canadian.
0
Reply
Male 136
Poorly worded poll is poorly worded.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
If you say its against the constitution, I`m curious as to see which part you think its against. saying something is "against the constitution" is a bad tactic if you can`t back it up. Rarely do people who use that phrase know what they`re talking about.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Its the same mentality that expresses shock - SHOCK - that they just can`t use majority votes to discriminate against gays.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"It`s basically the same law as the federal law."

Field preemption - states can`t regulate immigration at all. Sorry.
0
Reply
Male 552
I say it`s against the constitution...but thats just me. I`m sure someone will ask for my papers since I voted that, tho.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Its funny, because one can`t just say "lets ignore the Constitution and do what we want," but that seems to be the right-wing mantra as of late.
0
Reply
Male 1,021
It`s basically the same law as the federal law.
0
Reply
Male 20,916
Link: I-A-B Poll: Arizona Immigration Law: Yay or Nay [Rate Link] - There are 9 more states backing the Arizona Immigration Law. The law could go widespread. Are you for or against?
0
Reply