DOJ Sues Arizona, but not for civil rights violations

[Ridge]

We went through this 3 pages ago. It was against the law 200 years ago to immigrate to this country without going through the proper naturalization channels. The Constitution specifically spells out the process to become a citizen of this country. And it doesnt involve sneaking across the border and keeping from getting caught for any amount of time.

 

[Solaris]

We went through this 3 pages ago. It was against the law 200 years ago to immigrate to this country without going through the proper naturalization channels. The Constitution specifically spells out the process to become a citizen of this country. And it doesnt involve sneaking across the border and keeping from getting caught for any amount of time.

I didn't want to join in this retard fest but can't help. Again, you are an idiot, illegal immigrants have nothing to do with this discussion. It's about racial profiling as well as forcing everyone to carry ID, both of which are un-American.

 

[Ridge]

Ive said before, a law wont keep racsists from being racist. Saying a law is racist because it is up to the officer's discretion on whether or not to enforce it, by skin color, when the law specifically prohibits it, is not the fault of the law.

More importantly, how can the feds sue Arizona for creating a law that is already in existance (though not enforced) on a federal level, while simultaneously ignoring city laws across the country that deliberately fly in the face of the federal law is the reason of this thread.

 

[TwwIX]

Spin it however you want. It's racial profiling. If they really want to keep illegals and criminals from entering the country then they should be a doing a better job at securing the border. But, no. There's no profit in that after all.


Let me ask you this. What is your ethnicity, Ridge? Let's say, you are a man of color. How would you feel if the police constantly harassed you just because you look suspicious? Ever think of that. We in the real world call that racial profiling aka discrimination. Not that people like you would give a **** anyway.

 

[Ridge]

Spin it however you want. It's racial profiling. If they really want to keep illegals and criminals from entering the country then they should be a doing a better job at securing the border. But, no. There's no profit in that after all.

You mean like the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is supposed to. Those 1400 troops that cant carry guns that Obama promised AZ to watch the border are a little over a month late on arriving now...

Let me ask you this. What is your ethnicity, Ridge? Let's say, you are a man of color. How would you feel if the police constantly harassed you just because you look suspicious? Ever think of that. We in the real world call that racial profiling aka discrimination. Not that people like you would give a **** anyway.

No. Are you? Have you?

I'm all for keeping cops in line and having them blindly enforce the law.

BTW, how the hell am I spinning this? I'm pointing out facts and using your own side's arguments. You're probably just concerned that if the feds actually DO enforce the law, then they'll arrest and deport the guy who mows your lawn.

 

[TwwIX]

You're probably just concerned that if the feds actually DO enforce the law, then they'll arrest and deport the guy who mows your lawn.

That pretty much sums it all up.

FYI
I don't have a lawn, let alone own a house. Mr. Stereotype.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

More importantly, how can the feds sue Arizona for creating a law that is already in existance (though not enforced) on a federal level, while simultaneously ignoring city laws across the country that deliberately fly in the face of the federal law is the reason of this thread.

That I agree with. I disagree with SB1070- but the Federal Government has no place filing a lawsuit against AZ. They're sore at us- we also passed a law earlier that allows concealed carry without any permit, and a law that firearms manufactured in Arizona and not exported should only be subject to Arizona's gun laws, not federal laws as the commerce clause has no bearing. That's a big **** you to the feds itself and also serves as a challenge to Obamacare's enforcement via the commerce clause.

 

[No Limit]

We went through this 3 pages ago. It was against the law 200 years ago to immigrate to this country without going through the proper naturalization channels. The Constitution specifically spells out the process to become a citizen of this country. And it doesnt involve sneaking across the border and keeping from getting caught for any amount of time.

Yes, we did go through this 3 pages ago. You were a total ****ing retard 3 pages ago and you are still being one.

Again, speeding is illegal. Crossing the border is illegal. Illegal immigration doesnt kill nearly as many people as illegal speeding does. Yet for speeding you want to have the punishment be $80. For crossing the border you want the punishment to be ruining someone's life. Will you explain why? Or are you gonna keep being a ****ing retard?

And what in the world are you talking about in terms of the constitution? First off nobody said anything about making them citizens. Second the US constitution doesn't prevent making a law that would make them citizens.

I think the funniest thing about all of this is that you actually think you are making sense.

 

[Ridge]

Yes, we did go through this 3 pages ago. You were a total ****ing retard 3 pages ago and you are still being one.

Again, speeding is illegal. Crossing the border is illegal. Illegal immigration doesnt kill nearly as many people as illegal speeding does. Yet for speeding you want to have the punishment be $80. For crossing the border you want the punishment to be ruining someone's life. Will you explain why? Or are you gonna keep being a ****ing retard?

They took the risk when they entered the country. If they didnt want the risk of their lives being ruined, then why didnt they just go the legal route and become a naturalized citizen?

And what in the world are you talking about in terms of the constitution? First off nobody said anything about making them citizens. Second the US constitution doesn't prevent making a law that would make them citizens.

An amnesty is making them defacto citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, says

"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."

Until they have taken the oath and are officially citizens of the US, they have no expectation of things like due process...

 

[No Limit]

God damnit you're a ****ing idiot but I just can't get away. It's like watching a train wreck.

Even if we wanted to make them citizens nothing in the consitutition prevents that as you just pointed out (we can swear them in). Amnesty is not making them defacto citizens (I dont even know what that means) as there are millions of people in this country with residency visas that are here perfectly legally but are not citizens (were you not aware of this or are you just being an idiot?).

They took the risk when they entered the country. If they didnt want the risk of their lives being ruined, then why didnt they just go the legal route and become a naturalized citizen?

You took a risk when you sped down the freeway. If you didn't want the risk of lives being ruined then why don't you just not speed? And if you do lets never allow you to drive again. Deal?

And the problem with going the legal route for them is we limit the amount of people we let in legally to very small numbers each year so 99% of the people that want to do it legally would never be let in (again, were you not aware of this or are you just being an idiot?).

 

[Ridge]

God damnit you're a ****ing idiot but I just can't get away. It's like watching a train wreck.

Even if we wanted to make them citizens nothing in the consitutition prevents that as you just pointed out (we can swear them in). Amnesty is not making them defacto citizens (I dont even know what that means) as there are millions of people in this country with residency visas that are here perfectly legally but are not citizens (were you not aware of this or are you just being an idiot?).

Residency visas make them a temporary guest in the country. They have no voting rights, etc...not the same thing.

You took a risk when you sped down the freeway. If you didn't want the risk of lives being ruined then why don't you just not speed? And if you do lets never allow you to drive again. Deal?

Im a careful speeder. You dont know how I drive. I keep my head on a swivel, so that I know what cars are around me, and where. I keep an eye out for a place to move to in case someone ****s something up ahead and I need to move quickly. If things get too hairy, I slow down. Im confident in my skills as a driver, and my car's ability to do what I want. I doubt you do that.

And the problem with going the legal route for them is we limit the amount of people we let in legally to very small numbers each year so 99% of the people that want to do it legally would never be let in (again, were you not aware of this or are you just being an idiot?).

So try again next year. If you are not accepted to your preferred college, do you give up on education entirely, forever? No. You try again next semester.

 

[No Limit]

Residency visas make them a temporary guest in the country. They have no voting rights, etc...not the same thing.

No, permanent residency visas are not temporary and the people that have them are not US citizens. Are you that arrogant or are you making shit up?

Im a careful speeder. You dont know how I drive. I keep my head on a swivel, so that I know what cars are around me, and where. I keep an eye out for a place to move to in case someone ****s something up ahead and I need to move quickly. If things get too hairy, I slow down. Im confident in my skills as a driver, and my car's ability to do what I want. I doubt you do that.

Many mexicans that cross the border never break any laws, never do anything to harm us. I guess you can call them careful illegals. So lets allow them to stay here if they pay a small fine, deal?

How you keep not understand this is beyond me.

So try again next year. If you are not accepted to your preferred college, do you give up on education entirely, forever? No. You try again next semester.

A huge percentage out of millions of people that apply (6 million last year) get rejected. Yeah bro, just try again next year.

 

[Tyguy]

And the problem with going the legal route for them is we limit the amount of people we let in legally to very small numbers each year so 99% of the people that want to do it legally would never be let in (again, were you not aware of this or are you just being an idiot?).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyTmClBU7nA

There's a completely valid reason for limiting the number of legal immigrants.

 

[No Limit]

There's a completely valid reason for limiting the number of legal immigrants.

I dont have time to watch the video but I'm certainly not arguing we should let anyone that wants to come in in to this country. I am simply pointing out his idiotic suggestion that if they want in they can do it the legal way simply isn't realistic.

The only argument Im making is that for the people that are already here you should force them to pay a fine, check their criminal record and if that record is clean allow them to stay here. Then to control the people crossing the border hand out temporary work visas so atleast we can keep track of these people as well as collect taxes from them.

 

[Ridge]

Ya know what No Limit? I agree with you. Fines will work.

Every time they are caught being in the country illegally, they will be fined. Once they've lost enough points, we deport them....only question is how to keep track of points on someone who has no public records...

 

[No Limit]

How many brain cells did you fry yesterday coming up with that?

But the problem is your logic continues to be that you want to throw their ass out for the civil offense of crossing the border illegally. You want them to pay a fine and then they have to leave the country right away. So again, you are not explaining your blantant hypocrisy. Again, speeding kills far more people each year. Why do you not support taking licenses away from people forever that are caught speeding? And if they are caught driving after their license has been taken away we give them a couple chances before we lock them up for lets say a decade. Cool?

No, not cool? Then explain why you want speeders to get off with a slap on the wrist and you want people that cross the border illegally many years ago to have their lives ruined. Your logic continues to be that because someone breaks the law we can do whatever the hell we want to them*.

*Applies to mexicans only.

 

[Ridge]

How many brain cells did you fry yesterday coming up with that?

I'll admit, I did fry a few when I realized I agree with you.

But the problem is your logic continues to be that you want to throw their ass out for the civil offense of crossing the border illegally. You want them to pay a fine and then they have to leave the country right away. So again, you are not explaining your blantant hypocrisy. Again, speeding kills far more people each year. Why do you not support taking licenses away from people forever that are caught speeding? And if they are caught driving after their license has been taken away we give them a couple chances before we lock them up for lets say a decade. Cool?

Again, speeding doesnt kill anybody. Its the after effects if something goes wrong.

No, not cool? Then explain why you want speeders to get off with a slap on the wrist and you want people that cross the border illegally many years ago to have their lives ruined. Your logic continues to be that because someone breaks the law we can do whatever the hell we want to them*.

Speeders get off easy when they go to a court and challenge it. Its kind of hard to challenge accusations of being in the country illegally when you have no proper identification.

 

[No Limit]

I'll admit, I did fry a few when I realized I agree with you.

Careful, you don't have too many left.

Again, speeding doesnt kill anybody. Its the after effects if something goes wrong.

You made this exact same argument above, I guess those brain cells that were fried were some of your short term memory ones. Remember what my reply to that was which you never responded to? Crossing the border illegally doesn't kill anyone either.

Speeders get off easy when they go to a court and challenge it. Its kind of hard to challenge accusations of being in the country illegally when you have no proper identification.

You dont need to go to court to get off easy. A speeding ticket at worst is a couple hundred bucks.

So try again.

 

[Ridge]

Careful, you don't have too many left.

Oh, thats funny. You made an intelligence joke, when your primary argument is that this feels wrong.

You made this exact same argument above, I guess those brain cells that were fried were some of your short term memory ones. Remember what my reply to that was which you never responded to? Crossing the border illegally doesn't kill anyone either.

Killed someone 3 miles away from my house.

You dont need to go to court to get off easy. A speeding ticket at worst is a couple hundred bucks.

So try again.

So charge them a couple hundred bucks every time they are caught. Like I said above.

 

[No Limit]

That killing you linked to was the direct result of people crossing the border? No it was a side effect of illegal immigration. You still with me Ridge, does that make sense?

When you speed do people instantly die? No. But as a side effect of speeding many people die each day. Just as because of illegal immigration many people are killed by illegals.

Still with me? Just in case:

Speeding doesn't kill anyone directly. But it leads to many deaths each day.
Illegal immigration doesn't kill anyone directly. But it leads to some deaths each day.

We went over all of this a few pages back. I think the sad thing is you would rather pretend that you are ****ing retard than actually admit fault. The reason I think you are pretending is because I have a hard time believing anyone this ****ing stupid would be capable of powering on their computer.

 

[Ridge]

The only thing I am at fault for in this thread is continuing to argue with you about this, which is barely related to the original purpose of the thread.

 

[No Limit]

You seriously can't possibly be this dumb.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

They took the risk when they entered the country. If they didnt want the risk of their lives being ruined, then why didnt they just go the legal route and become a naturalized citizen?

The demand exceeds the supply (solely because of the way the system is set up, not due to any lack of resources or capability)

Need a law that states if you came here prior to being 13 (I just chose that because its a 'teenager' and you generally are aware of laws by then) and have turned 18 while illegally in the US you can get a speedier path to citizenship.

Comprehensive immigration reform is needed because the system is full of red tape and takes FOREVER.


The Obama administration makes things worse because they refuse to secure the border until immigration reform is passed by Congress. You can't do one without the other, that's true. However you must secure the border PRIOR to immigration reform. Both have to happen and in that order for it to even work in practice.

 

[No Limit]

The Obama administration makes things worse because they refuse to secure the border until immigration reform is passed by Congress. You can't do one without the other, that's true. However you must secure the border PRIOR to immigration reform. Both have to happen and in that order for it to even work in practice.

But why blame the Obama administration? He is willing to give in to many republican ideas. I bet he would even give in to the idiotic idea of a 4,000 mile fence. But they won't budge on amnesty which is something most poeple agree needs to be done.

So why in the world would he do what they want to do without first getting something out of it from them? These idiots have killed immigration reform time and time again over this one issue. So I don't see how blaming Obama or saying that he is making it worse is very fair.

 

[Ridge]

But why blame the Obama administration? He is willing to give in to many republican ideas. I bet he would even give in to the idiotic idea of a 4,000 mile fence. But they won't budge on amnesty which is something most poeple agree needs to be done.

So why in the world would he do what they want to do without first getting something out of it from them? These idiots have killed immigration reform time and time again over this one issue. So I don't see how blaming Obama or saying that he is making it worse is very fair.

Who is most people? And amnesties make a mockery of the law. What is the point in having a law if every 25 years you are just going to say "Ah, all you guys that broke the law. No worries. You're good now." It makes a mockery of the justice system, it makes a mockery of people who took the legal route, and it undermines the law.

And Obama gets the blame because he is acting Commander in Chief. Just like Bush gets the blame for 9/11, even though the wheels for that operation were in motion long before the '00 elections...

 

[Druckles]

Just a point to the OP, I would rather read a mass of text on the sources website, rather than in a white-on-dark quote box. A link would suffice, and maybe a simple comment on the matter. Moreover, I would be more inclined to read it if there was a nice summary, or interesting quote to digest before I dive in.

Thank you.

 

[Ridge]

Just a point to the OP, I would rather read a mass of text on the sources website, rather than in a white-on-dark quote box. A link would suffice, and maybe a simple comment on the matter. Moreover, I would be more inclined to read it if there was a nice summary, or interesting quote to digest before I dive in.

Thank you.

Dept of Justice is suing Arizona's immigration law because, although it is basically a clone of federal law, they argue that it is a law in place about something the feds have already taken a stance on. However, they have not sued cities like San Francisco and Houston, which have laws on the books that go directly against said federal legislation.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Dept of Justice is suing Arizona's immigration law because, although it is basically a clone of federal law, they argue that it is a law in place about something the feds have already taken a stance on. However, they have not sued cities like San Francisco and Houston, which have laws on the books that go directly against said federal legislation.

Exactly.

I am dead seat against SB1070- but the feds have absolutely no place in suing Arizona.

Let the flurry of lawsuits unleashed against the state by private citizens (police included) bring down SB1070.

 

[No Limit]

I just wish you guys were here bitching when Bush used the same argument for state laws he didn't like.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I just wish you guys were here bitching when Bush used the same argument for state laws he didn't like.

I'm not aware of the federal government filing a lawsuit against any states back then though. If you're referring to DEA raids against CA state approved dispensaries- yes I did bitch about that (I dont know if I posted such here on this forum, but I did disagree strongly with that practice)

 

[No Limit]

I'm not aware of the federal government filing a lawsuit against any states back then though. If you're referring to DEA raids against CA state approved dispensaries- yes I did bitch about that (I dont know if I posted such here on this forum, but I did disagree strongly with that practice)

The Bush administration sued states over tough bank regulations that didn't jive with federal laws. I'm sorry I can't get you a link right now but I gotta get off the computer for tonight.

 

[Ridge]

I'm not aware of the federal government filing a lawsuit against any states back then though.

^^^Yeah, that.

I'll eagerly await your post tomorrow with evidence of these supposed lawsuits.

 

[No Limit]

^^^Yeah, that.

I'll eagerly await your post tomorrow with evidence of these supposed lawsuits.

And when I give you that evidance? Answer this so I know I'm not wasting my time tomorrow.

Also, I'm waiting for you to answer the question you are now pretending I never asked about insurance benefits being tax exempt.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

But why blame the Obama administration? He is willing to give in to many republican ideas. I bet he would even give in to the idiotic idea of a 4,000 mile fence. But they won't budge on amnesty which is something most poeple agree needs to be done.

So why in the world would he do what they want to do without first getting something out of it from them? These idiots have killed immigration reform time and time again over this one issue. So I don't see how blaming Obama or saying that he is making it worse is very fair.

Doing nothing sabotages himself politically and harms the nation. How can you do amnesty first without a secure border first? You just end up with the same thing that happened when Reagan did it. He needs to do the political thing, and get a backroom promise that the Republicans will play ball with amnesty if he guarantees to secure the border first. Unfortunately I am not in those backrooms so I cant say if thats already happening or who is stalling that process, but the published sources that I have read say it's the administration (again, just the ones I've read so that could be BS but I doubt it is)

The Bush administration sued states over tough bank regulations that didn't jive with federal laws. I'm sorry I can't get you a link right now but I gotta get off the computer for tonight.

I don't agree with their lawsuits. Wasn't aware of them! I am (probably at least, as I havent even read the states laws) against the state regulations but the proper channels must be used- individuals or the banks filing lawsuits. Not the feds.

 

[Ridge]

And when I give you that evidance? Answer this so I know I'm not wasting my time tomorrow.

Answer what? There is no question.

 

[No Limit]

Doing nothing sabotages himself politically and harms the nation. How can you do amnesty first without a secure border first? You just end up with the same thing that happened when Reagan did it. He needs to do the political thing, and get a backroom promise that the Republicans will play ball with amnesty if he guarantees to secure the border first. Unfortunately I am not in those backrooms so I cant say if thats already happening or who is stalling that process, but the published sources that I have read say it's the administration (again, just the ones I've read so that could be BS but I doubt it is)

Well you also can't fix the immigration issue without some kind of amnesty/worker permit program. So why should he do what the republicans want when he knows they won't give him what he wants and what is needed to make this kind of program work.

Answer what? There is no question.
Yesterday 07:54 PM

You were implying I was lying. So when I give you the source for when the Bush administration sued states over bank regulations that were tougher than federal regulations what will your response be? Or are you just going to ignore it?

 

[No Limit]

In 2007 Bush sued Illinois over their immigration policy using this exact same argument:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007130010

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Well you also can't fix the immigration issue without some kind of amnesty/worker permit program. So why should he do what the republicans want when he knows they won't give him what he wants and what is needed to make this kind of program work.

Its a catch 22. The other side argues the same exact thing but in reverse. Keep in mind I'm just saying that's what obama should do politically. The flood of migrants and narcotics will never ever stop no matter how many are deployed to the border. Its simply too huge and there are national parks that would be utterly destroyed if overly patrolled- something the environmental interest groups will never allow.

 

[Ridge]

In 2007 Bush sued Illinois over their immigration policy using this exact same argument:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007130010

I did not know of that. If the database truly was flawed, then Illinois had every right to not use it. I think a 99% accuracy is an absolute necessity when it comes down to things like citizenship. Social security numbers are not a viable form of proving citizenship anymore. They are too easily stolen, and all they check for is if the number exists. They rarely check to see if the information in the database attached to that number matches up with the person using it.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Trust me I work in the construction industry here in arizona. Everify is a joke, its 50/50 which means you might as well just flip a coin