Posted on 04/26/2010 10:53:19 AM PDT by Señor Zorro
Looks like it may be a textbook example of internet baloney.
If Obama doesn’t like the law, then it can’t be bad, can it? Hm?
TornadoAlley3 -
Please come join this thread.
Everyone here is wanting to know where you got your verbiage from 8 USC 1324 that you used recently here on a thread concerning Arizona’s new immigration law. No one can find it despite searching a number of sites that have the content of 8 USC 1324. Please tell us where the quote came from if you saved the source. Thanks.
The specific quote is:
Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens.
blah, blah, blah, you betcha I’m ticked. I’m sick to death of the lies....we can NO LONGER allow fence sitters or hidden agendas.... my only motive is the TRUTH.
Does she, or does she not support PATH TO CITIZENSHIP AMNESTY?
“I DO”. Her words, not mine.
Well if this is the same state - my memory couldn't be that bad, could it - which caught heck for requiring candidates for the presidency to provide birth certificates before getting on the ballot,
just think how the whiners will feel if the State of Arizona passes a law making it illegal for an elector to vote for Barak Hussein Obama in 2012!Think that would be outrageous? Read the Constitution, as noted by SCOTUS in reference to Bush v. Gore:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.Quite simply, the Arizona Legislature holds it in its discretion whether or not to hold an election to determine the electors - let alone whether a given individual is or is not on the ballot if they do hold a presidential election.
I'm glad I didn't post it on Facebook for my SIL-Obama-voter-Jon Stewart-idolater to take potshots at. ;)
Do you have a link to that quote? I remember it coming up before and I think I remember that it was taken out of context. I think I remember that the full quote made it clear that she did not support amnesty as it is commonly defined. Not at all. I am interested in truth as well and am not into blindly supporting someone. If I am wrong, I’d like to know.
A judge, maybe - but there's only one SCOTUS, and I would hope that it would take an appeal of an adverse lower court ruling with alacrity.
We’re headed for another Civil War.
You're obviously unhinged because you're operating on false data, or misunderstandings of some sort.
First of all, there's no such thing as a, "path to citizenship amnesty". You're conflating two different terms.
There is a so-called path to citizenship which is already contained in our immigration and naturalization laws. Any foreign citizen can get in line and start the process of coming to America legally.
Then, there's amnesty for illegal aliens. This country has passed amnesty bills for illegals at least twice that I know of - the first in 1965, and the second, passed in 1986 during the term of Ronald Reagan.
These are two completely different things, although the last proposed Immigration Reform Bill may have made changes to our existing legal immigration policy. That, I suspect, is the "path to citizenship" that you're enraged with.
Personally, I'm in agreement with making some changes to our current immigration process, but I don't think there's any need to change the laws regarding immigration. What needs to change is the timescale of the process. It takes much too long, in my opinion. It's a bottleneck that encourages people to simply "skip the line" and just come here anyway.
As I told you before, Sarah Palin's comments about her position on illegal immigration have been posted here hundreds of times, and it's clear that she supports LEGAL immigration, not ILLEGAL immigration.
I encourage you to go back and read her exact comments. Nowhere will you see that she supports amnesty for illegals, or illegal immigration.
Well, his Aunt would have to go back to Kenya if she visited Phoenix, that´s HIS problem.
Ha Ha
Good one!!!!!!!!!
Just in time for the 2010 elections.
The irony is that it’s only because Obama won that this happened. If McCain won, Napolitano would still be the Governor and the law never would have been signed.
Maybe hispanics should have thought of that before they voted en masse for Obama.
If Obama was doing his duty, the Arizona law wouldn't have been needed in the first place.
You can slice it and dice it any way you choose...FORGIVING the OFFENSE of illegal entry by giving ANY illegal alien ANY opportunity for ANY path to citizenship IS AMNESTY.
Have you ever heard any Republican, or Dem for that matter, ADMIT that they are FOR “amnesty for illegal aliens”? Of course not.
We’ve learned NOTHING if we haven’t learned after all these years that “comprehensive immigration reform” and a “path to citizenship” are nothing but code for AMNESTY.
Most of us recognize that fact. The only people who deny it are the people who support it, in which case discussing it is a complete waste of time.
Most ALL politicians SAY they oppose amnesty....right before they make the case FOR it...just as she did. There isn’t anything in her statements then or now that is any different than what Bush, McCain, Thompson, Romney, Huckabee, or the rest of the pro-amnesty candidates have said.
I take that back...she forgot to use the boo hoo descriptive, “hard working”.
She was McCain’s running mate and could not come out against one of his positions. Since he was for amnesty, she could not outright say “let ‘em go home and get in line” but she came as close as she could to saying that. To hang your hat on this statement is short sighted. Keep an open mind and wait till she gives a position statement IF she decides to run. For God’s sake, she was really between a rock and a hard place - the date was 10/22/2008 - in the heat of the campaign.
Thank you for providing the link.
Who ever said anything about "forgiving" illegal alien trespassers or putting them on an automatic conveyor belt to legal citizenship?
Giving someone who's previously broken our immigration laws a chance to go home and come back into this country via the legal immigration route is not amnesty.
Different terms have different definitions. Look them up if you have to. The terms you're throwing around have distinctly different definitions, and mean different things.
I think you're making yourself nuts over things that no one has even suggested, with the possible exception of McAmnesty & Grahamnesty. Palin has certainly never suggested any such thing.
I don’t agree with the concept of automatically enrolling a deported illegal alien in a “path to citizenship” program.
That seems to be what Mel Martinez wanted to do. It’s as disagreeable to American citizens as Rep. Steve King says it is. Totally agree.
My idea is to send them back to their country of origin and leave the choice of re-entering the US legally to them. If they’re willing to “go to the end of the line” and do the hard work of gaining real US citizenship, then I don’t have a problem with that.
On the other hand, our immigration laws may not permit a foreigner who’s previously committed crimes in the US to qualify for US citizenship. It may be a moot point. If that’s how our immigration law is constructed, then deported illegals are SOL, and I’m fine with that, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.