Posted on 07/28/2010 10:29:45 AM PDT by edpc
PHOENIX – A judge has blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect Thursday, handing a major legal victory to opponents of the crackdown.
The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Chocolate rations are being raised to 25 grams today!
“Glad to know that if I get pulled over I don’t have to show any I.D.”
Only if you are a legal citizen do you have to show I.D. If you are not a citizen, you don`t have to show I.D. Wonderful system, eh?
Yep.As long as this corrupt "Two-Party Cartel" is bought & paid for by the elites it all will continue - and like always win the biggies with one vote or buy a judge. I'm afraid many are really going to be despondent after the Nov elections.
Who controls the past, ran the Party slogan, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.
Liberal judges are nothing more than politicians dressed up in black robes. She issued her decision, now let her try to enforce it.
this thing is going to go down well….not. The republicans have just been handed a huge baseball bat to beat Democrats with.
Obama’s Administration just told the US people they intend to do nothing about illegal immigration except let them run amok.
The Court by no means disregards Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money. Even though Arizona’s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws.
IF Arizona did not argue that the law was enacted for self defense -to protect the unalienable rights of life and liberty of its citizens THEN they gave the courts wiggle room. As well, simply examining WHY -on what basis the Federal legitimately enforces immigration laws would imply the same basis for Arizona. Immigration laws are just enacted for the fun of it and given to the Federal without expectation they will be enforced...
Life and Liberty trump any supposed "public interest"
THANKS! Just put it at the top of my Nexflix queue
Nothing will happen just like it does not happen now.
EXCELLENT! Mind if I copy and paste it EVERYWHERE?
Ping!
Yes, I heard there were at least 4 other states that passed the same legislation.
I mean what the hell is happening here??? If I was going to run for an election, I would run on ONE message.
“I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
This BOZO in chief is doing his best of his ability, dismantle, destroy and conquer the Constitution of the United States.
This idiot should be impeached SOLEY on these grounds.
Now this is a good start.
Yup.
Imagine, if you will, a couple of foreign national terrorists checking in for a flight from Phoenix Int’l. to NYC’s JFK. Right now, they would not be required to show I.D. for the flight. Correct me if I am wrong - -
In essence, to require I.D. of those terrorists would be in direct contradiction to the judge’s ruling; therefore they cannot be required to produce any documentation that they are in the country legally.
Oh but wait, Sarah said that McCain is a REAL conservative, after all why would she “share McCain’s vision for America” if it wasn’t a conservative vision?
__________
I think this demonstrates the incredibly MYOPIC and shortsighted view of some Libertarians and so-called Conservatives who just can’t seem to STOP hating Sarah long enough to see the REAL DAMAGE that REAL ENEMIES are doing to this country!
Hey morons — the ENEMIES are ON THE LEFT! SHOOT THAT WAY!
for later...
You will only be required to show identification if you are legal. If you are illegal it would be unfair because some of those who may appear to be illegal, may in fact, be legal. So if you ask legal citizens if they are indeed legal citizens, they, under the rules would be required to show identification, however, because you cannot ask illegals to show identification, you are engaged in an inherent bias against those who are here legally. Trying to ascertain who is legal and who is not legal is a direct violation of the rule that you cannot ask those who are here illegally for identification. Because you cannot only ask legals for identification, and you cannot ask illegals for identification, you can only make said requests if you know a priori who is in fact a legal resident and who is not. However, the only way to truly know who is legal and who is not (apart from taking their words for it) is to examine the proper documentation of the individual in question. All legals would be required to have identification, they just could not be required to produce the identification. Unless, of course the legal residence had done something illegal, like skip out on parole or robbed a bank. Then, the police can check their identification, because this is how a lot of fugitives are caught. Of course, if they had done something illegal, than they exempted from having to show identification, and people who had not committed a crime should not be prejudically treated like someone who had. Susan Bolton's wisdom and logic in this matter, it seems to me, is unparalleled.
Californians have been all through this with CA prop 187 years ago, way back in 1994...Long before the rest of the country woke up to this violent invasion.
We live in a dictatorship.
how about that some of that, prove who the hell you are.
I have to do everytime i go to the bank and to the tax office and to the hospital and the insurance companies and to the POLICE.
So whats so damn wrong about asking someone who the hell they are and whether they actually do have the right to be there.
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.