Posted on 07/06/2010 9:38:06 AM PDT by Anita1
Could Arizona take this suit to the Supreme Court as a state's rights issue?
Um...yeah. LOL He’s so pathetic.
No just the few smarter and more dangerous ones.
You can’t sneak into their countries for any reason. Their borders are secure.
Department of Justice? What an Orwellian joke. It should be called the Department of Politically Correct Gibberish... Department of PIGs ...
Department of Justice? What an Orwellian joke. It should be called the Department of Politically Correct Gibberish... Department of PIGs ...
25% of felons in prisons are illegals, so I don’t know how much more dangerous they could be.
25% of felons in prisons are illegals, so I don’t know how much more dangerous they could be.
Do you live in a Southern Border state? You might see things differently if you did.
If he's not up to the job, get the heck out of the office! (And take his quislings with him.)
Quitting would be in character as there was a thread a few months back about how he’s never completed anything that he’s ever done. I hope it holds true this time too.
Are there a lot of Canadians sneaking across the border? Didn’t think so.
“The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents”
This statement is not an accurate account of the trespassing section of the law. The trespassing section of the Arizona law indicates that the person must be in violation of UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a). I am not sure what those sections of US law refer. Essentially, the state law adds a new penalty for violation of sections 1304(e) and 1306(a). I think there is plenty of precedent for adding a state law violation to a federal law violation.
According this review, the Arizona law does not empower local government. Rather the law restricts local government essentially from sanctuary policies. Local governments are complaining because the law imposes unfunded mandates. I think it is a stretch to say that the law imposes unfunded mandates. The law does preempt local sanctuary laws and policies but state law takes precedence over local laws except where prohibited by state constitutions. The unfunded mandate may be possible if citizens sue a local government for non compliance. I do not think there is anything unconstitutional about granting standing. Environmental laws grant standing to third parties with great harm to the economy. No one has ever indicated that third party standing is unconstitutional.
I wish there was a “Like” button for every comment I like.
A great one, DJ MacWoW!
Let’s Hope O is consistent about Doing Nothing!
- and Not Do Anymore Harm to our nation!
Ignorant question here but how often does the Federal Government file suit against state laws? What are some examples?
I bet your ignorance is far outmatched by those unable to answer your question. ;-)
I live in soCal and I’m tired of all the illegals from Canada crowding into the emergency room for regular medical treatment when I have to take my neighbor in.
This is the problem with most people’s arguments.
They say that it is to keep islamic terrorists out of the country, but when you point out the Canadian border can literally be walked across at any point outside Niagra Falls, the argument suddenly shifts to overflowing Emergency Rooms.
Good question Wyatt’s Torch - I don’t know - maybe someone else might know.
I have never heard of it - which is why I thought it is so trange.
You are mixing one person’s with another. I want illegals kept out. I have several reasons. And yes the terrorists can come in via various ways. I want those ways shut down.
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.