• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law (1 Viewer)

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
35,359
Reaction score
44,707
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A federal judge has granted an injunction blocking enforcement of parts of a controversial immigration law in Arizona that is scheduled to go into effect Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton ruled that the federal government "is likely to succeed" in its challenge of the legality of one of the most controversial sections of the Arizona law.

That provision required police to "make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested" if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.

Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling, which is illegal.

Supporters point out that the law prohibits racial profiling and people cannot be stopped and asked for proof of legal residence based solely on their looks.

Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

I dont know why it says blogs, but this is all over the news right now. Just happened.
 
Its pathetic and clearly political in nature on her end. She is throwing out federal law at the same time. So much for interpreting the law.
 
What kind of country are we now that police can arrest you for and illegal action, say, DUI, but then they can't do any research to find out if you're in their state illegally? Makes no sense whatsoever.
 
That's probably true -- the AZ law was written to parallel federal law closely. Striking it down on those grounds certainly puts federal law at risk.

I'm certain, thought, that this will lead to lawsuits against "sanctuary cities," which overtly circumvent federal law. Yet, never a peep about "conducting their own foreign policy" in those situations.
 
Its pathetic and clearly political in nature on her end. She is throwing out federal law at the same time. So much for interpreting the law.

What makes it political and not her reading of the law? Is everything you disagree with political?
 
Last edited:
Its pathetic and clearly political in nature on her end. She is throwing out federal law at the same time. So much for interpreting the law.

Bull****, a judge disagrees with your racist based policies, its against the law and got struck down.
 
Bull****, a judge disagrees with your racist based policies, its against the law and got struck down.

Nothing at all racist about wanting immigrants to come here legally.
 
Nothing at all racist about wanting immigrants to come here legally.

I said policies. You can be against this law, and also be against illegal immigration. You really think any of these cops are going to ask white folks for their immigration papers? No, they're going to pull over a Mexican guy for a DUI, and be like, "Hrmmm I wonder if this guy is illegal...he is Mexican."

That is ILLEGAL.
 
Bull****, a judge disagrees with your racist based policies, its against the law and got struck down.

Nothing was struck down. You really should quit while you're only slightly behind.
 
Nothing at all racist about wanting immigrants to come here legally.

True. But nothing political about thinking this aprticular writing may not be legal.
 
Law will clearly lead to racial profiling, I mean you are completely blind if you do not see that.
 
Nothing was struck down. You really should quit while you're only slightly behind.

Oh for the love of god stop with your semantics nobody cares. I'm well aware it will still go onto different courts, don't get all giddy and giggly thinking you caught me on something.

"Quote this is the federal issue, this was the grand daddy."

"It is likely the Federal Government will succeed in court."

Sorry! The judge didn't strike it down she issued a, "preliminary injunction" .
 
Last edited:
True. But nothing political about thinking this aprticular writing may not be legal.

How else can you ensure that immigrants are here legally?
 
Bull****, a judge disagrees with your racist based policies, its against the law and got struck down.

What's racist about profiling for a specific crime? Can you, or anyone else explain this to me? What is your idea of what racism, is? You do know that we target arabs in wiretapping, surveillance, and so on, right? Is this ok with you? I mean, you, and people like you, are dangerous to my family! I suspect you have NO good reason for NOT profiling, only that you think it's bad.. Well why is it bad?


Tim-
 
I said policies. You can be against this law, and also be against illegal immigration. You really think any of these cops are going to ask white folks for their immigration papers? No, they're going to pull over a Mexican guy for a DUI, and be like, "Hrmmm I wonder if this guy is illegal...he is Mexican."

That is ILLEGAL.

So? Let's make it legal and all is well and good, right?


Tim-
 
Oh for the love of god stop with your semantics nobody cares.

:rofl

"Semantics"? No. There's a world of difference between a preliminary injunction and actually striking down a law.

That YOU don't know the difference between the two doesn't make it "semantics." It just means you don't know the difference.
 
Law will clearly lead to racial profiling, I mean you are completely blind if you do not see that.

So what if ti does? We SHOULD be profiling the Mexican looking dudes, no?


Tim-
 
How else can you ensure that immigrants are here legally?

We have enough laws already on the books to do that, which is why this law is meaningless. If we wanted to decrease the flow, we could without writing any more laws. The fact is, we really don't want to. Write laws until you run out of ink, and we'll still see this problem ten years from now. It's all just political theater.
 
:rofl

"Semantics"? No. There's a world of difference between a preliminary injunction and actually striking down a law.

That YOU don't know the difference between the two doesn't make it "semantics." It just means you don't know the difference.

Yeah I'm so ****ing surprised you're not arguing the action or the law.
 
If it's meaningless, why is it a problem?
 
Yeah I'm so ****ing surprised you're not arguing the action or the law.

Strange, I'm pretty sure I did argue the law. I clarified the ruling for you. And I also made other comments about what the government winning on those points would do to federal law, given that the AZ law parallels it. If you missed that, it's not my problem.
 
So what if ti does? We SHOULD be profiling the Mexican looking dudes, no?


Tim-

Nope sorry, illegal.

Bolton's ruling found that the Obama administration was likely to prevail at trial in proving the two provisions, and two other ones in the sweeping law, were an unconstitutional attempt by Arizona to regulate immigration.
 
What makes it political and not her reading of the law? Is everything you disagree with political?

When there is no basis in the law for striking it down thats the only other motivation
 
When there is no basis in the law for striking it down thats the only other motivation

And you have a law degree? Again, everything you disagree with is political, right?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom