The problem is she is ignoring legal precident for states to write their own laws against illegals
Gonzales v. City of Peoria, There is nothing inherent in that specific enforcement activity that conflicts with federal regulatory interests. Federal and local enforcement have identical purposes--the prevention of the misdemeanor or felony of illegal entry. The subject matter of the regulation thus does not require us to find that state enforcement is preempted....""A state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations. Moreover, the trooper's question about the green card was reasonable under the circumstances, and thus lawful."
United States v. Vasquez- Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294. 1999: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
"In particular, the United States observes this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.
United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
"We noted just recently that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit "have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,"
United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola
Rodriguez does not have Fourth Amendment rights to assert because he was an illegal alien.
Muehler v. Mena
The court also held the officers had the right to question her citizenship status: "Mena’s detention was, under Summers, plainly permissible. [1]An officer's authority to detain incident to a search is categorical; it does not depend on the “quantum of proof justifying detention or the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure.” Id., at 705, n. 19. Thus, Mena’s detention for the duration of the search was reasonable under Summers because a warrant existed to search 1363 Patricia Avenue and she was an occupant of that address at the time of the search."
And those are just a few. She ignored all of this legal precedence and became a political activist instead an interpreter of the law.
It is itself theater. It does nothing. It is only designed to hype the issue and garner votes. So, it creates the stage for both sides to play fight, thus gardnering their supporters. but in the end, no matter who wins any legal battles, ten years from now, nothing will have changed.
Yeah, anyone want to explain what "a reasonable suspicion exists that person is an alien" means?
Yeah, anyone want to explain what "a reasonable suspicion exists that person is an alien" means?
It is itself theater. It does nothing. It is only designed to hype the issue and garner votes. So, it creates the stage for both sides to play fight, thus gardnering their supporters. but in the end, no matter who wins any legal battles, ten years from now, nothing will have changed.
Then why is Obama fining business who hire illegal immigrants millions of dollars?
You already said that. It doesn't answer the question. It's just a circle.
The problem is she is ignoring legal precident for states to write their own laws against illegals
Gonzales v. City of Peoria, There is nothing inherent in that specific enforcement activity that conflicts with federal regulatory interests. Federal and local enforcement have identical purposes--the prevention of the misdemeanor or felony of illegal entry. The subject matter of the regulation thus does not require us to find that state enforcement is preempted....""A state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations. Moreover, the trooper's question about the green card was reasonable under the circumstances, and thus lawful."
United States v. Vasquez- Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294. 1999: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
"In particular, the United States observes this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.
United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
"We noted just recently that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit "have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,"
United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola
Rodriguez does not have Fourth Amendment rights to assert because he was an illegal alien.
Muehler v. Mena
The court also held the officers had the right to question her citizenship status: "Mena’s detention was, under Summers, plainly permissible. [1]An officer's authority to detain incident to a search is categorical; it does not depend on the “quantum of proof justifying detention or the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure.” Id., at 705, n. 19. Thus, Mena’s detention for the duration of the search was reasonable under Summers because a warrant existed to search 1363 Patricia Avenue and she was an occupant of that address at the time of the search."
And those are just a few. She ignored all of this legal precedence and became a political activist instead an interpreter of the law.
“[T]he fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute does
not render it a regulation of immigration
But it does answer the question. None of this is real. both sides are acting in order to make a show, to look good to their followers. You can't have a show without a stage. So, you need it to go to court.
“[T]he fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute does
not render it a regulation of immigration
If your'e saying that AZ enacted the law for show, then I'd have to say you're mistaken. Though you may well be right that the federal government is suing for those reasons.
“[T]he fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute does
not render it a regulation of immigration
Yes, they did. They know they already have the laws to tackle this problem on the book. If they were serious, they'd skip the theater and just enforce the law.
If you're referring to the feds (which you must be, because it doesn't make any sense as it would apply to AZ), then I agree entirely.
Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court
finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following
Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:
1. Requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to
determine the immigration status of a person stopped,
detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that
the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and
requiring verification of the immigration status of any
person arrested prior to releasing that person.
-CNNThis ruling is not a bump in the rode, it is more like a dagger stabbed in the heart of this law.
I hope this ruling can be changed. This judge clearly doesn't understand the law and is legislating from the bench. She hasn't ruled them to be illegal either, she has placed them "on hold" until things are legally resolved.
Your in no place to state whether or not a judge knows what she's talking about.
Nope Arizona. Arizona could have simply enforced the laws on the books. They choose theater.
What utter nonsense. Any public official can and should be criticized.
This is exactly what she ruled against.
-CNN
Yeah, followed by rational statements. Not just, "This judge is wrong!"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?