100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: SCOTUS to hear Arizona's immigration law | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
PHOENIX (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Arizona's immigration enforcement law on April 25, in the last such hearing of the high court's current term.
The court will review a federal appeals court decision that upheld a judge's ruling blocking key provisions of the Arizona law. One of those provisions requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers have reasonable suspicion the person is in the country illegally. Other blocked provisions would require immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers and make it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job. The U.S. Justice Department sued to challenge the law after it was enacted in 2010. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally
the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, The issue here is the DOJ has stated and is in court record that this will weaken federal immigration when it will strengthen it by having more eyes on the symptom. Illegal immigration is the symptom whereas employers, state and federal benefits are the cause which is what we need to address. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One part of the Immigration Law deals with E-Verify. Not happening.
Another, checking reports of companies using Illegals. Not happening. Ending the war on the Az. border, on Federal property at that. Not happening. Companies that pay off Politicians won't be touched by Homeland Insecurity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One part of the Immigration Law deals with E-Verify. Not happening. Another, checking reports of companies using Illegals. Not happening. Ending the war on the Az. border, on Federal property at that. Not happening. Companies that pay off Politicians won't be touched by Homeland Insecurity. Which is why there needs to be a system in place for immigrants such as a biometric id card that would difficult and expensive to imitate. once something is in place then you start jailing employers who hire these people which has happened on a few occasion's here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also something John McCain was pounding in 200 was campaign finance reform, get the money out of Washington which is root of all evils in this country. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, The issue here is the DOJ has stated and is in court record that this will weaken federal immigration when it will strengthen it by having more eyes on the symptom. Illegal immigration is the symptom whereas employers, state and federal benefits are the cause which is what we need to address. I didnt realize my proposal was cited in any court document or DOJ policy,,,,, I thought hiring illegal immigrants was also already a federal crime,, although it is not ENFORCED very vigilantly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One part of the Immigration Law deals with E-Verify. Not happening. Another, checking reports of companies using Illegals. Not happening. Ending the war on the Az. border, on Federal property at that. Not happening. Companies that pay off Politicians won't be touched by Homeland Insecurity. Which is why there needs to be a system in place for immigrants such as a biometric id card that would difficult and expensive to imitate. once something is in place then you start jailing employers who hire these people which has happened on a few occasion's here. a biometric card? why would that be any better or worse than 'e verify'? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, The issue here is the DOJ has stated and is in court record that this will weaken federal immigration when it will strengthen it by having more eyes on the symptom. Illegal immigration is the symptom whereas employers, state and federal benefits are the cause which is what we need to address. I didnt realize my proposal was cited in any court document or DOJ policy,,,,, I thought hiring illegal immigrants was also already a federal crime,, although it is not ENFORCED very vigilantly They (Obama, DOJ and DNC) don't want immigration laws enforced and is why they do not want states doing it thus the law suits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, The issue here is the DOJ has stated and is in court record that this will weaken federal immigration when it will strengthen it by having more eyes on the symptom. Illegal immigration is the symptom whereas employers, state and federal benefits are the cause which is what we need to address. I didnt realize my proposal was cited in any court document or DOJ policy,,,,, I thought hiring illegal immigrants was also already a federal crime,, although it is not ENFORCED very vigilantly They (Obama, DOJ and DNC) don't want immigration laws enforced and is why they do not want states doing it thus the law suits. there is a difference, (often debated in these very threads) Between what should be under FEDERAL jurisdiction and what should be under STATE jurisdiction this is different than not wanting laws enforced at all though,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, considering no cop should be able to "in his own opinion" suspect anyone on sight of being an alien because it is racial/skin color profiling and is discrimination, it shouldn't be too hard to determine it is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, The issue here is the DOJ has stated and is in court record that this will weaken federal immigration when it will strengthen it by having more eyes on the symptom. Illegal immigration is the symptom whereas employers, state and federal benefits are the cause which is what we need to address. I didnt realize my proposal was cited in any court document or DOJ policy,,,,, I thought hiring illegal immigrants was also already a federal crime,, although it is not ENFORCED very vigilantly They (Obama, DOJ and DNC) don't want immigration laws enforced and is why they do not want states doing it thus the law suits. there is a difference, (often debated in these very threads) Between what should be under FEDERAL jurisdiction and what should be under STATE jurisdiction this is different than not wanting laws enforced at all though,,, I see it as they absolutely do not these laws enforced. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, The issue here is the DOJ has stated and is in court record that this will weaken federal immigration when it will strengthen it by having more eyes on the symptom. Illegal immigration is the symptom whereas employers, state and federal benefits are the cause which is what we need to address. I didnt realize my proposal was cited in any court document or DOJ policy,,,,, I thought hiring illegal immigrants was also already a federal crime,, although it is not ENFORCED very vigilantly They (Obama, DOJ and DNC) don't want immigration laws enforced and is why they do not want states doing it thus the law suits. there is a difference, (often debated in these very threads) Between what should be under FEDERAL jurisdiction and what should be under STATE jurisdiction this is different than not wanting laws enforced at all though,,, I see it as they absolutely do not these laws enforced. well, that would explain the RECORD number of deportations,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, The issue here is the DOJ has stated and is in court record that this will weaken federal immigration when it will strengthen it by having more eyes on the symptom. Illegal immigration is the symptom whereas employers, state and federal benefits are the cause which is what we need to address. I didnt realize my proposal was cited in any court document or DOJ policy,,,,, I thought hiring illegal immigrants was also already a federal crime,, although it is not ENFORCED very vigilantly They (Obama, DOJ and DNC) don't want immigration laws enforced and is why they do not want states doing it thus the law suits. there is a difference, (often debated in these very threads) Between what should be under FEDERAL jurisdiction and what should be under STATE jurisdiction this is different than not wanting laws enforced at all though,,, I see it as they absolutely do not these laws enforced. well, that would explain the RECORD number of deportations,,,
Record number according to this administrations DOJ! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, The issue here is the DOJ has stated and is in court record that this will weaken federal immigration when it will strengthen it by having more eyes on the symptom. Illegal immigration is the symptom whereas employers, state and federal benefits are the cause which is what we need to address. I didnt realize my proposal was cited in any court document or DOJ policy,,,,, I thought hiring illegal immigrants was also already a federal crime,, although it is not ENFORCED very vigilantly They (Obama, DOJ and DNC) don't want immigration laws enforced and is why they do not want states doing it thus the law suits. there is a difference, (often debated in these very threads) Between what should be under FEDERAL jurisdiction and what should be under STATE jurisdiction this is different than not wanting laws enforced at all though,,, I see it as they absolutely do not these laws enforced. well, that would explain the RECORD number of deportations,,,
Record number according to this administrations DOJ! HAAA actually according to ICE,, which I dont think was started or changed under this administration.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
boredinaz06
on
Fri 02/03/12 06:47 PM
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, The issue here is the DOJ has stated and is in court record that this will weaken federal immigration when it will strengthen it by having more eyes on the symptom. Illegal immigration is the symptom whereas employers, state and federal benefits are the cause which is what we need to address. I didnt realize my proposal was cited in any court document or DOJ policy,,,,, I thought hiring illegal immigrants was also already a federal crime,, although it is not ENFORCED very vigilantly They (Obama, DOJ and DNC) don't want immigration laws enforced and is why they do not want states doing it thus the law suits. there is a difference, (often debated in these very threads) Between what should be under FEDERAL jurisdiction and what should be under STATE jurisdiction this is different than not wanting laws enforced at all though,,, I see it as they absolutely do not these laws enforced. well, that would explain the RECORD number of deportations,,,
Record number according to this administrations DOJ! HAAA actually according to ICE,, which I dont think was started or changed under this administration.. Who does ICE answer to? HLS! Who does HLS answer to? The atty. general! Who does the atty. general answer to? The President! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, The issue here is the DOJ has stated and is in court record that this will weaken federal immigration when it will strengthen it by having more eyes on the symptom. Illegal immigration is the symptom whereas employers, state and federal benefits are the cause which is what we need to address. I didnt realize my proposal was cited in any court document or DOJ policy,,,,, I thought hiring illegal immigrants was also already a federal crime,, although it is not ENFORCED very vigilantly They (Obama, DOJ and DNC) don't want immigration laws enforced and is why they do not want states doing it thus the law suits. there is a difference, (often debated in these very threads) Between what should be under FEDERAL jurisdiction and what should be under STATE jurisdiction this is different than not wanting laws enforced at all though,,, I see it as they absolutely do not these laws enforced. well, that would explain the RECORD number of deportations,,,
Record number according to this administrations DOJ! HAAA actually according to ICE,, which I dont think was started or changed under this administration.. Who does ICE answer to? HLS! Who does HLS answer to? The atty. general! Who does the atty. general answer to? The President! with that logic, we all do,,,,, except congressmen and supreme court judges if you take the line all the way down,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, The issue here is the DOJ has stated and is in court record that this will weaken federal immigration when it will strengthen it by having more eyes on the symptom. Illegal immigration is the symptom whereas employers, state and federal benefits are the cause which is what we need to address. I didnt realize my proposal was cited in any court document or DOJ policy,,,,, I thought hiring illegal immigrants was also already a federal crime,, although it is not ENFORCED very vigilantly They (Obama, DOJ and DNC) don't want immigration laws enforced and is why they do not want states doing it thus the law suits. there is a difference, (often debated in these very threads) Between what should be under FEDERAL jurisdiction and what should be under STATE jurisdiction this is different than not wanting laws enforced at all though,,, Just as there is a difference between the needs of Colorado re Immigration and the needs of Arizona and the other Southern Border States when it comes to what the Federal Government needs to allow. Colorado (and many other states) needs only the protection the fed should provide for a state that has no internationl border. For States like Arizona the border is a daily problem. They should have a greater part in the protection of the Border... They live on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, The issue here is the DOJ has stated and is in court record that this will weaken federal immigration when it will strengthen it by having more eyes on the symptom. Illegal immigration is the symptom whereas employers, state and federal benefits are the cause which is what we need to address. I didnt realize my proposal was cited in any court document or DOJ policy,,,,, I thought hiring illegal immigrants was also already a federal crime,, although it is not ENFORCED very vigilantly They (Obama, DOJ and DNC) don't want immigration laws enforced and is why they do not want states doing it thus the law suits. there is a difference, (often debated in these very threads) Between what should be under FEDERAL jurisdiction and what should be under STATE jurisdiction this is different than not wanting laws enforced at all though,,, Just as there is a difference between the needs of Colorado re Immigration and the needs of Arizona and the other Southern Border States when it comes to what the Federal Government needs to allow. Colorado (and many other states) needs only the protection the fed should provide for a state that has no internationl border. For States like Arizona the border is a daily problem. They should have a greater part in the protection of the Border... They live on it. I agree. They should report such cases of illegal immigration when they already have a SUSPECT in custody who proves to be illegal. THey shouldnt be involved in policing immigration themself. IMHO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they need to continue the immigration laws already on the books, and ENFORCING them equally the rest is emotional reactionism to divide and conquer the citizenry during voting season,,, The issue here is the DOJ has stated and is in court record that this will weaken federal immigration when it will strengthen it by having more eyes on the symptom. Illegal immigration is the symptom whereas employers, state and federal benefits are the cause which is what we need to address. I didnt realize my proposal was cited in any court document or DOJ policy,,,,, I thought hiring illegal immigrants was also already a federal crime,, although it is not ENFORCED very vigilantly They (Obama, DOJ and DNC) don't want immigration laws enforced and is why they do not want states doing it thus the law suits. there is a difference, (often debated in these very threads) Between what should be under FEDERAL jurisdiction and what should be under STATE jurisdiction this is different than not wanting laws enforced at all though,,, Just as there is a difference between the needs of Colorado re Immigration and the needs of Arizona and the other Southern Border States when it comes to what the Federal Government needs to allow. Colorado (and many other states) needs only the protection the fed should provide for a state that has no internationl border. For States like Arizona the border is a daily problem. They should have a greater part in the protection of the Border... They live on it. I agree. They should report such cases of illegal immigration when they already have a SUSPECT in custody who proves to be illegal. THey shouldnt be involved in policing immigration themself. IMHO I take the thought a bit further. As the United States has that border. So to does Arizona. As a state within the Union (that has a border with a Nation not of the Union) Arizona as a right (indeed an obligation to its citizens) to secure the border in a way that protects Arizona. Reguardless of what the other States think of its actions. Reguardless of the actions or lack thereof from the United States. Because before the Border is a Border of the United States... It is in truth the Border of Arizona (and several other states). The only role of the Federal Government in this case should be to AUGUMENT the actions of the Border States to defend themselves... Not dictate to them how they should operate. |
|
|
|
|
