Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Obama Sues AZ Over Immigration Law

Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2010 6:17:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Can someone PLEASE tell me why this law is unconstitutional. No, you can't stop some random person on the street to ask for papers, and the law is just enforcing federal statutes. What is the problem here? I'm losing my mind as to why people are comparing Arizona's law to Nazi Germany.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2010 6:25:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The major issue going around is whether the law provides for unjust discrimination or not, and whether it gives too much power into the hands of the authorities to pick and choose who and what constitutes suspicion for illegal status. Even proponents of the law can't deny the fact that harassment of individuals that are of, for example, Hispanic origin is even outwardly avoided by any statutes in the law - even if they're legal citizens. And that doesn't even mean being arrested or charged; the harassment itself is a problem. We already know the police have some pretty over-reaching powers, and some subjective interpretations of the law as it is - do we need to hand them another tool?
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2010 6:37:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Situation 1: I, a white person, am stopped for speeding in my beat-up little car. I don't have my papers with me and don't look "illegal". The officer lets me on my way with a warning.

Situation 2: A darker-skinned person is stopped for speeding in their beat-up little car. They don't have their papers with them, and are immediately suspected of being "illegal". Actions are taken.

I'm not sure about "constitutional", but there is a problem here.

Nevermind that some of us are more sympathetic towards immigrants than the law for the sake of the law.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2010 8:27:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/6/2010 6:37:07 PM, Yvette wrote:
Situation 1: I, a white person, am stopped for speeding in my beat-up little car. I don't have my papers with me and don't look "illegal". The officer lets me on my way with a warning.

Situation 2: A darker-skinned person is stopped for speeding in their beat-up little car. They don't have their papers with them, and are immediately suspected of being "illegal". Actions are taken.

I'm not sure about "constitutional", but there is a problem here.

Nevermind that some of us are more sympathetic towards immigrants than the law for the sake of the law.

You realize that if you have an American accent, that alone can take off a lot of the suspiciousness, even if you are hispanic?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2010 8:29:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/6/2010 8:27:27 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/6/2010 6:37:07 PM, Yvette wrote:
Situation 1: I, a white person, am stopped for speeding in my beat-up little car. I don't have my papers with me and don't look "illegal". The officer lets me on my way with a warning.

Situation 2: A darker-skinned person is stopped for speeding in their beat-up little car. They don't have their papers with them, and are immediately suspected of being "illegal". Actions are taken.

I'm not sure about "constitutional", but there is a problem here.

Nevermind that some of us are more sympathetic towards immigrants than the law for the sake of the law.

You realize that if you have an American accent, that alone can take off a lot of the suspiciousness, even if you are hispanic.

Lol. American accent.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2010 8:31:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/6/2010 8:29:26 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 7/6/2010 8:27:27 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/6/2010 6:37:07 PM, Yvette wrote:
Situation 1: I, a white person, am stopped for speeding in my beat-up little car. I don't have my papers with me and don't look "illegal". The officer lets me on my way with a warning.

Situation 2: A darker-skinned person is stopped for speeding in their beat-up little car. They don't have their papers with them, and are immediately suspected of being "illegal". Actions are taken.

I'm not sure about "constitutional", but there is a problem here.

Nevermind that some of us are more sympathetic towards immigrants than the law for the sake of the law.

You realize that if you have an American accent, that alone can take off a lot of the suspiciousness, even if you are hispanic.

Lol. American accent.

Well, mainly, not Mexican. It can really distinguish if you've lived in Mexico for all your life. If you have, there is a very good chance that you are illegal.

Also, a driver's license is good enough proof that you are legal. So who's driving without a license anyway?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2010 8:33:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/6/2010 8:31:34 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/6/2010 8:29:26 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 7/6/2010 8:27:27 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/6/2010 6:37:07 PM, Yvette wrote:
Situation 1: I, a white person, am stopped for speeding in my beat-up little car. I don't have my papers with me and don't look "illegal". The officer lets me on my way with a warning.

Situation 2: A darker-skinned person is stopped for speeding in their beat-up little car. They don't have their papers with them, and are immediately suspected of being "illegal". Actions are taken.

I'm not sure about "constitutional", but there is a problem here.

Nevermind that some of us are more sympathetic towards immigrants than the law for the sake of the law.

You realize that if you have an American accent, that alone can take off a lot of the suspiciousness, even if you are hispanic.

Lol. American accent.

Well, mainly, not Mexican. It can really distinguish if you've lived in Mexico for all your life. If you have, there is a very good chance that you are illegal.

Also, a driver's license is good enough proof that you are legal. So who's driving without a license anyway?

People who forget their drivers licenses at their homes once in a while ;)
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2010 9:13:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/6/2010 6:37:07 PM, Yvette wrote:
Situation 1: I, a white person, am stopped for speeding in my beat-up little car. I don't have my papers with me and don't look "illegal". The officer lets me on my way with a warning.

Situation 2: A darker-skinned person is stopped for speeding in their beat-up little car. They don't have their papers with them, and are immediately suspected of being "illegal". Actions are taken.

Situation 1: A Republican is caught in a scandal. Obama sets up the White House to blaze the scandal out of proportions.
Situation 2: A Democrat is caught in a scandal. Obama covers the entire thing up.

Situation 1: A Hispanic walks into a bar. The owner of the bar shoots him.
Situation 2: A white man walks into a bar. The owner of the bar gives that man the bar as a gift.

Made-up situations are fun, especially when they lack backing. Besides, the law requires that a man speeding without any identification, especially a driver's liscense, must be detained and questioned.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2010 9:50:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/6/2010 8:31:34 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/6/2010 8:29:26 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 7/6/2010 8:27:27 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/6/2010 6:37:07 PM, Yvette wrote:
Situation 1: I, a white person, am stopped for speeding in my beat-up little car. I don't have my papers with me and don't look "illegal". The officer lets me on my way with a warning.

Situation 2: A darker-skinned person is stopped for speeding in their beat-up little car. They don't have their papers with them, and are immediately suspected of being "illegal". Actions are taken.

I'm not sure about "constitutional", but there is a problem here.

Nevermind that some of us are more sympathetic towards immigrants than the law for the sake of the law.

You realize that if you have an American accent, that alone can take off a lot of the suspiciousness, even if you are hispanic.

Lol. American accent.

Well, mainly, not Mexican. It can really distinguish if you've lived in Mexico for all your life. If you have, there is a very good chance that you are illegal.

Also, a driver's license is good enough proof that you are legal. So who's driving without a license anyway?

...You're aware there's more than one accent in America right? Depending on what city you live in, general geographic area, family, neighborhood, economic background, culture, etc.

There is no "American accent" unless you're coming from the viewpoint of someone outside of America.

And I didn't say Mexican, I said darker-skinned. There's a huge range of ethnic groups that look Mexican, and it broadens when you take ignorant Americans into account who group everyone as American, European, Mexican, black, Middle Eastern and Asian. Even people who look Mexican have a wide range of ethnicities and thus possible accents...Take a dark-skinned person and give them just about any accent and most Americans would probably think "Mexican".

But should we really suspect Mexicans with accents as being illegal? From your defense it seems like your answer is yes or maybe.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2010 11:44:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Its illegal because it interferes with federal immigration law. That is inherently unconstitutional, every bit as much as states refusing the emancipation proclamation made by Lincoln or the states that refused to carry out de-segregation under the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.

The Arizona state legislators violated the U.S. constitution and violated the law. They acted against the U.S. constitution. How lucky for them that they aren't likely to be actually locked up as they deserve to be for abusing their authority.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2010 3:36:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You know, I'm really tempted to go to Arizona on holiday this year and test-drive this new law of theirs!

When duly apprehended by the police (as I know doubt will be for straightening the curves and flattening the hills) it would become instantly apparent to Arizona's law enforcement officers when I open my mouth and speak with an accent like Stewie out of Family Guy's that I am one of those goddam, low-down, no-good foreigners.

That's why I am practicing my American accent to put them off the scent. I'll just tell them:

"I'm just a good old boy, never meaning no harm, beats all you ever you saw, never been in trouble with the law since the day I was born. Yessiree! I'm just makin' my way, the only way I know how, but it seems that's just a little more than the law will allow. Darn tootin! So if y'all just write me a ticket I'll skiddadle right outta here likety split. Youbetcha! Yee-ha!"

I don't know why the Mexicans don't use the same trick!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2010 7:35:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/6/2010 9:50:41 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 7/6/2010 8:31:34 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/6/2010 8:29:26 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 7/6/2010 8:27:27 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/6/2010 6:37:07 PM, Yvette wrote:
Situation 1: I, a white person, am stopped for speeding in my beat-up little car. I don't have my papers with me and don't look "illegal". The officer lets me on my way with a warning.

Situation 2: A darker-skinned person is stopped for speeding in their beat-up little car. They don't have their papers with them, and are immediately suspected of being "illegal". Actions are taken.

I'm not sure about "constitutional", but there is a problem here.

Nevermind that some of us are more sympathetic towards immigrants than the law for the sake of the law.

You realize that if you have an American accent, that alone can take off a lot of the suspiciousness, even if you are hispanic.

Lol. American accent.

Well, mainly, not Mexican. It can really distinguish if you've lived in Mexico for all your life. If you have, there is a very good chance that you are illegal.

Also, a driver's license is good enough proof that you are legal. So who's driving without a license anyway?

...You're aware there's more than one accent in America right? Depending on what city you live in, general geographic area, family, neighborhood, economic background, culture, etc.

There is no "American accent" unless you're coming from the viewpoint of someone outside of America.

And I didn't say Mexican, I said darker-skinned. There's a huge range of ethnic groups that look Mexican, and it broadens when you take ignorant Americans into account who group everyone as American, European, Mexican, black, Middle Eastern and Asian. Even people who look Mexican have a wide range of ethnicities and thus possible accents...Take a dark-skinned person and give them just about any accent and most Americans would probably think "Mexican".

But should we really suspect Mexicans with accents as being illegal? From your defense it seems like your answer is yes or maybe.

By "an American accent" I meant "one of the American accents." If you have an accent that wouldn't be present in Mexico, then you're probably not illegal.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2010 7:40:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/6/2010 9:13:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/6/2010 6:37:07 PM, Yvette wrote:
Situation 1: I, a white person, am stopped for speeding in my beat-up little car. I don't have my papers with me and don't look "illegal". The officer lets me on my way with a warning.

Situation 2: A darker-skinned person is stopped for speeding in their beat-up little car. They don't have their papers with them, and are immediately suspected of being "illegal". Actions are taken.

Situation 1: A Republican is caught in a scandal. Obama sets up the White House to blaze the scandal out of proportions.
Situation 2: A Democrat is caught in a scandal. Obama covers the entire thing up.

Situation 1: A Hispanic walks into a bar. The owner of the bar shoots him.
Situation 2: A white man walks into a bar. The owner of the bar gives that man the bar as a gift.

Made-up situations are fun, especially when they lack backing. Besides, the law requires that a man speeding without any identification, especially a driver's liscense, must be detained and questioned.

lol It's funny that you always forget about what happened during Bush's presidency.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2010 11:52:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You realize that if you have an American accent, that alone can take off a lot of the suspiciousness, even if you are hispanic?:

Having any accent is not a crime, nor is it probable cause, nor is it reasonable suspicion.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2010 2:35:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
but..it's already federal law! it just isn't enforced, AZ sought to change that.

What fresh dickery is this Obama?
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2010 4:01:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/6/2010 11:44:49 PM, PervRat wrote:
Its illegal because it interferes with federal immigration law. That is inherently unconstitutional, every bit as much as states refusing the emancipation proclamation made by Lincoln or the states that refused to carry out de-segregation under the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.

The Arizona state legislators violated the U.S. constitution and violated the law. They acted against the U.S. constitution. How lucky for them that they aren't likely to be actually locked up as they deserve to be for abusing their authority.

How is the constitution being violated? It doesn't interfere with federal immigration laws, it enforces them.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2010 8:56:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/7/2010 7:40:04 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 7/6/2010 9:13:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/6/2010 6:37:07 PM, Yvette wrote:
Situation 1: I, a white person, am stopped for speeding in my beat-up little car. I don't have my papers with me and don't look "illegal". The officer lets me on my way with a warning.

Situation 2: A darker-skinned person is stopped for speeding in their beat-up little car. They don't have their papers with them, and are immediately suspected of being "illegal". Actions are taken.

Situation 1: A Republican is caught in a scandal. Obama sets up the White House to blaze the scandal out of proportions.
Situation 2: A Democrat is caught in a scandal. Obama covers the entire thing up.

Situation 1: A Hispanic walks into a bar. The owner of the bar shoots him.
Situation 2: A white man walks into a bar. The owner of the bar gives that man the bar as a gift.

Made-up situations are fun, especially when they lack backing. Besides, the law requires that a man speeding without any identification, especially a driver's liscense, must be detained and questioned.

lol It's funny that you always forget about what happened during Bush's presidency.

First one may be true, sure. But the second one is a complete joke. Really, just saying "Situation" means NOTHING.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2010 8:58:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/7/2010 11:52:07 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
You realize that if you have an American accent, that alone can take off a lot of the suspiciousness, even if you are hispanic?:

Having any accent is not a crime, nor is it probable cause, nor is it reasonable suspicion.

It is not a crime, no. However, if you already broke the law, and you lack any papers, even a driver's lisence, that can prove your legal residence in Arizona, that enough is enough of a reason to suspect somebody. A blatant Mexican accent would add even more suspicion.

You can't say that a Mexican accent isn't reason to suspect somebody to be a recent Mexican immigrant. Nor can you say that a lack of identification papers gives the appearance of having entered the country illegaly.
ravenwaen
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 4:47:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/7/2010 7:35:33 AM, mongoose wrote:
By "an American accent" I meant "one of the American accents." If you have an accent that wouldn't be present in Mexico, then you're probably not illegal.

But that does not mean the opposite is necessarily true -- that if you have a Mexican accent, you probably are in the country illegally.

You are arguing against IMMIGRANTS in general, not undocumented workers. If someone has a Mexican accent, it may be reasonable to assume they immigrated from Mexico. But how could you possibly tell that they immigrated illegally? Is there an Illegal Mexican accent?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 6:30:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It is not a crime, no. However, if you already broke the law, and you lack any papers, even a driver's lisence, that can prove your legal residence in Arizona, that enough is enough of a reason to suspect somebody. A blatant Mexican accent would add even more suspicion.:

If you're a US citizen, why would you carry around papers proving your citizenship? Why would you have to? That's draconian. And suppose you were a white guy driving around without a license? Is that reason to "suspect" you're an illegal alien? There are millions upon millions of hispanic Americans who have accents. That means the suspicions are based solely on race and no other good inference.

The Constitution states that immigration is a Federal issue. We can't just trim off fat from the Constitution to suit an agenda, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be.

You can't say that a Mexican accent isn't reason to suspect somebody to be a recent Mexican immigrant.:

That's ridiculous. Have you ever lived in Arizona or California? I've lived in both, and I can assure you, with the utmost sincerity, that millions of legal citizens have accents, just like you have an accent. My neigbhor has a British accent because she's from England. Should I ask her for her "papers" on the basis that she has an accent? If she's a US citizen, what "papers" would she have, let alone carry them around with her everywhere she goes? Seriously, who does that? That's Orwellian. Arizona law enforcement is not the Gestapo, mein fuhrer, and we don't throw people in to Gulags for not carrying around papers, comrade.

So clearly this is about profiling people on the basis of their race alone. That's not Constitutional.

[qs]Nor can you say that a lack of identification papers gives the appearance of having entered the country illegaly.[/qs]

Do you carry around papers proving your citizenship? If you don't, then why would anyone else? The only people required to carry around such documentation are immigrants who are here on visa's.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 7:01:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/2010 4:47:54 AM, ravenwaen wrote:
At 7/7/2010 7:35:33 AM, mongoose wrote:
By "an American accent" I meant "one of the American accents." If you have an accent that wouldn't be present in Mexico, then you're probably not illegal.

But that does not mean the opposite is necessarily true -- that if you have a Mexican accent, you probably are in the country illegally.

You are arguing against IMMIGRANTS in general, not undocumented workers. If someone has a Mexican accent, it may be reasonable to assume they immigrated from Mexico. But how could you possibly tell that they immigrated illegally? Is there an Illegal Mexican accent?

Nope. If they have no papers, no driver's license, and have a Mexican accent, there is a good chance they are here illegally. If they don't speak English, they are definately probably illegal.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 7:02:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/2010 7:01:28 PM, mongoose wrote:

Nope. If they have no papers, no driver's license, and have a Mexican accent, there is a good chance they are here illegally. If they don't speak English or have any proof, they are definately probably illegal.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 7:12:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/6/2010 6:17:57 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
Can someone PLEASE tell me why this law is unconstitutional. No, you can't stop some random person on the street to ask for papers, and the law is just enforcing federal statutes. What is the problem here? I'm losing my mind as to why people are comparing Arizona's law to Nazi Germany.

It is constitutional under the tenth amendment.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 7:16:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/6/2010 6:37:07 PM, Yvette wrote:
Situation 1: I, a white person, am stopped for speeding in my beat-up little car. I don't have my papers with me and don't look "illegal". The officer lets me on my way with a warning.


If you don't have your licence you will be asked whether you are white or black or asian etc.

Situation 2: A darker-skinned person is stopped for speeding in their beat-up little car. They don't have their papers with them, and are immediately suspected of being "illegal". Actions are taken.

I'm not sure about "constitutional", but there is a problem here.


Not really and if you don't like it don't live in AZ.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 2:25:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Department of Justice filed suit on the grounds that the Arizona Law impacts immigration policy. They did not file on the grounds that it somehow facilitates racial profiling. If they had sued over racial profiling and won, it would have invalidated the Federal immigration law, since the Arizona law has more safeguards than the Federal law. Also, the very liberal 9th Circuit has already upheld the Federal law. The Feds can demand proof of citizenship without any reason; the Arizona law requires that a person must be first stopped for suspicion of a some other crime.

The Arizona Law states that a driver's license satisfies the identification requirement. If anyone is stopped without a license, they have problem, citizen or not.

The Federal lawsuit argues that it is government policy not to enforce immigration laws, so that by attempting to enforce the laws, Arizona is interfering with official policy. There are quite a few instances of states having laws that overlap with federal laws. Bank robbery, kidnapping, hate crimes, and narcotics are some examples. If the suit is upheld, it would seems to potentially invalidate many state laws. Non-enforcement policy is set by the President, so the President would get to effectively repeal both federal and state laws.

Note that sanctuary cities, like Tucson, refuse to assist in enforcing immigration laws. But since the federal policy is not to enforce the laws, that is not a conflict.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 2:38:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/10/2010 2:25:44 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The Department of Justice filed suit on the grounds that the Arizona Law impacts immigration policy. They did not file on the grounds that it somehow facilitates racial profiling. If they had sued over racial profiling and won, it would have invalidated the Federal immigration law, since the Arizona law has more safeguards than the Federal law. Also, the very liberal 9th Circuit has already upheld the Federal law. The Feds can demand proof of citizenship without any reason; the Arizona law requires that a person must be first stopped for suspicion of a some other crime.

The Arizona Law states that a driver's license satisfies the identification requirement. If anyone is stopped without a license, they have problem, citizen or not.

The Federal lawsuit argues that it is government policy not to enforce immigration laws, so that by attempting to enforce the laws, Arizona is interfering with official policy. There are quite a few instances of states having laws that overlap with federal laws. Bank robbery, kidnapping, hate crimes, and narcotics are some examples. If the suit is upheld, it would seems to potentially invalidate many state laws. Non-enforcement policy is set by the President, so the President would get to effectively repeal both federal and state laws.

Note that sanctuary cities, like Tucson, refuse to assist in enforcing immigration laws. But since the federal policy is not to enforce the laws, that is not a conflict.

Wow! That's quite complicated. But I suppose not too unlike European law overriding the member states' national laws.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...