Judge blocks most controversial parts of AZ SB1070 law

[Ben Kenobi]

Big Government Ben riding to the rescue again.

So you don't believe that immigration restrictions should be enforced?

[Boris Godunov]

Horsehockey. If they can pull you over and ask for your license and registration, they can ask for your papers too.

License and registration and proof of insurance are requirements that relate directly to lawfully operating a vehicle and are thus acceptable to require. Proof of U.S. citizenship is not.

We're not going to engage in another round of "BK makes up U.S. laws as he sees fit to justify himself." As the judge herself noted, the established legal precedents render that aspect of the law very likely to fall to the Federal challenge.

[Boris Godunov]

Untrue.

True. That local officials may do it doesn't mean they actually have the authority.

If the states had such an authority already, then the SB1070 law wouldn't be necessary, now would it?

They can and do have the authority to turn these folks over to immigration and customs enforcement.

They can only detain them for other legal reasons, not on the sole basis of their immigration status. If they stop someone for speeding, they cannot arrest them for being an illegal or if they fail to prove they're here legally, period.

They would ask for your license and registration. Your license would have a date and place of birth. If that is outside the US, they would ask you for your visa paperwork.

U.S. licenses do not state your place of birth, you moron. Only the address at the time you obtained the license.

It's not hard. When I travelled to Texas, they checked me twice when riding the bus. What they did was stop the bus and ask to see everyone's papers. They checked us at the El Paso stop immediately after boarding, and then at Ft. Hancock, several hours down the road, pulling the bus over and asking to check everyone's papers.

Ben, were these U.S. Immigration officials? My guess is yes, which renders your entire argument irrelevant and stupid.

If it were state/local officials, then they were violating your rights, and you should be outraged.

They could detain him, until they were satisfied. There was one guy on my bus who got pulled off.

Local officials cannot, no. They cannot detain someone solely on suspicion of being illegally in the U.S., period.

Looks like we ARE engaged in "BK makes up U.S. laws."

[Ben Kenobi]

True. That local officials may do it doesn't mean they actually have the authority.

They do have the authority.

If the states had such an authority already, then the SB1070 law wouldn't be necessary, now would it?

That's a bad argument. Obama is overstepping his bounds by infringing on the authority of the state of Arizona. This is why the law is now necessary, thanks to the Obama administration.

Look, the border needs to be protected one way or another. If the federal government does not enforce their own laws, then the states will enforce it for them. Simple as that. If Obama enforced the laws that are already on the books, then there would not be an issue. That they have failed to do so means that the state of Arizona has no other choice but to enforce the federal law themselves.

They can only detain them for other legal reasons, not on the sole basis of their immigration status. If they stop someone for speeding, they cannot arrest them for being an illegal or if they fail to prove they're here legally, period.

Sorry, someone breaks the law, and they are illegal, send them back home. You want to stay, follow the law.

U.S. licenses do not state your place of birth, you moron. Only the address at the time you obtained the license.

Right, you don't have to register place and date of birth when you get your license? Somehow, given that you have to be a certain age to obtain one that wouldn't be the case. That information will all be available to the officer when he checks your license number.

Ben, were these U.S. Immigration officials? My guess is yes, which renders your entire argument irrelevant and stupid.

No, these were state rangers both times.

If it were state/local officials, then they were violating your rights, and you should be outraged.

Actually I thought it was all rather funny because I'd already been checked by the federal agents in Washington. It was a welcome to Texas moment for me, because the Ft. Hancock checkpoint is set up to prevent people from getting into Texas.

I really don't see why the drivers are all that upset. It is far harder to do surveillance on cars than it is on buses. Follow the laws and you won't get pulled over.

Local officials cannot, no. They cannot detain someone solely on suspicion of being illegally in the U.S., period.

So you say I'm lying? The feds, especially in Arizona have dropped the ball. If the Federal government isn't enforcing their own laws, then it's up to Arizona to enforce them.

[Boris Godunov]

Oh sure, like people never lie about how fast they were travelling. There's nothing racist about it. Obey the law, follow the rules of the road, and you are not going to get pulled over.

Oh, sure, law enforcement officials never overstep their legal authority and engage in unlawful search and seizure.

We know you live in your own authoritarian fantasy land, but it really doesn't effect reality.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, sure, law enforcement officials never overstep their legal authority and engage in unlawful search and seizure.

Never said that. I've been pulled over and searched before up here in Canada.

We know you live in your own authoritarian fantasy land, but it really doesn't effect reality.

Again, do you believe that immigration laws should be enforced? I don't see what's authoritarian when I say that the laws on the books should be enforced.

[rah]

Like the abortion clinic BUBBLE laws?

[Boris Godunov]

They do have the authority.

Do not. That's the entire basis of the Federal Lawsuit, and the judge noted the Feds were likely to prevail.

Cite a Federal statute that gives the states the authority.

That's a bad argument. Obama is overstepping his bounds by infringing on the authority of the state of Arizona. This is why the law is now necessary, thanks to the Obama administration.

That is the dumbest revisionism imaginable. The Arizona law was passed before the Administration got involved, so how could it have been "necessary" as a result of the Administration overstepping its bounds? That's retarded to the max.

No, the AZ law was passed because of right wing anti-illegal hysteria that was whipped up for political purposes. The issue of illegal immigrants has existed long before 2009, so blaming it on Obama is just a laughably transparent and false political attack by you.

Look, the border needs to be protected one way or another. If the federal government does not enforce their own laws, then the states will enforce it for them. Simple as that.

No, it's not that simple. We have a thing called the Constitution and states are not permitted to violate it as they see fit to protect their perceived interests. This mixture of authoritarian worship you have while displaying disdain for the laws of the land is frustratingly nonsensical, you know.

If Obama enforced the laws that are already on the books, then there would not be an issue. That they have failed to do so means that the state of Arizona has no other choice but to enforce the federal law themselves.

What wasn't being enforced, and how is that Obama's fault? As I said, illegal immigration has been an issue long before Obama became president, so laying at his feet is stupid. Illegal immigration is a very complex legal issue, and claiming it's as "simple" as merely enforcing existing law shows just how shallow your thinking is on it.

And no, the state can't take it upon itself to enforce Federal laws, even in the absence of the Federal Government doing so. You can claim they can all you want, but it's not true.

Sorry, someone breaks the law, and they are illegal, send them back home. You want to stay, follow the law.

That's not the point I was making. A state can't arrest people just for being suspected illegals, it's unconstitutional. If a state arrests a person for some other crime and then remands them to the Federal Government for handling should they be illegal or suspected illegal, that's a different matter. But if there's no crime for which they can be arrested, they cannot detain them, simple as that. Minor traffic violations like speeding are rarely considered crimes in most states, and even when they are, they aren't arrestable offenses.

Right, you don't have to register place and date of birth when you get your license? Somehow, given that you have to be a certain age to obtain one that wouldn't be the case. That information will all be available to the officer when he checks your license number.

If your license indicates you are a U.S. citizen because you had to provide legal documents to get it, then why isn't providing a valid driver's license sufficient? If a cop pulls over someone and they provide a valid driver's license, then isn't that all the identification he needs? Regardless, licenses do not state the place of birth, and state databases don't track that information. In the case of relocating in many states, you can just provide a driver's license from another state and proof of current residence and they will issue a new license without requiring presentation of any other documents.

If someone doesn't have a valid license, then they can be arrested for operating a vehicle without a license. At that point the state can then refer someone to the Feds, sure. But they can't arrest them for non-arrestable offenses because they suspect the person is an illegal. And if we're talking about non-traffic related offenses (littering, loitering, etc.), then they can't arrest someone for not having identification on them, as it is not a crime to not have ID on you.

No, these were state rangers both times.

I doubt that, but if so, as I said, they were overstepping their legal authority.

Actually I thought it was all rather funny because I'd already been checked by the federal agents in Washington. It was a welcome to Texas moment for me, because the Ft. Hancock checkpoint is set up to prevent people from getting into Texas.

While I'm amused at your giddyness for people having their rights violated, it doesn't change the fact that state officials don't have the authority to enforce federal immigration statutes, period.

So you say I'm lying? The feds, especially in Arizona have dropped the ball. If the Federal government isn't enforcing their own laws, then it's up to Arizona to enforce them.

I didn't say you were lying, although it would not be a shock to anyone here if you were. I'm saying that either you're wrong about the identity of the officials, or they were abusing their authority. Either way, it's a simple fact that states do not have the authority to enforce Federal laws. You may wish they did, but the don't, and that's the basis of the U.S. Justice Department's suit against Arizona, which is going to be successful.

[Boris Godunov]

Never said that.

You're certainly implying that by your false assertion that people aren't pulled over if they aren't doing something wrong.

Again, do you believe that immigration laws should be enforced? I don't see what's authoritarian when I say that the laws on the books should be enforced.

Whether or not the Feds should enforce particular immigration laws is a separate issue. The issues here are can a state decide on its own to either enforce Federal laws or pass its own laws in a realm that is decidedly a Federal matter. The answer to both of those questions is a firm "No."

If you believe the laws should be enforced, then you should also believe that the laws about who can and can't enforce them should be enforced, and that means that states can't overstep their authority like Arizona is doing. You are advocating enforcing the law only when it is convenient for your beliefs, which is rank hypocrisy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jeez, Boris. You come back and get right into an argument with Ben. Just back away now!! You know that it'll just degenerate into Ben spewing complete and utter nonsense to avoid dealing with facts.

[Boris Godunov]

Like the abortion clinic BUBBLE laws?

Touche!

[Boris Godunov]

Jeez, Boris. You come back and get right into an argument with Ben. Just back away now!! You know that it'll just degenerate into Ben spewing complete and utter nonsense to avoid dealing with facts.

Yes, I'm retarded like that. But in my defense, he came into my thread, I didn't seek him out.

Ben, if you're just going to invent legal standards, you can piss off.

[DinoDoc]

Do not. That's the entire basis of the Federal Lawsuit, and the judge noted the Feds were likely to prevail.

Perhaps you can explain the basis for the preemption claim then? Because I'm curious where the preemption occurs if if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked.

[duke o' york]

Just wait until the cops start stopping people because they have bumper rear fender stickers with fish on....

[Ben Kenobi]

Like the abortion clinic BUBBLE laws?

I believe that law is unconstitutional.

Do you believe that immigration enforcement is also unconstitutional?