Judge blocks most controversial parts of AZ SB1070 law

[duke o' york]

I believe that law is unconstitutional.

It's still the law, regardless of what you believe.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whether or not the Feds should enforce particular immigration laws is a separate issue.

I'm asking you a question, Boris.

Do you believe the federal government should enforce the immigration law as it stands, yes or no?

I'm not going to bother answering any of your other questions until you answer this one.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's still the law, regardless of what you believe.

So is freedom of speech.

Oh wait, you live in England, you don't have freedom of speech. Pardon me.

[DinoDoc]

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

Paranoid fantasies dealt with in other areas of law have no bearing on this discussion.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

I'm certainly not dark at all, and I've been pulled over and searched before. In Canada, no less.

Just because they pull you over and search you doesn't necessarily mean they are doing so because they are racist. It could mean that they are looking for a vehicle of your car's description. Pulling people over for breaking the law and searching everyone for their immigration papers isn't racist either, unless you believe that certain races are predisposed to commit crimes.

[Boris Godunov]

Credit is due to Judge Napolitano of FOX:





He makes a critical point in the first video: being in the U.S. illegally is not itself an actual crime. You can't be tried, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for it. The most that can be done is the Federal Government can deport you. States cannot decide to make it a crime to be in the U.S. illegally, since it's a Federal issue.

[Boris Godunov]

I believe that law is unconstitutional.

Your opinion is irrelevant, because it has been ruled otherwise by the authority on the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court. You don't get to decide for youself what is and isn't Constititional, any more than Arizona does.

Do you believe that immigration enforcement is also unconstitutional?

Immigration enforcement by the Federal Government is Constitutional, by the States is not. That's why the Feds are going to win their lawsuit.

Do you believe the federal government should enforce the immigration law as it stands, yes or no?

I'm not going to bother answering any of your other questions until you answer this one.

Then you can quit the thread now, because this is not about whether or not the Feds are enforcing the law as they are supposed to be doing. It doesn't matter if they are not, it still wouldn't suddenly give states the authority to start enforcing them.

If states feel the Feds aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing, then they can sue the government. However, my (uneducated) guess is such a lawsuit wouldn't get very far, as the courts would say states don't have the standing to sue over immigration (maybe that's already happened?). Otherwise, the only remedies available are to either vote in an administration that will strictly enforce all the laws (now why didn't Bush do that?), or get Congress to enact Constitutional amendments that allow the states to handle immigration (which has no chance in hell of happening).

[duke o' york]

So is freedom of speech.

Oh wait, you live in England, you don't have freedom of speech. Pardon me.

I don't believe that freedom of speech is illegal.

Oh wait, you don't have sensible beliefs. Pardon me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then you can quit the thread now, because this is not about whether or not the Feds are enforcing the law as they are supposed to be doing. It doesn't matter if they are not, it still wouldn't suddenly give states the authority to start enforcing them.

Don't care, Boris. It's not a hard question. Do you believe that the federal government ought to enforce the law as it is worded?

For all the bluster, not one person has been able to successfully answer this question. It's a simple yes or no question Boris.

You may believe that the two have nothing to do with one another, or, more likely, you don't want to be exposed.

Here's my argument. Unless you answer the question, this is what I'm am going to say that you believe. Boris, you believe that immigration should be completely unregulated. You don't believe that anyone who wishes to enter America should be turned away, and that those who commit crimes in the united states should not be deported.

Of course you don't believe the states should enforce the immigration laws, because you don't believe anyone should enforce them.

Have I got you pegged, Boris?

It's pointless to discuss this issue with you Boris, because whether the state or the federal government is involved is irrelevant. You don't think they should do anything.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't believe that freedom of speech is illegal.

Do you believe that speech should be banned because some people believe it to be offensive?

Constitutionally, there's no justificiation to protect abortion clinics from their critics. If people are permitted to protest, then they should be permitted to protest abortion clinics.

[Boris Godunov]

I'm certainly not dark at all, and I've been pulled over and searched before. In Canada, no less.

Just because they pull you over and search you doesn't necessarily mean they are doing so because they are racist. It could mean that they are looking for a vehicle of your car's description. Pulling people over for breaking the law and searching everyone for their immigration papers isn't racist either, unless you believe that certain races are predisposed to commit crimes.

Just because someone pulled you over once and it wasn't due to racial profiling doesn't mean that racial profiling doesn't exist. Nobody said that every case of someone being pulled over without cause is race-based, that's a dumb strawman.

But people *do* get pulled over due to racial profiling, it's a simple fact. Police officers are subject to the same irrational biases as anyone else when it comes to how they go about their duties.

The Arizona law doesn't require officers to ask everyone for their papers, it requires them to ask people for their papers if they have a "reasonable suspicion" the person is an illegal. It doesn't define what that "reasonable suspicion" would be. What would such a "reasonable suspicion" be? Speeding isn't enough to suspect someone is an illegal, after all. So tell me, what's the "reasonable suspicion?"

[duke o' york]

Well I'm happy for them to protest, but the nature of abortion clinics is such that protesting immediately outside is a breach of the peace and therefore illegal. If you really want to protest, take it to the capitol building.

Anyway, everyone who wants to enter an abortion clinic should have their papers checked, absolutely definitely, because you wouldn't want any illegal immigrants to go into one of your country's abortion clinics would you?

[Boris Godunov]

Don't care, Boris.

And I don't care about your idiotic strawmen, Ben. It's off-topic, pure and simple. You can invent motivations all you want, but it doesn't matter a whit as to whether or not Arizona's law passes Constitutional muster. I realize you only view the law as a tool to impose your personal beliefs on other people, but thankfully our system isn't designed that way.

Asserting it's pointless to discuss the Constitutionality of the Arizona law because I may or may not support Federal enforcement of Federal law is retarded, because even if I didn't want Federal enforcement, that wouldn't magically make Arizona's law valid. Duh.

Since we're impugning motives, I'll just guess the only reason you're concerned about illegal immigration at all is because of your racism against people who aren't white. Ta-da.

Now go away.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just because someone pulled you over once and it wasn't due to racial profiling doesn't mean that racial profiling doesn't exist. Nobody said that every case of someone being pulled over without cause is race-based, that's a dumb strawman.

Just because someone who is a minority is pulled over doesn't mean that they were pulled over because of their race.

But people *do* get pulled over due to racial profiling, it's a simple fact.

How do you define 'racial profiling'? Is pulling a black person over sufficient to qualify as racial profiling?

Police officers are subject to the same irrational biases as anyone else when it comes to how they go about their duties.

And so are Polytubbies subject to irrational biases about the police force.

The Arizona law doesn't require officers to ask everyone for their papers, it requires them to ask people for their papers if they have a "reasonable suspicion" the person is an illegal.

Wow another lie. All the Arizona law says is that someone who is getting pulled over for breaking a law, traffic or otherwise, will be asked to show their papers. That's it. Here's the key. Obey the laws and you don't get pulled over.

It doesn't define what that "reasonable suspicion" would be. What would such a "reasonable suspicion" be? Speeding isn't enough to suspect someone is an illegal, after all. So tell me, what's the "reasonable suspicion?"

Speeding is sufficient evidence. Breaking any traffic law gives the police grounds to investigate further, to pull you over and request your papers.

You'd be shocked at the proportion of cars which are driven by unlicensed drivers, and an inability to obey the rules of the road is a common characteristic of unlicensed drivers.

[DinoDoc]

It doesn't define what that "reasonable suspicion" would be. What would such a "reasonable suspicion" be? Speeding isn't enough to suspect someone is an illegal, after all. So tell me, what's the "reasonable suspicion?"

Reasonable suspicion is a concept that has been in US law since 1968. Someone bloviating about preemption should know about the concept.