100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Federal Judge Rips Pres. Obama's Lawsuit Against Arizona PHOENIX -- A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement. "Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R). Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative. "How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?" At issue in Thursday's hearing, argued in a tan-colored "special proceedings" courtroom" inside the federal courthouse, was whether Bolton would grant a preliminary injunction to stop the law from taking effect while the federal lawsuit proceeds. As dozens of protesters marched outside, the hearing marked the first round in the Obama administration's effort to stop the state's crackdown on illegal immigration. The tension in the courtroom reflected a broader national debate over what has become a political divisive issue: whether police should have the power to question people they suspect are in the United States illegally. For the rest of the story>http://www.thefoxnation.com/arizona-immigration-law/2010/07/23/federal-judge-rips-pres-obamas-lawsuit-against-arizona According to Obummer, Pestosi and Holer, it's unconstitutional to enforce Federal Law. If that be the case, States shouldn't be arresting Federal criminals such as, Bank robbers, child molesters, kidnappers or murderers. You left out Dirty Harry Reid and Robert Fibbs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You didn't answer my questions. I didnt see any question except,,, 'Where's the problem?' That is the question I addressed. the other points were valid,, CRIMINALS (illegal immigration is criminal) should have the rules and consequences applied equally (wherever they are from and whatever they look like) Those wishing to live in America should learn the dominant language and learn to flourish in the culture,, just as AMericans would have to do if wanting to live in France or Italy, or any other country. Americans do want their country back, but they just have different opinions about what can and cant be done, and what should or shouldnt be done to accomplish that because most of them are hyped up on emotion without considering LOGIC and REASON. Ya know, if we wanted to, we could make ANY law all about profiling. Nowhere in SB 1070 does it say ANYTHING about race. (You should know this, as YOU read the bill). If I (as a white male) were to be driving through a black neighborhood, I WOULD/have been stopped, searched and questioned. It was interesting trying to explain to the police that I was delivering PIZZA. Is that an example of racial profiling? YES But that's OK because I'm white. It DOES happen to ALL of us You were stopped for driving through a black neighborhood? ,,thats an interesting charge,,, is that how the officer explained it? were there black drivers stopped as well? was there a problem with drug sells in this neighborhood?,,,,,those would be interesting answers to have and would possibly justify the stop beyond just your race,,, in any case, because something HAPPENS still does not make it right or something we should ignore or shoot for... Yes, I was stopped for being in a black neighborhood. The cop told me that he wanted to know why a "white boy" was in a black neighborhood and what I was doing there. He then called for back up and they searched my car for drugs, they found nothing but a couple insulated pizza carriers. They then told me that they didn't want to see me in that area again. They didn't/won't harass black drivers in that area. "That would be racial profiling". But again, I'm white so it's OK. We ALL know that whites no NOTHING about racial profiling. seems as if you encountered a racist cop then, and should have reported him if that was all there was to it. Its probably not true that in a black neighborhood where drugs is apparently an issue that they would not be also stopping black drivers. But in a free country, your race has nothing to do with where you can travel legally and this cop should have been reported for harassment, but few people question the motives of cops. also, I never stated that whites have no experience with profiling, my point was just that profiling should not be permitted on mere grounds of race or ethnicity. Just for example. If I were to be in Mexico, I would be subject to the SAME laws that WE are trying to enforce here in america. That IS racial profiling. Weather you admit it or not, racial profiling IS a fact of life for ALL races, in all countrys. We DO agree that it IS WRONG, but it is a FACT of life. It just seems like to me you're trying so hard to find something to disagree with MSharmony on when in fact you both are on the same page. Actually you got that one backwards. |
|
|
|
|
