Monday, May 31, 2010

THE ORIGINAL MOVEMENT WAS A LIBERTARIAN ONE and Ron Paul is its real leader but the Tea Party has been hijacked by the Necons representred by G Beck and S Palin Santorum reagan neocon
My lawyer
advised me to say if asked if a person is illegal is to just no "I DON"T KNOW".
This law does NOT superceede your 5th Admendment rights. Is that right Mr
If the sb1070 immigration law from Arizona a mirror from a federal law, why they had to make a new law?

instead of enforcing the federal one?
And
is there something new that was added in the sb1070 that is not in the federal law? then it will not be a mirror?
Attorneys on Thursday filed the first lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a controversial new Arizona law that makes it a crime in the state to lack proper immigration papers and requires local police to determine whether people are in the country legally.
The federal lawsuit, filed by the National Coalition of... Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, alleged that the law improperly intruded into the federal government's ability to regulate immigration. The complaint seeks an injunction to keep the law, signed last week by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, from going into effect this summer.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700028422/First-lawsuit-filed-to-challenge-Arizona-immigration-law.html "The national clergy felt it was time to move immediately," attorney Ben Miranda said at a news conference outside the federal courthouse in Phoenix. "There's a need to calm fears that are out there."
The groups that overturned Proposition 187, California's 1994 anti-illegal-immigrant initiative, in federal court were scheduled to announce later ... See MoreThursday their intentions to sue to block the Arizona law.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Immigration Law Center also were set to announce in Phoenix on Thursday plans to challenge the measure. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said this week that he was considering a possible legal challenge to the law.
THE ORIGINAL MOVEMENT WAS A LIBERTARIAN ONE and Ron Paul is its real leader but the Tea Party has been hijacked by the Necons representred by G Beck and S Palin

If the sb1070 immigration law from Arizona a mirror from a federal law, why they had to make a new law?

instead of enforcing the federal one?
And
is there something new that was added in the sb1070 that is not in the federal law? then it will not be a mirror?

RON PAUL :
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.

Rand Paul: The Civil Rights Act is “settled law”. “I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was s...ettled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not supportany efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”
RON PAUL : The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.Rand Paul: The Civil Rights Act is “settled law”. “I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was s......ettled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not supportany efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”

Sunday, May 30, 2010

" In
addition to the absurdity of aligning undocumented status with state
trespassing, the law also validates racial profiling as a legitimate law
enforcement tool which is precisely the reason why individuals and businesses
around the country are beginning to seriously question whether Arizona is a safe
place to visit...,.. live, or do business. The bill also creates a private
right of action for any person to sue a city, town, or county for not enforcing
immigration laws to the full extent of federal law and it establishes civil
penalties for the city, town, or county. This subjects local governments to
unreasonable and potentially frivolous litigation by private citizens with an
anti-immigrant agenda. Even if a municipality is vindicated in court, it will
still have to incur the costs of defense." JACOB J. SAPOCHNICK "Local law enforcement officers have and always have had the
"inherent authority" to enforce immigration laws, including the authority to investigate " >>> Eventually, subsidiarly, yes, but NOW they are under a MANDATE. This mandate means "legislating" and it is unconstituional. Arizona police department was turned into a Department of Immigration... See More !
They are violating the Constitution and shifting the problem to other states. Supporters don't realize it, but this law erodes Constitutional rights for everyone because if it stands, who's next??? (MF)
'The problem with letting states handle immigration is that they could handle it differently. You could have an immigrant who is an illegal immigrant in Arizona, a legal resident ...in New Mexico and a US citizen in Texas. For this reason, immigration matters are the domain of the federal government. This is the only w......ay for the US to speak with one voice when it comes to immigration.'
"The truth is SB1070 does not exactly mirror federal law. There are three very dangerous deviations. Page 1, lines 24-25 charges peace officers with requesting proof of legal residence if there is “reasonable suspicion.” that the person in question may be in Arizona illegally. This section goes on to require that, when proof is supplied, the person detained shall remain so until that proof is verified by a federal agency. This means a person legally traveling through our state could be detained for hours or days until the proper authorities can be contacted and, of course, the “reasonable suspicion” wording is the thing that is so onerous to all of you.Page 8,line 45 through page 9, line 2 allows for anyone to make an “anonymous complaint” to a peace officer concerning the legality of anyone else. In this country we have the right to face our accuser but, unless contested, this section of SB1070 takes away that constitutional right within the state of Arizona.The most troubling of all is the section on page2, line 44 through page 3, line 9. This requires any peace officer to investigate any person accused by another person (openly or anonymously) or face a lawsuit . I spoke to a deputy state attorney today who told me this is the only law of which he has knowledge that not only allows but encourages the general public to sue a cop."

--Kathy Cooper
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)[1], was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"The critics of the new Arizona law are right. The core problem with the obligation to investigate that it places on state and local officials is that, in most settings, there are very few if any outwardly visible signs of immigration status that could give rise to reasonable suspicion. That will be true regardless of ......whether the officials act ... See Moreon expressly-articulated grounds or on the basis of a hunch informed by unarticulated grounds. Thus, whatever one thinks of how "reasonable suspicion" has been defined in the federal Fourth Amendment context, its use in the Arizona law is problematic.
Michael C. Dorf is the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)[1], was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"The critics of the new Arizona law are right. The core problem with the obligation to investigate that it places on state and local officials is that, in most settings, there are very few if any outwardly visible signs of immigration status that could give rise to reasonable suspicion. That will be true regardless of ......whether the officials act ... See Moreon expressly-articulated grounds or on the basis of a hunch informed by unarticulated grounds. Thus, whatever one thinks of how "reasonable suspicion" has been defined in the federal Fourth Amendment context, its use in the Arizona law is problematic.
Michael C. Dorf is the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University
"Local law enforcement officers have and always have had the
"inherent authority" to enforce immigration laws, including the authority to investigate " >>> Eventually, subsidiarly, yes, but NOW they are under a MANDATE. This mandate means "legislating" and it is unconstituional. Arizona police department was turned into a Department of Immigration... See More !
They are violating the Constitution and shifting the problem to other states. Supporters don't realize it, but this law erodes Constitutional rights for everyone because if it stands, who's next??? (MF)
'The problem with letting states handle immigration is that they could handle it differently. You could have an immigrant who is an illegal immigrant in Arizona, a legal resident ...in New Mexico and a US citizen in Texas. For this reason, immigration matters are the domain of the federal government. This is the only w......ay for the US to speak with one voice when it comes to immigration.'
"The truth is SB1070 does not exactly mirror federal law. There are three very dangerous deviations. Page 1, lines 24-25 charges peace officers with requesting proof of legal residence if there is “reasonable suspicion.” that the person in question may be in Arizona illegally. This section goes on to require that, when proof is supplied, the person detained shall remain so until that proof is verified by a federal agency. This means a person legally traveling through our state could be detained for hours or days until the proper authorities can be contacted and, of course, the “reasonable suspicion” wording is the thing that is so onerous to all of you.Page 8,line 45 through page 9, line 2 allows for anyone to make an “anonymous complaint” to a peace officer concerning the legality of anyone else. In this country we have the right to face our accuser but, unless contested, this section of SB1070 takes away that constitutional right within the state of Arizona.The most troubling of all is the section on page2, line 44 through page 3, line 9. This requires any peace officer to investigate any person accused by another person (openly or anonymously) or face a lawsuit . I spoke to a deputy state attorney today who told me this is the only law of which he has knowledge that not only allows but encourages the general public to sue a cop."

--Kathy Cooper

'The strong message that the Justice Department representatives delivered at the private meetings – first with Goddard, then with Brewer's staff – left little doubt that the Obama administration is prepared to go to court if necessary in a bid to block the new law, which takes effect July 29.Goddard said he noted that ...five privately filed lawsuits already are pending in federal court to challenge the law."Every possible argument is being briefed," said Goddard, who is running unopposed for his party's nomination for the governor's race.Brewer, who is seeking re-election, later said in a statement that her legal team told the Justice Department officials that the law would be "vigorously defended all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary." The Huffington Post


Justice L. Phillips Runyon III of the Jaffrey District Court, ruled the measures violated the constitutional protections of the immigrants. He said in his ruling “The criminal charges against the defendants are unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of immigration violations, an area where Con...gress must be deemed to have regulated with such civil sanctions and criminal penalties as it feels are sufficient.” The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They are violating the Constitution and shifting the problem to other states. Supporters don't realize it, but this law erodes Constitutional rights for everyone because if it stands, who's next???
(MF)"Local law enforcement officers have and always have had the
"inherent authority" to enforce immigration laws, including the authority to investigate " >>> Eventually, subsidiarly, yes, but NOW they are under a MANDATE. This mandate means "legislating" and it is unconstituional. Arizona police department was turned into a Department of Immigration... See More !
They are violating the Constitution and shifting the problem to other states. Supporters don't realize it, but this law erodes Constitutional rights for everyone because if it stands, who's next??? (MF)
'The problem with letting states handle immigration is that they could handle it differently. You could have an immigrant who is an illegal immigrant in Arizona, a legal resident ...in New Mexico and a US citizen in Texas. For this reason, immigration matters are the domain of the federal government. This is the only w......ay for the US to speak with one voice when it comes to immigration.'
"The truth is SB1070 does not exactly mirror federal law. There are three very dangerous deviations. Page 1, lines 24-25 charges peace officers with requesting proof of legal residence if there is “reasonable suspicion.” that the person in question may be in Arizona illegally. This section goes on to require that, when proof is supplied, the person detained shall remain so until that proof is verified by a federal agency. This means a person legally traveling through our state could be detained for hours or days until the proper authorities can be contacted and, of course, the “reasonable suspicion” wording is the thing that is so onerous to all of you.Page 8,line 45 through page 9, line 2 allows for anyone to make an “anonymous complaint” to a peace officer concerning the legality of anyone else. In this country we have the right to face our accuser but, unless contested, this section of SB1070 takes away that constitutional right within the state of Arizona.The most troubling of all is the section on page2, line 44 through page 3, line 9. This requires any peace officer to investigate any person accused by another person (openly or anonymously) or face a lawsuit . I spoke to a deputy state attorney today who told me this is the only law of which he has knowledge that not only allows but encourages the general public to sue a cop."

--Kathy Cooper

PHOENIX Justice Department officials told Arizona's attorney general and aides to the governor Friday that the federal government has serious reservations about the state's new immigration law. They responded that a lawsuit against the state isn't the answer.
"I told them we need solutions from Washington, not more lawsuits," said Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat.
The Justice Department initiated separate meetings by phone and face-to-face in Phoenix with Goddard and aides to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer to reach out to Arizona's leaders and elicit information from state officials regarding the Obama administration's concerns about the new law.
The strong message that the Justice Department representatives delivered at the private meetings – first with Goddard, then with Brewer's staff – left little doubt that the Obama administration is prepared to go to court if necessary in a bid to block the new law, which takes effect July 29.
Goddard said he noted that five privately filed lawsuits already are pending in federal court to challenge the law.
"Every possible argument is being briefed," said Goddard, who is running unopposed for his party's nomination for the governor's race.
Brewer, who is seeking re-election, later said in a statement that her legal team told the Justice Department officials that the law would be "vigorously defended all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary."
The department officials, Brewer said, "were advised that I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the state of Arizona."
Key provisions of the sweeping law include a requirement that police enforcing any other law question people about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the people are in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
Stop the war in Iraq and put some troops on the border. Bush was more interested in Iraq and spent two trillion dollars to kill Saddam Hussein, stop demagogy, the same false argument, the same false dilemma, Bush's wars or pro terrorism, Arizona Law or pro illegal immigration. Enough is enough. Stop demagogy. Immigration is a federal responsibility in terms of legislation and enforcement. AZ law is unconstituional. This law --this state law--does not mirror the federal law Sheriff Dupnik told Nunez that SB 1070 would force his deputies to adopt racial profiling as an enforcement tactic, which Dupnik says could also get him sued. "So we're kind of in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. It's just a stupid law."

Senate says no to 6,000 border troops - Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com
Democrats managed to block deployment of the National Guard to the Mexico border, but the proposal still garnered a majority, showing widespread support for strong border security and underscoring why Obama will struggle to win an immigration-legalization bill.
To the surprise of no one, John McCain, - the loser - is using Arizona's immigration woes for political gain. He is now running commercials touting Jon Kyl's and his immigration proposal. He blames the Obama administration for Arizona's problems. What an opportunistic jerk!
Obama Administration Signals Lawsuit Over Arizona Immigration Law

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Volunteers recruited to help in oil spill threat us.cnn.com
Efforts to minimize the damage from the huge oil spill from a rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico are under way, but wildlife conservation groups say the oil could pose a disaster for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida coastal areas.
Louisana Gov. Jindal blasts Obama inaction, moves on sand booms « Obama « Back to Basics
Galatians 3:28 : "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"Thats funny I'm a hillybilly redneck and I am far from Simpleton nor am I ignorant. Stereotyping is wrong if the states do it but ok for you to hmmm speaking with forked tounge
The U.S. Constitution protects EVERYONE, undocumented or not, from unlawful search and seizure, unlawful detention or arrests
The FRY (Slobodan is My Bitich) and Bosnia and Herzegovina recognize each other and agree to discuss further aspects of their mutual recognition;
The parties agree to fully respect and promote fulfillment of the commitments made in the various annexes, and they obligate themselves to respect human rights and the rights ...of refugees and displaced persons; and
The parties agree to cooperate fully with all entities, including those authorized by the United Nations Security Council, in implementing the peace settlement and investigating and prosecuting war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law -- Dayton Agreement
Albanian poet Ibrahim Rugova, the pacifist leader of Kosovo's Albanians, called the “Albanian Gandhi” or the “Gandhi of the Balkans”, published a number of works on literary theory, criticism and history as well as his own poetry, he was the first president of KosovoCivil war against Universal Health Care Insurance Coverage. Republicans, the shame of humanity
To the surprise of no one, John McCain, - the loser - is using Arizona's immigration woes for political gain. He is now running commercials touting Jon Kyl's and his immigration proposal. He blames the Obama administration for Arizona's problems. What an opportunistic jerk!

Sheriff Dupnik told Nunez that SB 1070 would force his deputies to adopt racial profiling as an enforcement tactic, which Dupnik says could also get him sued. "So we're kind of in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. It's just a stupid law."
The U.S. Constitution protects EVERYONE, undocumented or not, from unlawful search and seizure, unlawful detention or arrests
The FRY (Slobodan is My Bitich) and Bosnia and Herzegovina recognize each other and agree to discuss further aspects of their mutual recognition;
The parties agree to fully respect and promote fulfillment of the commitments made in the various annexes, and they obligate themselves to respect human rights and the rights ...of refugees and displaced persons; and
The parties agree to cooperate fully with all entities, including those authorized by the United Nations Security Council, in implementing the peace settlement and investigating and prosecuting war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law -- Dayton Agreement
Albanian poet Ibrahim Rugova, the pacifist leader of Kosovo's Albanians, called the “Albanian Gandhi” or the “Gandhi of the Balkans”, published a number of works on literary theory, criticism and history as well as his own poetry, he was the first president of KosovoCivil war against Universal Health Care Insurance Coverage. Republicans, the shame of humanity BP engineers failed again to plug a gushing oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, representing yet another setback in a series of unsuccessful procedures.Latest Attempt by BP to Plug Oil Leak in Gulf of Mexico FailBP engineers failed again to plug a gushing oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, representing yet another setback in a series of unsuccessful procedures.It doesnt matter Arizona was Mexican territory for 300 hundred years
"During World War II, while a German American hero and future president -- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower -- led the allied forces in Europe, this country put Japanese Americans in detention camps. That outrage was wrong. We destroyed lives and undermined the very fabric of our Constitution.

We did so under the guise that we......... were at war and in crisis. But it is precisely at such times that we must take extra measures to safeguard our rights, our freedoms and our nation.

Instead, America took away the constitutional rights of citizens -- a shameful overreach of the government.

The Arizona immigration law reminds us of how fear and distrust can lead to bad laws and even more government overreach into the private sector and our private lives."

Why conservatives should oppose Arizona's immigration law
By Connie Mack


2) "Local law enforcement officers have and always have had the
"inherent authority" to enforce immigration laws, including the authority to investigate " >>> Eventually, subsidiarly, yes, but NOW they are under a MANDATE. This mandate means "legislating" and it is unconstituional. Arizona police department was turned into a Department of Immigration !
They are violating the Constitution and shifting the problem to other states. Supporters don't realize it, but this law erodes Constitutional rights for everyone because if it stands, who's next??? (MF)
'The problem with letting states handle immigration is that they could handle it differently. You could have an immigrant who is an illegal immigrant in Arizona, a legal resident ...in New Mexico and a US citizen in Texas. For this reason, immigration matters are the domain of the federal government. This is the only way for the US to speak with one voice when it comes to immigration.'
"The critics of the new Arizona law are right. The core problem with the obligation to investigate that it places on state and local officials is that, in most settings, there are very few if any outwardly visible signs of immigration status that could give rise to reasonable suspicion. That will be true regardless of ...whether the officials act ... See Moreon expressly-articulated grounds or on the basis of a hunch informed by unarticulated grounds. Thus, whatever one thinks of how "reasonable suspicion" has been defined in the federal Fourth Amendment context, its use in the Arizona law is problematic.
Michael C. Dorf is the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University ."1) SB 1071 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it defines trespassing differently for aliens than it does for citizens.

2) "Local law enforcement officers have and always have had the
"inherent authority" to enforce immigration laws, including the authority to investigate " >>> Eventually, subsidiarly, yes, but NOW they are under a MANDATE. This mandate means "legislating" and it is unconstituional. Arizona police department was turned into a Department of Immigration !
... See More
They are violating the Constitution and shifting the problem to other states. Supporters don't realize it, but this law erodes Constitutional rights for everyone because if it stands, who's next??? (MF)
'The problem with letting states handle immigration is that they could handle it differently. You could have an immigrant who is an illegal immigrant in Arizona, a legal resident ...in New Mexico and a US citizen in Texas. For this reason, immigration matters are the domain of the federal government. This is the only w......ay for the US to speak with one voice when it comes to immigration.'

"The critics of the new Arizona law are right. The core problem with the obligation to investigate that it places on state and local officials is that, in most settings, there are very few if any outwardly visible signs of immigration status that could give rise to reasonable suspicion. That will be true regardless of ...whether the officials act ... See Moreon expressly-articulated grounds or on the basis of a hunch informed by unarticulated grounds. Thus, whatever one thinks of how "reasonable suspicion" has been defined in the federal Fourth Amendment context, its use in the Arizona law is problematic.
Michael C. Dorf is the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University ."
Benjamin Robert Robert Lippincott
Thanks Arizona, always nice to see you can divide the nation at a time when we need... to come together.
NOGALES, Ariz. (AP) — Assistant Police Chief Roy Bermudez shakes his head and smiles when he hears politicians and pundits declaring that Mexican cartel violence is overrunning his Arizona border town. "During World War II, while a German American hero and future president -- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower -- led the allied forces in Europe, this country put Japanese Americans in detention camps. That outrage was wrong. We destroyed lives and undermined the very fabric of our Constitution.

We did so under the guise that we...... were at war and in crisis. But it is precisely at such times that we must take extra measures to safeguard our rights, our freedoms and our nation.

Instead, America took away the constitutional rights of citizens -- a shameful overreach of the government.

The Arizona immigration law reminds us of how fear and distrust can lead to bad laws and even more government overreach into the private sector and our private lives."

Why conservatives should oppose Arizona's immigration law
By Connie Mack
Michael Gray : There are Undocumented Immigrants of all races living in Arizona but I find it funny that the people who are being targetted are the ones that look like the people they stole Arizona from in the first place. "The critics of the new Arizona law are right. The core problem with the obligation to investigate that it places on state and local officials is that, in most settings, there are very few if any outwardly visible signs of immigration status that could give rise to reasonable suspicion. That will be true regardless of ...whether the officials act ... See Moreon expressly-articulated grounds or on the basis of a hunch informed by unarticulated grounds. Thus, whatever one thinks of how "reasonable suspicion" has been defined in the federal Fourth Amendment context, its use in the Arizona law is problematic.
Michael C. Dorf is the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University ."
"During World War II, while a German American hero and future president -- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower -- led the allied forces in Europe, this country put Japanese Americans in detention camps. That outrage was wrong. We destroyed lives and undermined the very fabric of our Constitution.

We did so under the guise that we...... were at war and in crisis. But it is precisely at such times that we must take extra measures to safeguard our rights, our freedoms and our nation.

Instead, America took away the constitutional rights of citizens -- a shameful overreach of the government.

The Arizona immigration law reminds us of how fear and distrust can lead to bad laws and even more government overreach into the private sector and our private lives."

Why conservatives should oppose Arizona's immigration law
By Connie MackAssistant Police Chief Roy Bermudez shakes his head and smiles when he hears politicians and pundits declaring that Mexican cartel violence is overrunning his Arizona border town.
Mexican law is not our paradigma, our paradigma is our Constitution, immigration is a civil infraction, and a federal responsbility in terms of legisaltioin and enforcement Pima County's top lawman says he has no intention of enforcing Arizona's controversial crackdown on illegal immigration. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik calls SB 1070 "racist," "disgusting," and "unnecessary."
Speaking Tuesday morning with KGUN9's Steve Nunez, Dupnik made it clear that while he will not comply with the provisio......ns of the new law, nor will he let illegal immigrants go free. "We're going to keep doing what we've been doing all along," Dupnik said. "We're going to stop and detain these people for the Border Patrol."
The sheriff acknowledged that this course of action could get him hauled into court. SB 1070 allows citizens to sue any law enforcement official who doesn't comply with the law. But Dupnik told Nunez that SB 1070 would force his deputies to adopt racial profiling as an enforcement tactic, which Dupnik says could also get him sued. "So we're kind of in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. It's just a stupid law."
and we stolen the 13 colonies from GB As Arizona was stolen from American Indians, will the police be hassling anyone without an Indian appearance?To the surprise of no one, John McCain, - the loser - is using Arizona's immigration woes for political gain. He is now running commercials touting Jon Kyl's and his immigration proposal. He blames the Obama administration for Arizona's problems. What an opportunistic jerk!Mexican law is not our paradigma, our paradigma is our Constitution, immigration is a civil infraction, and a federal responsbility in terms of legisaltioin and enforcement
Arizona Law was made by rednecks and hillbillies, in other words, simpleton and ignorant people

Arizona Law was made by rednecks and hillbillies, in other words, simpleton and ignorant people
Mexican law is not our paradigma, our paradigma is our Constitution, immigration is a civil infraction, and a federal responsbility in terms of legisaltioin and enforcement Well, We had a civil war fought against our own people. Should a country which has fought its own people and won a victory celebrate the victory.
So what ? Whats you point ? 1) SB 1071 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it defines trespassing differently for aliens than it does for citizens.

2) "Local law enforcement officers have and always have had the
"inherent authority" to enforce immigration laws, including the authority to investigate " >>> Eventually, subsidiarly, yes, but NOW they are unde...r a MANDATE. This mandate means "legislating" and it is unconstituional. Arizona police department was turned into a Department of Immigration !
They are violating the Constitution and shifting the problem to other states. Supporters don't realize it, but this law erodes Constitutional rights for everyone because if it stands, who's next??? (MF) Benjamin Robert Robert Lippincott
Thanks Arizona, always nice to see you can divide the nation at a time when we need... to come together.
As Arizona was stolen from American Indians, will the police be hassling anyone without an Indian appearance?
"Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he
believes right, but it takes a slightly better man to acknowledge
instantly and without reservation that he is in error."
-- Andrew
Jackson, who defeated the British at Battle of New Orleans in War of 1812Volunteers recruited to help in oil spill threat us.cnn.com
Efforts to minimize the damage from the huge oil spill from a rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico are under way, but wildlife conservation groups say the oil could pose a disaster for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida coastal areas.
AZ law is uncosntitutional. Immigration is a federal resposablity in terms of legislation and enforcement. They are shitifing the problem to other states and violatnig the Constitution. Bush was more interested in Iraq and spent two trillion dollars to kill saddam Hussein, stop demagogy the same false argument the same false dilemma. Bushs wars or pro terorism AZ law or pro illegal immigration This law --this state law--does not mirror the federal law Mexican law is not our paradigma, our paradigma is our Constitution, immigration is a civil infraction, and a federal responsbility in terms of legisaltioin and enforcement
Former GOP Candidate Charlie Crist Out; Tea Partier Marco Rubio is endorsed by J Bush

Rand Paul :"I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation," Paul said in the statement. "Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state... that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005512-503544.html

Pima County's top lawman says he has no intention of enforcing Arizona's controversial crackdown on illegal immigration. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik calls SB 1070 "racist," "disgusting," and "unnecessary."
Speaking Tuesday morning with KGUN9's Steve Nunez, Dupnik made it clear that while he will not comply with the provisio...ns of the new law, nor will he let illegal immigrants go free. "We're going to keep doing what we've been doing all along," Dupnik said. "We're going to stop and detain these people for the Border Patrol."
The sheriff acknowledged that this course of action could get him hauled into court. SB 1070 allows citizens to sue any law enforcement official who doesn't comply with the law. But Dupnik told Nunez that SB 1070 would force his deputies to adopt racial profiling as an enforcement tactic, which Dupnik says could also get him sued. "So we're kind of in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. It's just a stupid law."
Mexican law is not our paradigma, our paradigma is our Constitution, immigration is a civil infraction, and a federal responsbility in terms of legisaltioin and enforcement
A little history:
"Although the popularity of Prop 187 helped to lead
Wilson to victory, the measure was subsequently ruled to be
unconstitutional. Wilson's campaign against immigration has often been
credited with building a substantial and durable Democratic majority in
...California and has been repudiated by later Republican leaders such as
George W. Bush."
BRYAN BUTLER : So now let's count the way SB1070 is unconstitutional. Let's
ignore the obvious for a minute. Commerce Clause and Full Faith and Credit are
good ones. Since only Arizona docs are enumerated as proof of citizenship,
out-of-staters are required by Az to carry proofs their own states do not
require. This is...... a barrier ...to commerce. No state law interfereing with
interstate commerce has been upheld by the Supreme Court since the 19th century.
Been a while since taking Con Law, but think I'll count every way this statute
violates the consitution. They are violating the Constitution and shifting the problem to other states. Supporters don't realize it, but this law erodes Constitutional rights for everyone because if it stands, who's next??? (MF)
Thanks Arizona, always nice to see you can divide the nation at a time when we need to come together. BRRL Obama on Memorial Day: honor vets & their families.

Obama: Honor Memorial Day by Caring for Those in Uniform and Families of Vets U.N. Official To Call For End Of CIA Drone Strikes : NPR
www.npr.org
A U.N. official next week will ask the United States to stop allowing the CIA to carry out drone attacks on suspected militants. The U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions says the use of the drones and their firepower should be restricted to the armed forces.Latest Attempt by BP to Plug Oil Leak in Gulf of Mexico Fails - NYTimes.com
www.nytimes.comThey are violating the Constitution and shifting the problem to other states. Supporters don't realize it, but this law erodes Constitutional rights for everyone because if it stands, who's next??? (MF)
Thanks Arizona, always nice to see you can divide the nation at a time when we need to come together. BRRL
Mexican law is not our paradigma, our paradigma is our Constitution, immigration is a civil infraction, and a federal responsbility in terms of legisaltioin and enforcement

Thursday, May 27, 2010

What the people who point to the rules ignore...is that when their parents and grandparents came to the United States they in fact did exactly what so-called 'illegal' immigrants are doing today. They decided to make the journey, and they did...Between 1880 and World War I, about 25 million Europeans immigrated to the ...
.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness - From "Declaration of Independence
USA" MORETTI
.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness - From "Declaration of Independence
USA"
The U.S. Constitution protects EVERYONE, undocumented or not, from unlawful search and seizure, unlawful detention or arres
"In United States v. Montero-Camargo (208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disregarded the contrary language in Brignoni-Ponce and held that the Border Patrol cannot lawfully consider "Hispanic appearance" in deciding to make an immigration stop. The court based its h...olding on that fact that... "... Hispanic appearance" is a weak proxy for immigration status. It also relied on the fact that under the current interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has made it clear in recent years that all racial classifications are constitutionally suspect. (See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (invalidating a program using racial classifications in an effort to increase government contracting with minority businesses) The Lawfulness of Race Profiling in Immigration Law Enforcement In Brignoni-Ponce (422 U.S. 873, 885-87 (1975)), the Supreme Court held that an immigration stop by the Border Patrol violated the Fourth Amendment because Border Patrol officers relied exclusively on "the apparent Mexican ancestry" of the occupants of an automobile" Kevin
e Lawfulness of Race Profiling in Immigration Law Enforcement In Brignoni-Ponce (422 U.S. 873, 885-87 (1975)), the Supreme Court held that an immigration stop by the Border Patrol violated the Fourth Amendment because Border Patrol officers relied exclusively on "the apparent Mexican ancestry" of the occupants of an automobile" Kevin Steve Moretta Bad laws are the worst form of Tyranny. Edmund Burke

Alan Rogers : I will continue to criticize Arizona's new xenophobic immigration law. Immigration is a complex issue, but it's also a federal responsibility and when you start mentioning states rights it can bring up some rather ugly memories of Jim Crow laws. The borders do need to be secure, but at the same time immigration reform is needed.Gary Scotti : We are all only a few generations away from being immigrants ourselves! Illegal immigration is a late 20th Century concept. Our Great Grandparents just came. There were no laws or quotas. Many never learned the language or made any attempt to assimililate; like my Great Grandparents from Sicily. They were targets or prejudice and abuse, too. What makes them different from the current immigrants? Nothing! Stop being so hypocritical, America >>>>> Pilgrims came to America and decided to make it their own, eventhough there were people already living here

To those who spew racist remarks and invective at our President and his sympathizers for securing our borders with the National Guard and $500,000,000: This is exactly why we cannot trust people of bigoted ilk and intolerance with influence over our laws. Intolerance, bigotry, and racism are never good attributes for...!"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up." NIEMOLLER
Patrick Nichols : Judges
only deport illegal immigrants with felony convictions,
otherwise they are released so they can have a hearing. Guess what ,
judges at every level are required to follow federal law , and you can
cry and whine all day trolls , but you can't change that. Arizona the only state to criminalize the pre...sence of illegal immigrants



"The truth is SB1070 does not exactly mirror federal law. There are three very dangerous deviations. Page 1, lines 24-25 charges peace officers with requesting proof of legal residence if there is “reasonable suspicion... See More... See More” that the person in question may be in Arizona illegally. This section goes on to require that, when proof is supplied, the person detained shall remain so until that proof is verified by a federal agency. This means a person legally traveling through our state could be detained for hours or days until the proper authorities can be contacted and, of course, the “reasonable suspicion” wording is the thing that is so onerous to all of you.Page 8,line 45 through page 9, line 2 allows for anyone to make an “anonymous complaint” to a peace officer concerning the legality of anyone else. In this country we have the right to face our accuser but, unless contested, this section of SB1070 takes away that constitutional right within the state of Arizona.The most troubling of all is the section on page2, line 44 through page 3, line 9. This requires any peace officer to investigate any person accused by another person (openly or anonymously) or face a lawsuit . I spoke to a deputy state attorney today who told me this is the only law of which he has knowledge that not only allows but encourages the general public to sue a cop."

--Kathy Cooper (see Kathy’s entire post at
The ones for this law= redneck, hillbilly, hicks Pilgrims came to America and decided to make it their own, eventhough there were people already living here

Justice L. Phillips Runyon III of the Jaffrey District Court, ruled the measures violated the constitutional protections of the immigrants. He said in his ruling “The criminal charges against the defendants are unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of immigration violations, an area where Congress must be deemed to have regulated with such civil sanctions and criminal penalties as it feels are sufficient.”

The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.... See More

They are violating the Constitution and shifting the problem to
other states. Supporters don't realize it, but this law erodes Constitutional
rights for everyone because if it stands, who's next???
(MF)
Arizona's law is quintessentially un-American: we are not a 'show me your papers' country, nor one that believes in subjecting people to harassment, investigation and arrest simply because others may perceive them as foreign," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. "This law violat...es the Constitution and interferes with federal law, and we are confident that we will prevent it from ever taking effect." ACLU
"state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws
( Coyotes for example )" Eventually yes, but AZ Law is a mandate !!!!! Arizona police department was turned into a Department of Immigration, this is illegal ! ...Immigration is a federal responsibility in terms of legislation and enforcement. The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict." Wk
Subsidiarly of course, but AZ LAW is a MANDATE "Who ever told you that states are not allowed to enforce to create duplicate ...immigration laws has no basis for their argument." >>> SUPREMACY CLAUSE !!! The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor. Justia Lawyer, Legal Aid & Services Directory: Arizona Criminal Law Lawyers ..."Who ever told you that states are not allowed to enforce to create duplicate ...immigration laws has no basis for their argument." >>> SUPREMACY CLAUSE !!! The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of AppealsBackground

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)[1], was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
What does President Obama need to do to address growing public frustration
over the oil spill? Explore different perspectives in Room for Debate. http://nyti.ms/aovoot

Is It Obama’s Oil Spill Now? - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com nyti.ms

Alan Rogers : I will continue to criticize Arizona's new xenophobic immigration law. Immigration is a complex issue, but it's also a federal responsibility and when you start mentioning states rights it can bring up some rather ugly memories of Jim Crow laws. The borders do need to be secure, but at the same time immigration reform is needed.Gary Scotti : We are all only a few generations away from being immigrants ourselves! Illegal immigration is a late 20th Century concept. Our Great Grandparents just came. There were no laws or quotas. Many never learned the language or made any attempt to assimililate; like my Great Grandparents from Sicily. They were targets or prejudice and abuse, too. What makes them different from the current immigrants? Nothing! Stop being so hypocritical, America >>>>> Pilgrims came to America and decided to make it their own, eventhough there were people already living here

To those who spew racist remarks and invective at our President and his sympathizers for securing our borders with the National Guard and $500,000,000: This is exactly why we cannot trust people of bigoted ilk and intolerance with influence over our laws. Intolerance, bigotry, and racism are never good attributes for...!"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up." NIEMOLLER

'The problem
with letting states handle immigration is that they could handle it differently.
You could have an immigrant who is an illegal immigrant in Arizona, a legal
resident ...in New Mexico and a US citizen in Texas. For this reason,
immigration matters are the domain of the federal government. This is the only
way for the US to speak with one voice when it comes to immigration.' "
Police Chief Thomas Manger of Montgomery County, Md., in suburban Washington said he doesn't have the resources or the desire to enforce federal immigration violations by people who aren't disrupting the community.
"If they're not committing a crime here, frankly, I'm not sure how it enhances public safety to target those people for removal," he said.

"The truth is SB1070 does not exactly mirror federal law. There are three very dangerous deviations. Page 1, lines 24-25 charges peace officers with requesting proof of legal residence if there is “reasonable suspicion... See More... See More” that the person in question may be in Arizona illegally. This section goes on to require that, when proof is supplied, the person detained shall remain so until that proof is verified by a federal agency. This means a person legally traveling through our state could be detained for hours or days until the proper authorities can be contacted and, of course, the “reasonable suspicion” wording is the thing that is so onerous to all of you.Page 8,line 45 through page 9, line 2 allows for anyone to make an “anonymous complaint” to a peace officer concerning the legality of anyone else. In this country we have the right to face our accuser but, unless contested, this section of SB1070 takes away that constitutional right within the state of Arizona.The most troubling of all is the section on page2, line 44 through page 3, line 9. This requires any peace officer to investigate any person accused by another person (openly or anonymously) or face a lawsuit . I spoke to a deputy state attorney today who told me this is the only law of which he has knowledge that not only allows but encourages the general public to sue a cop."

--Kathy Cooper (see Kathy’s entire post at
The ones for this law= redneck, hillbilly, hicks Pilgrims came to America and decided to make it their own, eventhough there were people already living here

Justice L. Phillips Runyon III of the Jaffrey District Court, ruled the measures violated the constitutional protections of the immigrants. He said in his ruling “The criminal charges against the defendants are unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of immigration violations, an area where Congress must be deemed to have regulated with such civil sanctions and criminal penalties as it feels are sufficient.”

The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.... See More

They are violating the Constitution and shifting the problem to
other states. Supporters don't realize it, but this law erodes Constitutional
rights for everyone because if it stands, who's next???
(MF)
Arizona's law is quintessentially un-American: we are not a 'show me your papers' country, nor one that believes in subjecting people to harassment, investigation and arrest simply because others may perceive them as foreign," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. "This law violat...es the Constitution and interferes with federal law, and we are confident that we will prevent it from ever taking effect." ACLU
"state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws
( Coyotes for example )" Eventually yes, but AZ Law is a mandate !!!!! Arizona police department was turned into a Department of Immigration, this is illegal ! ...Immigration is a federal responsibility in terms of legislation and enforcement. The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict." Wk
Subsidiarly of course, but AZ LAW is a MANDATE "Who ever told you that states are not allowed to enforce to create duplicate ...immigration laws has no basis for their argument." >>> SUPREMACY CLAUSE !!! The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor. Justia Lawyer, Legal Aid & Services Directory: Arizona Criminal Law Lawyers ..."Who ever told you that states are not allowed to enforce to create duplicate ...immigration laws has no basis for their argument." >>> SUPREMACY CLAUSE !!! The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of AppealsBackground

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)[1], was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Patrick Nichols Judges
: only deport illegal immigrants with felony convictions,
otherwise they are released so they can have a hearing. Guess what ,
judges at every level are required to follow federal law , and you can
cry and whine all day trolls , but you can't change that. Arizona the only state to criminalize the pre...sence of illegal immigrants
"llegals don’t advertise their immigration status publicly, and while the law specifically prohibits the police from solely considering race, one can imagine the Arizona police won’t be pulling aside many Canadians, Brits or Swedes for this sort of interrogation.
More likely, the criteria for questioning will include bo...th class and race, meaning that if a Mexican-American lawyer walks down the street in a nice business suit, he’s probably okay, but the law-abiding Mexican-American landscaper may get hassled on a daily basis" (ML)

Arizona's law is quintessentially un-American: we are not a 'show me your papers' country, nor one that believes in subjecting people to harassment, investigation and arrest simply because others may perceive them as foreign," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. "This law violat...es the Constitution and interferes with federal law, and we are confident that we will prevent it from ever taking effect." ACLU
They are violating the Constitution and shifting the problem to
other states. Supporters don't realize it, but this law erodes Constitutional
rights for everyone because if it stands, who's next???
(MF)
"as a person's conduct or appearance, the characteristics of the area, the time of day and the experience of the officer."
" ?????????????????????????????
Benefits should be conferred gradually; and in that way they will taste better.
Jamie Weiss : So, what you're saying is, arresting a person who has committed no crime (besides not having their ID while being not white), putting them in jail for some time, and then declaring "hey, they went to jail, but they're technically innocent" makes everything OK? Can I arrest you and put you in jail for a da...y or two and you'd be happy about it, because hey, you're innocent?
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)[1], was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (((((( Justice L. Phillips Runyon III of the ... See MoreJaffrey District Court, ruled the measures violated the constitutional protections of the immigrants. He said in his ruling “The criminal charges against the defendants are unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of immigration violations, an area where Congress must be deemed to have regulated with such civil sanctions and criminal penalties as it feels are sufficient.” ))))((((( "The truth is SB1070 does not exactly mirror federal law. There are three very dangerous deviations. Page 1, lines 24-25 charges peace officers with requesting proof of legal residence if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person in question may be in Arizona illegally. This section goes on to require that, when proof is supplied, the person detained shall remain so until that proof is verified by a federal agency.>>>>>>> This means a person legally traveling through our state could be detained for hours or days until the proper authorities can be contacted and, of course, the “reasonable suspicion” wording is the thing that is so onerous to all of you.Page 8,line 45 through page 9, line 2 allows for anyone to make an “anonymous complaint” to a peace officer concerning the legality of anyone else. In this country we have the right to face our accuser but, unless contested, this section of SB1070 takes away that constitutional right within the state of Arizona.The most troubling of all is the section on page2, line 44 through page 3, line 9. This requires any peace officer to investigate any person accused by another person (openly or anonymously) or face a lawsuit . I spoke to a deputy state attorney today who told me this is the only law of which he has knowledge that not only allows but encourages the general public to sue a cop."--Kathy Cooper
(((((((((("In United States v. Montero-Camargo (208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disregarded the contrary language in Brignoni-Ponce and held that the Border Patrol cannot lawfully consider "Hispanic appearance" in deciding to make an immigration stop. The court based its h...olding on that fact that... ((((((((((((((((("... Hispanic appearance" is a weak proxy for immigration status. It also relied on the fact that under the current interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has made it clear in recent years that all racial classifications are constitutionally suspect. (See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (invalidating a program using racial classifications in an effort to increase government contracting with minority businesses) The Lawfulness of Race Profiling in Immigration Law Enforcement In Brignoni-Ponce (422 U.S. 873, 885-87 (1975)), ((((((((((((((the Supreme Court held that an immigration stop by the Border Patrol violated the Fourth Amendment because Border Patrol officers relied exclusively on "the apparent Mexican ancestry" of the occupants of an automobile" Kevin ))))))))))))))))))))))))The most troubling of all is the section on page2, line 44 through page 3, line 9. This requires any peace officer to investigate any person accused by another person (openly or anonymously) or face a lawsuit . I spoke to a deputy state attorney today who told me this is the only law of which he has knowledge that not only allows but encourages the general public to sue a cop."-- Kathy Cooper

Arizona's law is quintessentially un-American: we are not a 'show me your papers' country, nor one that believes in subjecting people to harassment, investigation and arrest simply because others may perceive them as foreign," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. "This law violat...es the Constitution and interferes with federal law, and we are confident that we will prevent it from ever taking effect." ACLUU.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment/Section 1:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN IT'S JURISDICTION the...
President Obama on Thursday began a news conference in which he was expected to announce a six-month ban on drilling new deepwater oil wells and cancel plans for exploratory drilling and new lease sales off the coast of Alaska, as well as a proposed lease sale off the Virginia coast. WP AZ LAW = conservatives' level of desperation in the Obama era. MCCAIN >>>> LOSER AZ LAW = conservatives' level of desperation in the Obama era. MCCAIN >>>> LOSER
"In United States v. Montero-Camargo (208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disregarded the contrary language in Brignoni-Ponce and held that the Border Patrol cannot lawfully consider "Hispanic appearance" in deciding to make an immigration stop. The court based its h...olding on that fact that... "... Hispanic appearance" is a weak proxy for immigration status. It also relied on the fact that under the current interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has made it clear in recent years that all racial classifications are constitutionally suspect. (See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (invalidating a program using racial classifications in an effort to increase government contracting with minority businesses) The Lawfulness of Race Profiling in Immigration Law Enforcement In Brignoni-Ponce (422 U.S. 873, 885-87 (1975)), the Supreme Court held that an immigration stop by the Border Patrol violated the Fourth Amendment because Border Patrol officers relied exclusively on "the apparent Mexican ancestry" of the occupants of an automobile" Kevin
e Lawfulness of Race Profiling in Immigration Law Enforcement In Brignoni-Ponce (422 U.S. 873, 885-87 (1975)), the Supreme Court held that an immigration stop by the Border Patrol violated the Fourth Amendment because Border Patrol officers relied exclusively on "the apparent Mexican ancestry" of the occupants of an automobile" Kevin


'So now let's count the way SB1070 is unconstitutional. Let's ignore the obvious for a minute. Commerce Clause and Full Faith and Credit are good ones. Since only Arizona docs are enumerated as proof of citizenship, out-of-staters are required by Az to carry proofs their own states do not require. This is a barrier to commerce. No state law interfereing with interstate commerce has been upheld by the Supreme Court since the 19th century. Been a while since taking Con Law, but think I'll count every way this statute violates the consitution. Gonna be a long list I think' Bryan Butler


The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power >
Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 'The problem
with letting states handle immigration is that they could handle it differently.
You could have an immigrant who is an illegal immigrant in Arizona, a legal
resident ...in New Mexico and a US citizen in Texas. For this reason,
immigration matters are the domain of the federal government. This is the only
way for the US to speak with one voice when it comes to immigration.' " In
addition to the absurdity of aligning undocumented status with state
trespassing, the law also validates racial profiling as a legitimate law
enforcement tool which is precisely the reason why individuals and businesses
around the country are beginning to seriously question whether Arizona is a safe
place to visit...,...... live, or do business. The bill also creates a private
right of action for any person to sue a city, town, or county for not enforcing
immigration laws to the full extent of federal law and it establishes civil
penalties for the city, town, or county. This subjects local governments to
unreasonable and potentially frivolous litigation by private citizens with an
anti-immigrant agenda. Even if a municipality is vindicated in court, it will
still have to incur the costs of defense." JACOB J. SAPOCHNICK There was a
similar case to this in New Hampshire in 2005. Police chiefs in 2 towns began to
investigate the legal status of Latinos staying in or passing through the towns
where they worked, and charging those without proper documentation of
trespassing. Justice L. Phillips Runyon III of the Jaffrey District Court,
ruled the measures violated the ... See Moreconstitutional protections of the
immigrants. He said in his ruling “The criminal charges against the defendants
are unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of
immigration violations, an area where Congress must be deemed to have regulated
with such civil sanctions and criminal penalties as it feels are
sufficient.

'So now let's count the way SB1070 is unconstitutional. Let's ignore the obvious for a minute. Commerce Clause and Full Faith and Credit are good ones. Since only Arizona docs are enumerated as proof of citizenship, out-of-staters are required by Az to carry proofs their own states do not require. This is a barrier to commerce. No state law interfereing with interstate commerce has been upheld by the Supreme Court since the 19th century. Been a while since taking Con Law, but think I'll count every way this statute violates the consitution. Gonna be a long list I think' Bryan Butler

The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power;
Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 'The problem
with letting states handle immigration is that they could handle it differently.
You could have an immigrant who is an illegal immigrant in Arizona, a legal
resident ...in New Mexico and a US citizen in Texas. For this reason, ... See More
immigration matters are the domain of the federal government. This is the only
way for the US to speak with one voice when it comes to immigration.' " In
addition to the absurdity of aligning undocumented status with state
trespassing, the law also validates racial profiling as a legitimate law
enforcement tool which is precisely the reason why individuals and businesses
around the country are beginning to seriously question whether Arizona is a safe
place to visit, live, or do business. The bill also creates a private
right of action for any person to sue a city, town, or county for not enforcing
immigration laws to the full extent of federal law and it establishes civil
penalties for the city, town, or county. This subjects local governments to
unreasonable and potentially frivolous litigation by private citizens with an
anti-immigrant agenda. Even if a municipality is vindicated in court, it will
still have to incur the costs of defense." JACOB J. SAPOCHNICK
There was a
similar case to this in New Hampshire in 2005. Police chiefs in 2 towns began to
investigate the legal status of Latinos staying in or passing through the towns
where they worked, and charging those without proper documentation of
trespassing. Justice L. Phillips Runyon III of the Jaffrey District Court,
...ruled the measures violated the constitutional protections of the
immigrants. He said in his ruling “The criminal charges against the defendants
are unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of
immigration violations, an area where Congress must be deemed to have regulated
with such civil sanctions and criminal penalties as it feels are
sufficient.
In 1983, President Reagan had Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Thayer represent him at the ceremony. A May 30, 1983, Washington Post article reported (from Nexis):



... See More
"The official commemoration of Memorial Day will take place at Arlington today at 11 a.m. when Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Thayer, representing President Reagan, will lay a wreath at the tomb. A plaque representing the unidentified dead from the Vietnam war will be dedicated and placed at the shrine at 11 a.m."

7 minutes agoJohn Perkins The Boston Globe reported that on Memorial Day in 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle laid a wreath at the tomb while Bush spoke to American Legion members in Kennebunkport, Maine, and played golf. From a May 26, 1992, Globe article:

" Meanwhile, Vice President Dan Quayle, laying a wreath before the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery, spoke of patriotic values."

... See More


"'Unfortunately, today some mock and scorn our reverence for values. They don't seem to grasp the meaning of values - values of freedom, patriotism, duty, honor and country,' Quayle said."

" Wrapping up his Memorial Day weekend trip, Bush played a final round of golf in chilly weather before delivering his remarks to the American Legion members. His foursome included GOP Gov. John McKernan of Maine."

solving the unsolvable issue of slavery
The territory gained from the Mexican War caused the Civil War, in 1829 Mexico abolished slavery, the Civil War ended in solving the unsolvable issue of slavery

The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 'The problem with letting states handle immigration is that they could handle it differently. You could have an immigrant who is an illegal immigrant in Arizona, a legal resident ...in New Mexico and a US citizen in Texas. For this reason, immigration matters are the domain of the federal government. This is the only way for the US to speak with one voice when it comes to immigration.' " In addition to the absurdity of aligning undocumented status with state trespassing, the law also validates racial profiling as a legitimate law enforcement tool which is precisely the reason why individuals and businesses around the country are beginning to seriously question whether Arizona is a safe place to visit...,...... live, or do business. The bill also creates a private right of action for any person to sue a city, town, or county for not enforcing immigration laws to the full extent of federal law and it establishes civil penalties for the city, town, or county. This subjects local governments to unreasonable and potentially frivolous litigation by private citizens with an anti-immigrant agenda. Even if a municipality is vindicated in court, it will still have to incur the costs of defense." JACOB J. SAPOCHNICK
There was a similar case to this in New Hampshire in 2005. Police chiefs in 2 towns began to investigate the legal status of Latinos staying in or passing through the towns where they worked, and charging those without proper documentation of trespassing.
Justice L. Phillips Runyon III of the Jaffrey District Court, ruled the measures violated the ... See Moreconstitutional protections of the immigrants. He said in his ruling “The criminal charges against the defendants are unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of immigration violations, an area where Congress must be deemed to have regulated with such civil sanctions and criminal penalties as it feels are sufficient.”

There was a similar case to this in New Hampshire in 2005. Police chiefs in 2 towns began to investigate the legal status of Latinos staying in or passing through the towns where they worked, and charging those without proper documentation of trespassing. Justice L. Phillips Runyon III of the Jaffrey District Court, ruled the measures violated the constitutional protections of the immigrants. He said in his ruling “The criminal charges against the defendants are unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of immigration violations, an area where Congress must be deemed to have regulated with such civil sanctions and criminal penalties as it feels are sufficient.”

REPORT: ENGINEERS HAVE SUCCEEDED IN STOPPING THE FLOW OF OIL AND GAS INTO THE GULF OF MEXICO. MORE TO COME OBAMA RULES

Arizona immigration law will boost crime, police chiefs tell U.S. attorney general

Biden: $787B Stimulus Bill Created ‘New Ideas on How to Spend Government Money Wisely'

Study of health-care law rebuts state protests on Medicaid costs www.washingtonpost.com
How Secure Is The Border? Depends Whom You Ask www.npr.org

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

""The truth is SB1070 does not exactly mirror federal law. There are three very dangerous deviations. Page 1, lines 24-25 charges peace officers with requesting proof of legal residence if there is "reasonable suspicion... See More... See More" that the person in question may be in Arizona illegally. This section goes ...on to require that, when proof is supplied, the person detained shall remain so until that proof is verified by a federal agency. This means a person legally traveling through our state could be detained for hours or days until the proper authorities can be contacted and, of course, the "reasonable suspicion" wording is the thing that is so onerous to all of you.Page 8,line 45 through page 9, line 2 allows for anyone to make an "anonymous complaint" to a peace officer concerning the legality of anyone else. In this country we have the right to face our accuser but, unless contested, this section of SB1070 takes away that constitutional right within the state of Arizona.
Mexican dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna abolished slavery and enforcing the collection of customs duties. The settlers rebelled (originally as part of a general federalist resistance to Santa Anna's Centralist government, which had overthrown the Mexican Constitution of 1824).
They arrived first America was unhabited
"The truth is SB1070 does not exactly mirror federal law. There are three very dangerous deviations. Page 1, lines 24-25 charges peace officers with requesting proof of legal residence if there is “reasonable suspicion... See More... See More” that the person in question may be in Arizona illegally. This section goes on to require that, when proof is supplied, the person detained shall remain so until that proof is verified by a federal agency. This means a person legally traveling through our state could be detained for hours or days until the proper authorities can be contacted and, of course, the “reasonable suspicion” wording is the thing that is so onerous to all of you.Page 8,line 45 through page 9, line 2 allows for anyone to make an “anonymous complaint” to a peace officer concerning the legality of anyone else. In this country we have the right to face our accuser but, unless contested, this section of SB1070 takes away that constitutional right within the state of Arizona.The most troubling of all is the section on page2, line 44 through page 3, line 9. This requires any peace officer to investigate any person accused by another person (openly or anonymously) or face a lawsuit . I spoke to a deputy state attorney today who told me this is the only law of which he has knowledge that not only allows but encourages the general public to sue a cop."

--Kathy Cooper (see Kathy’s entire post at http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=11323685204106
Archaeologists believe it highly unlikely the ancient Neanderthals ever inhabited North America
Texas was soon free and independent and Mexico was forced to sell California to the United States. Mexico was forced to sell California and the American Southwest to the US for the original price which the US offered, $30 million. Christopher Columbus was not the first European to discover the New World! This commonly held belief is wrong. Columbus didn't reach the New World until 1492, 500 years after Leif Erikson's arrival in 1001 AD.
The Vikings tell stories of fair skinned blue eyed Indians who spoke the Welsh language (Cymru) and worshipped as Christians. They used Curraghs (leather hulled boats) when they went on the water. Very interesting story of Prince Madog of North Wales.

AZ LAW = conservatives' level of desperation in the Obama era.
MCCAIN >>>> LOSER
Republicans are upset over the fact that President Obama won't be attending the wreath ceremony at Arlington Cemetery this Memorial Day. Were they equally outraged when the following occurred? ..
Christopher Columbus was not the first European to discover the New World! This commonly held belief is wrong. Columbus didn't reach the New World until 1492, 500 years after Leif Erikson's arrival in 1001 AD.
The Vikings tell stories of fair skinned blue eyed Indians who spoke the Welsh language (Cymru) and worshipped as Christians. They used Curraghs (leather hulled boats) when they went on the water. Very interesting story of Prince Madog of North Wales.
Texas was soon free and independent and Mexico was forced to sell California to the United States. Mexico was forced to sell California and the American Southwest to the US for the original price which the US offered, $30 million. ...The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Rugova's policy of passive resistance succeeded in keeping Kosovo quiet during the war with Slovenia, and the wars in Croatia and Bosnia during the early 1990s.
Joel Quezada
Or course Sam, any decent police officer can see that. Without proper arguments cops could be harrasing USA citizens, but almost exclusively those who are Hispanic.
about an hour ago · Flag
Josh Patterson : SB1070 is so patently unconstitutional that it begs the question whether the AZ Congress and Jan Brewer are really this constitutionally inept or if they simply have obvious moral and character deficits. In either case, SB1070 is inexcusable
Plaintiffs correctly assert that an intent to preclude local enforcement may be inferred where the system of federal regulation is so pervasive that no opportunity for state activity remains. Id. We assume that the civil provisions of the Act regulating authorized entry, length of stay, residence status, and deportation, constitute such a ... ... See Morepervasive regulatory scheme, as would be consistent with the exclusive federal power over immigration. [[[[[[[[ However, this case (((((((((((((((((((((((does not concern that broad scheme, but only a narrow and distinct element of it--the regulation of criminal immigration activity by aliens. The statutes relating to that element are few in number and relatively simple in their terms. They are not, and could not be, supported by a complex administrative structure. It therefore cannot be inferred that the federal government has occupied the field of criminal immigration enforcement. ]]]]]]]]
THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AZ LAW
They criminalized illegal presence. Right now it's a civil violation.
TOTALLY DIFFERENT
Plaintiffs correctly assert that an intent to preclude local enforcement may be inferred where the system of federal regulation is so pervasive that no opportunity for state activity remains. Id. We assume that the civil provisions of the Act regulating authorized entry, length of stay, residence status, and deportation, constitute such a ... See Morepervasive regulatory scheme, as would be consistent with the exclusive federal power over immigration. [[[[[[[[ However, this case does not concern that broad scheme, but only a narrow and distinct element of it--the regulation of criminal immigration activity by aliens. The statutes relating to that element are few in number and relatively simple in their terms. They are not, and could not be, supported by a complex administrative structure. It therefore cannot be inferred that the federal government has occupied the field of criminal immigration enforcement. ]]]]]]]]
THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AZ LAW
They criminalized illegal presence. Right now it's a civil violation.
totally different
Fadwa Abbas : Being in the USA without documentation Is. Not. A. Crime. Surprised? It's true (except now in AZ). It is a regulatory infraction much like speeding or letting your grass grow to 12 inches high. It is a civil matter not criminal. People who come here without documentation are not committing a crime.
SB1070... will likely not pass Constitutional review because it requires racial profiling, because it usurps federal authority and because it creates an arrest power where none exists under federal law
'So now let's count the way SB1070 is unconstitutional. Let's ignore the obvious for a minute. Commerce Clause and Full Faith and Credit are good ones. Since only Arizona docs are enumerated as proof of citizenship, out-of-staters are required by Az to carry proofs their own states do not require. This is a barrier to commerce. No state law interfereing with interstate commerce has been upheld by the Supreme Court since the 19th century. Been a while since taking Con Law, but think I'll count every way this statute violates the consitution. Gonna be a long list I think' Bryan Butler Republicans Request Special Prosecutor to Investigate Sestak Scandal! (Video)
Beach water quality: Report grades San Diego County beaches - KSWB Left and Right try to stop the Rand Paul revolution Obama Administration Says Virginia Lacks the Standing to Challenge New Health Care Law Teach Open Borders for Immigration?

COPS as JUDGES = POLICE STATE = FASCISM
'The problem with letting states handle immigration is that they could handle it differently. You could have an immigrant who is an illegal immigrant in Arizona, a legal resident ...in New Mexico and a US citizen in Texas. For this reason, immigration matters are the domain of the federal government. This is the only w...ay for the US to speak with one voice when it comes to immigration.'
ARIZONA LAW

The ones for this law= redneck, hillbilly, hicks Pilgrims came to America and decided to make it their own, eventhough there were people already living here

I agree. Race is a social rather than a biological concept, different socieites construct different systems of racial classificiation, and these systems change over time. The significance of race is not biological but social and political, because race is used to seperate "us" from "them" and becomes a basis for unequal treatment of one group by another. Whole economy in Russia is gangster economy: I have not seen what the Russians will compete in the global economy: With tanks or military aircraft?
Native American Indians arrived here at least 18000 years ago. The first Americans (Native American/Indians) arrived here in America approximately 16000 years prior to Christopher Columbus and his 1492 voyage Geronimo, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse : Yankees, your papers !Geronimo, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse : Yankees, your papers

'The problem with letting states handle immigration is that they could handle it differently. You could have an immigrant who is an illegal immigrant in Arizona, a legal resident in New Mexico and a US citizen in Texas. For this reason, immigration matters are the domain of the federal government. This is the only way for the US to speak with one voice when it comes to immigration. Of course, what make sense in theory doesn’t always produce the best results in reality.' >>>>>The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice L. Phillips Runyon III of the Jaffrey District Court, ruled the measures violated the constitutional protections of the immigrants. He said in his ruling “The criminal charges against the defendants are unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of immigration violations, an area where Congress must be deemed to have regulated with such civil sanctions and criminal penalties as it feels are sufficient.”
'SB 1071 is illegal because it defines trespassing differently for aliens than it does for citizens. Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to ...be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race/'Jim Williams


Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)[1], was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"In United States v. Montero-Camargo (208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disregarded the contrary language in Brignoni-Ponce and held that the Border Patrol cannot lawfully consider "Hispanic appearance" in deciding to make an immigration stop. The court based its h...olding on that fact that... "... Hispanic appearance" is a weak proxy for immigration status. It also relied on the fact that under the current interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has made it clear in recent years that all racial classifications are constitutionally suspect. (See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (invalidating a program using racial classifications in an effort to increase government contracting with minority businesses) The Lawfulness of Race Profiling in Immigration Law Enforcement In Brignoni-Ponce (422 U.S. 873, 885-87 (1975)), the Supreme Court held that an immigration stop by the Border Patrol violated the Fourth Amendment because Border Patrol officers relied exclusively on "the apparent Mexican ancestry" of the occupants of an automobile" Kevin

"state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws
( Coyotes for example )" Eventually yes, but AZ Law is a mandate !!!!! Arizona police department was turned into a Department of Immigration, this is illegal ! ...Immigration is a federal responsibility in terms of legislation and enforcement. The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict." Wk


Josh Patterson : SB1070 is so patently unconstitutional that it begs the question whether the AZ Congress and Jan Brewer are really this constitutionally inept or if they simply have obvious moral and character deficits. In either case, SB1070 is inexcusable
ARIZONA LAW

The ones for this law= redneck, hillbilly, hicks Can I claim Native? One of my ancestors came here in 1170 AD to the Upper Missouri River and left a colony behind with the Mandan Sioux. He went back home and brought another colony in 1190 AD and stayed. That even predates the Vikings. My hubby is a Quarter breed Cherokee on his father's side and an 8th Seminole on his mothers. One of my ... See Morecousins was a Chief of the Ketowah tribe of Oklahoma and Louisiana. Ketowah is the only tribe recognized by the government as two tribes-Cherokee and Ketowah. Stick that in your hat!

SB 1071 is illegal because it defines trespassing differently for aliens than it does for citizens.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be d...eprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause)
US Constitution, 4th Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures)
US Constitution, 14th Amendment (due process)... See More
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion)
Geneva Conventions (unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement)

"In addition to the absurdity of aligning undocumented status with state trespassing, the law also validates racial profiling as a legitimate law enforcement tool which is precisely the reason why individuals and businesses around the country are beginning to seriously question whether Arizona is a safe place to visit,... live, or do business.

The bill also creates a private right of action for any person to sue a city, town, or county for not enforcing immigration laws to the full extent of federal law and it establishes civil penalties for the city, town, or county. This subjects local governments to unreasonable and potentially frivolous litigation by private citizens with an anti-immigrant agenda. Even if a municipality is vindicated in court, it will still have to incur the costs of defense.
" JACOB J. SAPOCHNICK

Native American Indians arrived here at least 18000 years ago. The first Americans (Native American/Indians) arrived here in America approximately 16000 years prior to Christopher Columbus and his 1492 voyage


From the Conservative Washington Post:
5 myths about immigration
1. Immigrants take jobs from American workers.
2. Immigration is at an all-time high, and most new immigrants came illegally.
3. Today's immigrants are not integrating into American life like past waves did
4. Cracking down on illegal border crossings will mak...e us safer.
5. Immigration reform cannot happen in an election year.What about illegal aliens from Canada and Europe ?

U.N. Human Rights Experts Criticize Arizona Immigration Law
Geneva(AP) - Arizona's new law on illegal immigration could violate international standards that are binding in the United States, six U.N. human rights experts said Tuesday.The basic human rights regulations, signed by the U.S.
From the Conservative Washington Post:
5 myths about immigration
1. Immigrants take jobs from American workers.
2. Immigration is at an all-time high, and most new immigrants came illegally.
3. Today's immigrants are not integrating into American life like past waves did
4. Cracking down on illegal border crossings will make us safer.
5. Immigration reform cannot happen in an election year. What about illegal aliens from Canada and Europe ?
The regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power > Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Immigration is a federal responsibility in terms of legislation and enforcement
Suprema Corte decidiu sobre a escravidão e These are some of the ways that SB1070 erodes rights:

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause)
US Constitution, 4th Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures)
US Constitution, 14th Amendment (due process)...

Dose Fly Id
THEY DONT HAVE TO GIVE IT BACK TO MEXICO. JUST GIVE BACK THE LAND TO THE ONES THEY STOLE IT FROM. THEY SHOULDNT HAVE TO PAY TAXES ON LAND THEYVE OWNED AND WORKED FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS. I dont think the American natives back then ask for documentation.
COPS as JUDGES = POLICE STATE = FASCISM


'The problem with letting states handle immigration is that they could handle it differently. You could have an immigrant who is an illegal immigrant in Arizona, a legal resident ...in New Mexico and a US citizen in Texas. For this reason, immigration matters are the domain of the federal government. This is the only way for the US to speak with one voice when it comes to immigration.'
BREWER and RUSSEL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ARE ILLEGAL.
THEY KILLED THE RULE OF LAW IN ARIZONA

Native American Indians arrived here at least 18000 years ago. The first Americans (Native American/Indians) arrived here in America approximately 16000 years prior to Christopher Columbus and his 1492 voyage. Pilgrims came to America and decided to make it their own, eventhough there were people already living here
Illegals did the same thing they discover a place where millions already live ,so lets welcome them all!
BREWER and RUSSEL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ARE ILLEGAL.
THEY KILLED THE RULE OF LAW IN ARIZONA
COPS as JUDGES = POLICE STATE = FASCISM
They arrived first America was unhabited
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)[1], was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
They can enforce federal law, but in Arizona law they are legislating, and legisaltion is a federal rersponsibility
In Gonzales v. City of Peoria 22 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983), the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the "general rule is that local police are NOT precluded from enforcing federal statutes..... (emphasis Added)

In United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984), The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this ... See Morequestion on several occasions, concluding squarely that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.

The Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws," ....United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999).

And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that "state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws"

United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295).

"The defendant in that case was the driver of a pickup who had been arrested for the criminal violation of transporting illegal aliens. He had been stopped by a state trooper for driving erratically. The driver and his wife were in the cab; and six passengers, none of whom spoke English, were in the back of the pickup. The defendant claimed that a state trooper did not have the authority to detain the transported passengers while he questioned them about their immigration status. In rejecting this claim, the Tenth Circuit held that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."

United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298 (10th Cir. 1984)

Actually LEARN what the law IS... Please...