Supreme Court strikes down key provisions, but not all, of Arizona immigration law

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwizzleStick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes and racism or better yet, prejudice will always exist, whether it is on someone’s income, race, ethnicity, political, religious views ect. It will always exist. However you say that Republicans are not racist but a pattern is evident…I’m not sure what point you are getting at. :confused:
Here let me start over. Yes you are right, racism and prejudices exist and always will due to our sinful nature. What I am saying is that why are so many avoiding the fact that this law in AZ targets Hispanics? Has any other ethnic or race ever been mentioned? Yes or No? Do you honestly believe a cop in AZ will pull over a white European because he or she looks like an illegal? Seriously? I seriously doubt it!

Racism exists and it even trickles into politics. Why is that so hard for so many to acknowledge?
 
Here let me start over. Yes you are right, racism and prejudices exist and always will due to our sinful nature. What I am saying is that why are so many avoiding the fact that this law in AZ targets Hispanics? Has any other ethnic or race ever been mentioned? Yes or No? Do you honestly believe a cop in AZ will pull over a white European because he or she looks like an illegal? Seriously? I seriously doubt it!

Racism exists and it even trickles into politics. Why is that so hard for so many to acknowledge?
Because you are not stating a fact, but merely your opinion. If the AZ law stated if the
peace officer has reason to suspect the Hispanic suspect is here illegally, then he may inquire further their immigration status
Then yes I would agree with you, but nowhere in the law does it apply to Hispanics, but in-fact illegal immigrants. Illegal Immigrants is a term that does not apply to Hispanics only, but to people who are residing here unlawfully…like I said there are many Indians and Somalis in Columbus, I’m sure some of them are here illegally…would it be fair to illegals of Hispanic origin to deny Somalis and Indians the same term illegal immigrant?

Also the explicitly forbids officers from pulling someone over to ask for papers. They can only do so after the suspect had been pulled over for a different violation. Even so, what does it change? There are racist officers who pull over blacks just for the sake of it.

Repealing this law which earnestly tries to uphold the immigration law is not going to stop officers with racist tendencies to do what they do, nor does this law enhance them.
😃 Are you a Browns fan? Or Bengals?
I don’t have a favorite…I love the 49ers even though I hate San Fransicko…but for Ohio teams…Bengals hands down…Browns couldn’t win a game to save their life.😛
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Here let me start over. Yes you are right, racism and prejudices exist and always will due to our sinful nature. What I am saying is that why are so many avoiding the fact that this law in AZ targets Hispanics? Has any other ethnic or race ever been mentioned? Yes or No? Do you honestly believe a cop in AZ will pull over a white European because he or she looks like an illegal? Seriously? I seriously doubt it!
Racism exists and it even trickles into politics. Why is that so hard for so many to acknowledge?
Because you are not stating a fact, but merely your opinion. If the AZ law stated if the
Oh but I am stating a fact. No mention or a lack of mention of other ethnic groups or races is not an opinion. As I asked you…has any other ethnic group been mentioned? If so,please tell me which ones? What other race feels targeted? Here is where I get no replies but simply: That is your opinion.
Quote:
peace officer has reason to suspect the Hispanic suspect is here illegally, then he may inquire further their immigration status
Then yes I would agree with you, but nowhere in the law does it apply to Hispanics, but in-fact illegal immigrants. Illegal Immigrants is a term that does not apply to Hispanics only, but to people who are residing here unlawfully…like I said there are many Indians and Somalis in Columbus, I’m sure some of them are here illegally…would it be fair to illegals of Hispanic origin to deny Somalis and Indians the same term illegal immigrant?
I know illegal immigrants come from all over. Now here is where I disagree with you. The law does not have to specifiy any race,yes, but the obvious is noticed: Hispanics. Come on…please do not tell me this AZ law was formulated because of illegal immigrants from Africa or Asia. You know well why AZ even conjured up such a thing…HISPANICS! That is the obvious my friend,why deny it? Have you ever lived in the Southwest? I have lived in AZ,NM and Texas.
Also the explicitly forbids officers from pulling someone over to ask for papers. They can only do so after the suspect had been pulled over for a different violation. Even so, what does it change? There are racist officers who pull over blacks just for the sake of it.
So what does apples have to do with oranges? So if I am pulled for running a Yield sign,any cop ask me for papers? Why? Because of my appearance? That is called racial profiling.
Repealing this law which earnestly tries to uphold the immigration law is not going to stop officers with racist tendencies to do what they do, nor does this law enhance them.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Are you a Browns fan? Or Bengals?
I don’t have a favorite…I love the 49ers even though I hate San Fransicko…but for Ohio teams…Bengals hands down…Browns couldn’t win a game to save their life.
Fortywhiners-eh? You hate SF? Why? It is a nice city. The Bengals? The “Almost” there team…😛
 
Yes…only white people. Why? Evidently if those people are living in AZ,then evidently many who live in AZ are racists-right? Not saying everyone is but many are due to experiences. I personally experienced it a dozen of times and saw it done to others. Why is this so hard for many to accept? It still goes on and to think for a minute that elected officials cannot be racists is to live in denial.
Hmmmmmmm… so would you say it just might remotely be possible that there are people in Arizona that are racist that are not white? Say as for example here:

youtube.com/watch?v=CU_uJfHXVv8&feature=relmfu

here:
youtube.com/watch?v=7heEjd8YG-g

and here

youtube.com/watch?v=bZ49D0WKv-0&feature=related

Here:

nationalreview.com/articles/224980/la-raza-facts/michelle-malkin
 
Oh but I am stating a fact. No mention or a lack of mention of other ethnic groups or races is not an opinion. As I asked you…has any other ethnic group been mentioned? If so,please tell me which ones? What other race feels targeted? Here is where I get no replies but simply: That is your opinion.
The law never mentions Hispanics, the word does not come into existence…so yes it is your opinion.
I know illegal immigrants come from all over. Now here is where I disagree with you. The law does not have to specifiy any race,yes, but the obvious is noticed: Hispanics. Come on…please do not tell me this AZ law was formulated because of illegal immigrants from Africa or Asia. You know well why AZ even conjured up such a thing…HISPANICS! That is the obvious my friend,why deny it? Have you ever lived in the Southwest? I have lived in AZ,NM and Texas.
Once again the LAW does not specifically target Hispanics, if someone from Sweden was in Arizona illegally…the law would apply to him. The only way the law could be racist is if i applied only to Hispanics. It’s only by sheer dumb luck the geography of AZ is near Mexico and most of the illegal immigrants are hailing from south of the border. Still, why is this so hard to apprehend: Arizona is a border state with Mexico. It’s heavily impacted by illegal immigration. There are nearly half a million illegal immigrants in a state with a relatively small population. They cause a problem for Arizona and Arizona wants to do something about that. I don’t see anything in that line of reasoning that is racist. All of those things are legitimate concerns, are they not?
So what does apples have to do with oranges? So if I am pulled for running a Yield sign,any cop ask me for papers? Why? Because of my appearance? That is called racial profiling.
So a Police Officer should not have the right to question you if you’ve been drinking or using drugs because of your appearance gives him/her reason to…because that’s profiling.
Fortywhiners-eh? You hate SF? Why? It is a nice city. The Bengals? The “Almost” there team…😛
I hate SF cause it is full of sodomites, whack-job-Leftists, Communists and totalitarians. I like the forty-whiners cause of the Joe Montana era. Yeah the Bengals, but hey…it’s better than Cleveland. 😃
 
Hmmmmmm… Terrorists of foreign origin should not have to produce ID either then? That is, if the Law is soooo wrong?
 
Here let me start over. Yes you are right, racism and prejudices exist and always will due to our sinful nature. What I am saying is that why are so many avoiding the fact that this law in AZ targets Hispanics? Has any other ethnic or race ever been mentioned? Yes or No? Do you honestly believe a cop in AZ will pull over a white European because he or she looks like an illegal? Seriously? I seriously doubt it!

Racism exists and it even trickles into politics. Why is that so hard for so many to acknowledge?
Bold Lettering Mine:

You mean like Eric Holder refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers intimidating voters at the voting booth?

See here: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430.html

and here:

foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/09/new-black-panther-leader-defends-group-voter-intimidation-case/

and here:

michellemalkin.com/2008/11/04/black-panther-intimidation-at-the-polls/
 
"Supreme Court strikes down key provisions, but not all, of Arizona immigration law

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona’s crackdown on immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion on checking suspects’ status could go forward."…

Source link: washingtonpost.com/business/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-provisions-but-not-all-of-arizona-immigration-law/2012/06/25/gJQA40sl1V_print.html
😦

Should’ve had it all thrown out. (One of the few things I’m liberal on–immigration 😊:D;))
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Oh but I am stating a fact. No mention or a lack of mention of other ethnic groups or races is not an opinion. As I asked you…has any other ethnic group been mentioned? If so,please tell me which ones? What other race feels targeted? Here is where I get no replies but simply: That is your opinion.
The law never mentions Hispanics, the word does not come into existence…so yes it is your opinion.
And does it have to come into existence to note the obvious? So no, it is not an opinion,but a fact. Hispanics are the ones in the picture,whether the law says nothing about them.
Quote:
I know illegal immigrants come from all over. Now here is where I disagree with you. The law does not have to specifiy any race,yes, but the obvious is noticed: Hispanics. Come on…please do not tell me this AZ law was formulated because of illegal immigrants from Africa or Asia. You know well why AZ even conjured up such a thing…HISPANICS! That is the obvious my friend,why deny it? Have you ever lived in the Southwest? I have lived in AZ,NM and Texas.
Once again the LAW does not specifically target Hispanics, if someone from Sweden was in Arizona illegally…the law would apply to him.
And have Swedish folks come out in swarms expressing the same sentiments? Well? Have they? The odds of a white illegal Swedish man being pulled over are slim my friend,whether you care to admit it or not.
The only way the law could be racist is if i applied only to Hispanics.
My friend, you still have not answered me,name one white race expressing the same sentiments? The law does not need to openly say Hispanics to make it racists.
It’s only by sheer dumb luck the geography of AZ is near Mexico and most of the illegal immigrants are hailing from south of the border. Still, why is this so hard to apprehend: Arizona is a border state with Mexico.
Oh trust me, I know because I grew up in San Diego,CA the busiest border in the world. We have a third world nation next to a super power,it is logical people will flee here. As long it remains the same, I do not care what law is placed in effect,people will come here legally or illegally.
It’s heavily impacted by illegal immigration. There are nearly half a million illegal immigrants in a state with a relatively small population. They cause a problem for Arizona and Arizona wants to do something about that. I don’t see anything in that line of reasoning that is racist. All of those things are legitimate concerns, are they not?
They…cause a problem? What problem do they cause? This country has major issues on how to handle illegal immigrants. I recently watched a documentary on how Canada handles it and they actually handle it much better. They welcome them and for many reasons. The U.S. just has a bad track record and attitude.
Quote:
So what does apples have to do with oranges? So if I am pulled for running a Yield sign,any cop ask me for papers? Why? Because of my appearance? That is called racial profiling.
So a Police Officer should not have the right to question you if you’ve been drinking or using drugs because of your appearance gives him/her reason to…because that’s profiling.
Well I got news for you. I once pulled a 14 hour shift and was dead tired and a cop pulled me over because of a broken tail light. Guess what he asked? Have you ever been arrested for drugs? I said: What is your reason for pulling me over? He said: I just asked you a question? I told him: Why…because I look wasted? I am not, I just finishing working 14 hours and I am tired. Why are you asking me if I have ever been arrested for drugs? The cop: It is standard procedure.

Whatever! Yes…that is racial profiling-whether you care to admit it or not.
Quote:
Fortywhiners-eh? You hate SF? Why? It is a nice city. The Bengals? The “Almost” there team…
I hate SF cause it is full of sodomites, whack-job-Leftists, Communists and totalitarians. I like the forty-whiners cause of the Joe Montana era. Yeah the Bengals, but hey…it’s better than Cleveland
My friend…no offense,but you are basically not practicing what you preached. ALL people in SF are what you said? :confused:
 
My friend…no offense,but you are basically not practicing what you preached. ALL people in SF are what you said? :confused:
Nope not all, certainly not Michael Savage (though I think he is a kook and way off base most times) but I was giving a brash generalization. Same to what your views are about AZ…it’s the government and the majority of the people there I feel towards, but not all SFers. I said the city was full…but I didn’t say the city itself is all those things, because not every SFer is those things. 😉

As to all of your comments, I really see no point going further…especially after that last one with the cop asking you the question. He was doing his job and was trying to keep the roads safe. You knew you weren’t on drugs, but there was no way on God’s green earth the police officer knew. To claim he was wrong in questioning you…well I just flat out don’t agree with you and I think you are dead wrong. So for that I’m not going to try and go any further. You obviously don’t understand how laws work in regards that when laws are enacted to discourage certain behaviors the populace finds wrong, it is done to best discourage the behaviour under the constitution, not “target” a person or a group of people. Laws are written to withstand the test of time, just because to you it’s “targeting” Hispanics today…in 100 years that same law could be targeting French people who are entering illegally.

Yet I digress, I cannot continue this any further because I am just wasting my time. I’d rather discuss about Football than this.
 
Nope not all, certainly not Michael Savage (though I think he is a kook and way off base most times) but I was giving a brash generalization. Same to what your views are about AZ…it’s the government and the majority of the people there I feel towards, but not all SFers. I said the city was full…but I didn’t say the city itself is all those things, because not every SFer is those things. 😉

As to all of your comments, I really see no point going further…especially after that last one with the cop asking you the question. He was doing his job and was trying to keep the roads safe. You knew you weren’t on drugs, but there was no way on God’s green earth the police officer knew. To claim he was wrong in questioning you…well I just flat out don’t agree with you and I think you are dead wrong. So for that I’m not going to try and go any further. You obviously don’t understand how laws work in regards that when laws are enacted to discourage certain behaviors the populace finds wrong, it is done to best discourage the behaviour under the constitution, not “target” a person or a group of people. Laws are written to withstand the test of time, just because to you it’s “targeting” Hispanics today…in 100 years that same law could be targeting French people who are entering illegally.

Yet I digress, I cannot continue this any further because I am just wasting my time. I’d rather discuss about Football than this.
I understand your position.Well taken,but I do not agree. Sorry,I do understand how laws work. Simply not agreeing with you does not mean I do not understand them.

Go Steelers! 😃
 
States face uphill climb on immigration enforcement after court ruling, DHS shift
By Monday afternoon, the Department of Homeland Security had pulled back on a program known as 287(g), which allows the feds to deputize local officials to make immigration-based arrests. According to a Homeland Security official, the administration has determined those agreements are “not useful” now in states that have Arizona-style laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has since rescinded that agreement in Arizona – with the state itself, and with three local law enforcement agencies.
The move means that even if local police step up immigration checks, they’ll have to rely on federal officials to make the arrests.
And federal officials made clear that ICE would be selective in responding to the expected rise in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria – such as being wanted for a felony.
Brewer, in a statement released late Monday, excoriated the administration for the move. She said the decision showed Obama “has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. … We are on our own, apparently.”
All these factors led some GOP officials to question the future of state-led efforts to tackle illegal immigration.
“We’ve lost the ability for states to take problems that they themselves are facing and do something about it,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who represents one of several states that implemented their own Arizona-style laws.
Lee told Fox News that the Supreme Court decision means states “have to be careful not to run afoul” of the court’s ruling. “It means it’ll be more difficult for states to set their own penalties on conduct that’s already against the law federally,” he said. “The state governments have lost something today.”
The Supreme Court ruling, however, left parts of the Arizona law standing, and Republicans at the state level vowed to press on.
Brewer, in a brief news conference, claimed the Arizona law had been “vindicated.”
“The heart of the bill was upheld – unanimously,” she said, vowing to move forward with implementation and take on any remaining legal challenges.
Immigration laws in other states – Utah, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana and South Carolina – face an uncertain fate.
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said Monday that his state officials will “analyze” the opinion to determine its impact on Alabama but stressed that their law is “not identical” to Arizona’s.
“I will keep my commitment to uphold and enforce Alabama’s anti-illegal immigration law,” he said. “The core of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law remains.”
The federal government’s stated reluctance, though, to respond to state-level calls pertaining to immigration checks could make it difficult for Alabama and other states to carry out those laws. The Justice Department also announced Monday that it had set up a public hotline to report potential abuses linked to the Arizona policy.
President Obama, in a written statement, said the decision makes clear that a “patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it’s part of the problem.”
Republicans agreed on the first part of his statement. With Arizona’s law stripped of key provisions, they renewed their call for the federal government to step in with a comprehensive immigration solution – and their criticism of Obama’s handling of that task.
“Today’s decision underscores the need for a president who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration,” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in a statement.
foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/feds-suspend-immigration-enforcement-program-after-arizona-court-ruling/#ixzz1yr9Ozytx

This is why Arizona had to create a law like SB 1070. This is an admin that is not protecting the borders and impinging on state rights doing a job the federal government is supposed to do but it is not doing.
 
Good for then. Unfortunately the most egregious part of the law was upheld.
Egregious? Hardly. I have no special confidence in the wisdom of the Supreme Court, given what it has said about abortion (for one thing), but it does say something that this part of the law was upheld in a unanimous decision.
 
The US Bishops applauded the Supreme Court rejecting most of the Arizona law, saying the law was anti-family and inhumane.

ncronline.org/news/immigration-and-church/bishops-greet-supreme-court-decision-immigration-hope-caution
One bishop, you mean.

Individual members of USCCB do not necesarily reflect the view of “the bishops” generally. It would be a good thing if eventually the USCCB was reformed so media people cannot use the statement of one or two USCCB members to be falsely represented as the view of “the bishops of the U.S.” The tactic is used to deceive Catholics, and those members of the USCCB (both lay and clerical) ought to be more careful about seeming to represent their own political views as, somehow, doctrine that’s binding on Catholics.

But it isn’t so at present, and so the manipulation of Catholics by this political tactic goes on. It’s no wonder many Catholics are confused about what the Church actually teaches.
 
One bishop, you mean.

Individual members of USCCB do not necesarily reflect the view of “the bishops” generally. It would be a good thing if eventually the USCCB was reformed so media people cannot use the statement of one or two USCCB members to be falsely represented as the view of “the bishops of the U.S.” The tactic is used to deceive Catholics, and those members of the USCCB (both lay and clerical) ought to be more careful about seeming to represent their own political views as, somehow, doctrine that’s binding on Catholics.

But it isn’t so at present, and so the manipulation of Catholics by this political tactic goes on. It’s no wonder many Catholics are confused about what the Church actually teaches.
The truth lies somewhere in between. Now, the post you quoted links to the National catholic Fishwrap, which for all intents and purposes is an unreliable source when it comes to learning the official standing of the Church, or the national episcopal conference USCCB, or even an individual bishop. Fortunately, it was just them parroting a press release. The press release comes from the USCCB itself. This can be counted as one mark in its favor.

Another good sign is that the quotes are not from just a random bishop of Anytown, USA, but Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Migration. So we can see that he is a respected member and ostensibly the point-man and spokesperson for issues of immigration when it comes to the USCCB.

Now, we already know that the regional episcopal conferences do not have much authority except that which is explicitly delegated to them by the law. They do not have immediate teaching authority and they are not equipped to proclaim definitive doctrine on faith and morals.

However, the teaching of the Church needs interpretation and cultural adaptation. We, the laity, cannot merely pick up a Catechism, or a papal encyclical, and arbitrarily apply it to our own place and time without pastoral guidance. Nor can we take out of context the statements of priests and bishops meant to be caring for their own flock. Archbishop Gomez’s words do not apply to an influx of Asian immigrants to the United Kingdom. But I think we can safely say that they apply generally to the citizens of the United States. He is duly delegated to speak for those bishops concerned by local and federal immigration policies. He is not contradicting Church teaching or commanding anyone to sin. He is interpreting the universal and eternal Truth and dispensing advice for our own place and time. He is offering not doctrine, but commentary on doctrine.

Political views are tricky, and politicians do best in the arts of deception and hypocrisy. We have seen how murmurs of assent to passage of the Obamacare law turned into a clamor of regret for the HHS mandate and abortion funding. Sometimes, the bishops, like all the voters in the US, must choose the lesser of two or three evils when choosing a position. We can’t make the nation perfect. We can only hope to improve its current state, and prevent us from slipping down a slope of immorality and atheism. Two-party, partisan politics are not ideally suited to working out compromise arrangements; democratic decision-making is sometimes foreign to Catholics in a world of religious congregations and papal monarchy. But the bishops are struggling to make it work here, and I must say they are doing a better job day by day, as the Holy Father makes many judicious appointments and reassignments in the American Church.

If anyone wishes to know the positions of the USCCB on immigration, here is a FAQ document, and from there you may link to a vast library of press releases and other information regarding the current political situation across the US.

Listen to your own bishop. Listen to your priest. Form your conscience. Don’t let them command you to sin, but don’t place yourself or your politics as an authority over the Holy Spirit working through the Church. And in the end, remember that this life is fleeting and we can only hope to achieve personal holiness and the eternal Reward of Heaven.
 
The truth lies somewhere in between. Now, the post you quoted links to the National catholic Fishwrap, which for all intents and purposes is an unreliable source when it comes to learning the official standing of the Church, or the national episcopal conference USCCB, or even an individual bishop. Fortunately, it was just them parroting a press release. The press release comes from the USCCB itself. This can be counted as one mark in its favor.

Another good sign is that the quotes are not from just a random bishop of Anytown, USA, but Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Migration. So we can see that he is a respected member and ostensibly the point-man and spokesperson for issues of immigration when it comes to the USCCB.
I didn’t link to whatever it is that you call the “National Catholic Fishwrap” or any other. I think you are mistaking me for some other poster.

Individual bishops are worthy of our respect because of their office. But that does not mean we are obligated to accept their statements as necessarily reflecting the teachings of the Church. That is particularly so when their statements are based on a belief about the legal (or economic) consequences of some legislative enactment.

How wrong were some of them in supporting Obamacare as long as they did? They simply didn’t realize that the bill gave the president plenary powers to impose just about any mandate on just about anybody. Misjudgment #1. Then, some undoubtedly assumed that Obama was not inclined to order Church institutions to support immoral acts. But he did. Misjudgment #2.

As it turns out, of course, it would not have mattered what Arizona passed, since the federal government is not going to allow Arizona to identify illegal aliens anyway and wouldn’t deport them even if it did allow identification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top