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

[Elizium23]

I said, the post you quoted. I didn’t say that you posted it yourself.

It was by the 1-post wonder account, allrpunished, who interestingly claims that the bishops “applauded” the SCOTUS decision, when indeed there is no such term in the article linked or on the USCCB website. The terms used are “hope and caution”. I think this adequately expresses some muted approval for a complex legal decision in an area of social justice where Church teaching is much misunderstood and much maligned by otherwise-faithful Catholics who toe the Republican party line.

 

[psr13]

I would like to know if the federal government will reimburse Arizona for the costs of required services for these illegal immigrants. They have to provide education and healthcare, etc. If the feds aren’t going to enforce laws, they should have to pay for those services.

 

[He_Man]

Since the President has set precedent with his selective enforcements of recent immigrations (in fact altering who the law appiled to without going through Congress), why doesn’t Arizona simply just ignore the Feds and do what they believe to best for Arizona? That approach was justified by Seekerz and many others in the topic about the immigration policy that came out two weeks back.

If others in government are doing nothing, you have the right to do what is best for people. So we were told.

Jan Brewer should just ignore the ruling and do what she wants.

 

[rlg94086]

Since the President has set precedent with his selective enforcements of recent immigrations (in fact altering who the law appiled to without going through Congress), but doesn’t Arizona simply just ignore the Feds and do what they believe to best for Arizona? That approach was justified by Seekerz and many others in the topic about the immigration policy that came out two weeks back.

If others in government are doing nothing, you have the right to do what is best for people. So we were told.

Jan Brewer should just ignore the ruling and do what she wants.

That said, I think we Should all just ignore politicians and the law and do what we want. The important thing is that we are doing the right thing.

 

[RACJ]

John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy have turned out to be disgraceful. I expect the four leftist judges, steeped in anti-Americanism marinated during the Vietnam era, to be hostile to the Constitution, much as drug addicts recoil from honor. But Kennedy and Roberts are simply weak vessels who know better, and they have chosen to serve as nails in America’s coffin. Rob

 

[allrpunished]

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.

This is not correct, so let me help you to not repeat this mistake. When the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Migration releases a formal statement, he does so in coordination with all the other Bishops, Cardinals and Archbishops of his committee and also along with heads of the some thirty committees of the USCCB, all of whom are based in different parts of the country. No official release goes out unapproved with just the opinion of one person. As an indication of some general positions on national issues of the hierarchy of the Church in the USA, it is a main, if not the main, organization. That’s why they are to be found in so many news reports issuing their positions on issues, as a general indication of the positions of the Church in the USA.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is not correct, so let me help you to not repeat this mistake. When the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Migration releases a formal statement, he does so in coordination with all the other Bishops, Cardinals and Archbishops of his committee and also along with heads of the some thirty committees of the USCCB, all of whom are based in different parts of the country. No official release goes out unapproved with just the opinion of one person. As an indication of some general positions on national issues of the hierarchy of the Church in the USA, it is a main, if not the main, organization. That’s why they are to be found in so many news reports issuing their positions on issues, as a general indication of the positions of the Church in the USA.

Let me help you so you do not repeat this mistake.

Simply provide us with the roll call vote of all the bishops who condemn the Ryan proposal. If they responded by mail or conference call or something, you can simply provide the information as to which bishop voted which way. As I mentioned before, it would be helpful to know specific provisions they objected to. So far, we only know for sure of two bishops who objected to two things only.

Otherwise, you really can’t tell us that “the bishops” of the U.S. opposed the Ryan proposal in general or in specific. You can only tell us about two bishops and two points.

 

[allrpunished]

Let me help you so you do not repeat this mistake.

Simply provide us with the roll call vote of all the bishops who condemn the Ryan proposal. If they responded by mail or conference call or something, you can simply provide the information as to which bishop voted which way. As I mentioned before, it would be helpful to know specific provisions they objected to. So far, we only know for sure of two bishops who objected to two things only.

Otherwise, you really can’t tell us that “the bishops” of the U.S. opposed the Ryan proposal in general or in specific. You can only tell us about two bishops and two points.

I think you didn’t really read what I wrote, and you are being contentious because you don’t like some of the official statements by the USCCB. You aren’t even on the right subject, which is the Arizona immigration decision, not the Ryan proposal. I can only repeat the obvious truth that official press releases from the USCCB are a general indication of the hundreds of representative members of Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals in the Conference. We might not like all the official positions – I know I don’t, though I am glad for their statement that the Arizona law was inhumane and anti-family – but we can’t pretend they are merely the opinion of one Bishop.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think you didn’t really read what I wrote, and you are being contentious because you don’t like some of the official statements by the USCCB. You aren’t even on the right subject, which is the Arizona immigration decision, not the Ryan proposal. I can only repeat the obvious truth that official press releases from the USCCB are a general indication of the hundreds of representative members of Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals in the Conference. We might not like all the official positions – I know I don’t, though I am glad for their statement that the Arizona law was inhumane and anti-family – but we can’t pretend they are merely the opinion of one Bishop.

Mea Culpa! Since you argue that individuals of the USCCB speak for all the bishops in other contexts, I did, indeed, mistake this thread for another.

But let’s see you produce the vote of all the bishops who voted for this one bishop’s statement regarding the Az law, and the specifics as to why they are supposed to be considered immoral by Catholics.

The article you cited does not quote anybody but Abp. Gomez. But you’ll produce the statements (or votes) of the rest of the bishops, right?

 

[mary_bobo]

Nothing to look for…it is out in the open. Not my fault if people are blind. And it is unfair to call them racists? What race is being targeted here? Asians? Africans? Germans? Who? I seriously doubt a white European man will be pulled over because he looks like an illegal. Yes…racism is involved,like it or not.

The ruling was that people may be asked WHEN they are pulled over for an infraction of the law. Are not people who are here legally required to keep their green cards with them? Are people not required to have a driver’s license and proof of insurance with them? You are assuming that people who prefer to obey the laws on the books are racist. That is offensive.

 

[RACJ]

The ruling was that people may be asked WHEN they are pulled over for an infraction of the law. Are not people who are here legally required to keep their green cards with them? Are people not required to have a driver’s license and proof of insurance with them? You are assuming that people who prefer to obey the laws on the books are racist. That is offensive.

The people who feel guilty b/c they were born with white skin, in conjunction with those who loathe whites, are not seeking to advance other cultures to OUR level, but they rather seek to bring US down. It really comes down to this: People who live in America illegally are lawbreakers, and in virtually every other country they would be treated as scofflaws or worse. Democrats know that such people who are unconcerned about the rule of law are much more likely to vote for socialist programs and parties who will offer them more. Thus, our lax immigration policy will ultimately murder the golden goose of freedom. Just keep taking from that dirty 1% until it dies from exhaustion. Then, jungle law prevails. BTW, progressive leaders don't really care about this, since it is THEY who will be standing atop the sewage pile at the end of it all. :shrug: Rob

 

[Tigg]

Nothing to look for…it is out in the open. Not my fault if people are blind. And it is unfair to call them racists? What race is being targeted here? Asians? Africans? Germans? Who? I seriously doubt a white European man will be pulled over because he looks like an illegal. Yes…racism is involved,like it or not.

Disdaining the host country, trampling upon the law, engaging in deception of every kind, disrespecting our language and our culture – so you honestly think so little of your American countrymen to believe this behavior would not be met with the same fierce opposition if the “illegals” were blond and blue-eyed?

 

[Nimzovik]

You found that post to be rather distasteful as well eh?

 

[allrpunished]

Mea Culpa! Since you argue that individuals of the USCCB speak for all the bishops in other contexts, I did, indeed, mistake this thread for another.

But let’s see you produce the vote of all the bishops who voted for this one bishop’s statement regarding the Az law, and the specifics as to why they are supposed to be considered immoral by Catholics.

The article you cited does not quote anybody but Abp. Gomez. But you’ll produce the statements (or votes) of the rest of the bishops, right?

If I were to engage in your tactics, I would ask that you produce statements of every member of the USCCB to find out how many of them disapprove of their own official press releases. But that would be silly, wouldn’t it? Your argument that official press releases of the USCCB do not represent the USCCB, including the hundreds of Bishops on their staff, and that instead the press releases are the rogue opinion of one Bishop who issues the statement, cannot be taken seriously.

 

[RACJ]

Disdaining the host country, trampling upon the law, engaging in deception of every kind, disrespecting our language and our culture – so you honestly think so little of your American countrymen to believe this behavior would not be met with the same fierce opposition if the “illegals” were blond and blue-eyed?

 Nicea's post does not correspond to reality. Bring a racist like David Duke to town, he'd be lucky to fill a phone booth. Invite racist, anti-Semitic flame thrower Louis Farrakhan, even in a community with a tiny black population, and thousands will flock to hear him. Remember, Obama's church presented this agent of poison with a Lifetime Achievement Award. La Raza (THE Race) rallies, attended by  Spanish descendants in America, are belligerent, hateful and attended by thousands. 
 People who come to America should have to accept OUR rules and mores. I'm tired of coddling people who act like disrespectful bullies, and this includes the gangs from Eastern European countries as well.  Nicea, why are you ashamed of living in a country founded on respect for people as individuals, and not as members of classes or races? :ehh: Rob

 

[ellipsis2]

Nicea’s post does not correspond to reality. Bring a racist like David Duke to town, he’d be lucky to fill a phone booth. Invite racist, anti-Semitic flame thrower Louis Farrakhan, even in a community with a tiny black population, and thousands will flock to hear him. Remember, Obama’s church presented this agent of poison with a Lifetime Achievement Award. La Raza (THE Race) rallies, attended by Spanish descendants in America, are belligerent, hateful and attended by thousands.
People who come to America should have to accept OUR rules and mores. I’m tired of coddling people who act like disrespectful bullies, and this includes the gangs from Eastern European countries as well. Nicea, why are you ashamed of living in a country founded on respect for people as individuals, and not as members of classes or races? :ehh: Rob

You sound like the kind of person any immigrant would wish to emulate.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I am not comfortable with the provision they did uphold. i can not see any way this provision will not focus on Hispanics. My sister-in-law is Hispanic and she and my brother travel extensively. They refuse to drive through Arizona because of this provision and I dont blame them

The good news is that they only tentatively upheld it which means that if the provision is abused it will likely be struck down as well.

 

[ellipsis2]

Good for then. Unfortunately the most egregious part of the law was upheld.

Estesbob, It is my understanding the the most egregious part was that police could stop anyone and ask for papers, please. That part was struck down. Now they at least need a reason. It is said that that part is hanging by a thread and if any sheninigans occur, such as profiling, it, too, will be struck down. I agree with you that it is wrought with potential to abuse.

 

[RACJ]

Estesbob, It is my understanding the the most egregious part was that police could stop anyone and ask for papers, please. That part was struck down. Now they at least need a reason. It is said that that part is hanging by a thread and if any sheninigans occur, such as profiling, it, too, will be struck down. I agree with you that it is wrought with potential to abuse.

That is NOT true. There was no provision in the Az. law that allowed police to stop people at will and ask for papers. It expressly disallowed it. Once again, the left has lied to you. It is up to each liberal whether and when you will stop listening to the radicals. For me, once someone willfully lies to me, I distrust them always. EVERYTHING you hear in leftist circles is either distorted or an outright lie. Rob

 

[ellipsis2]

That is NOT true. There was no provision in the Az. law that allowed police to stop people at will and ask for papers. It expressly disallowed it. Once again, the left has lied to you. It is up to each liberal whether and when you will stop listening to the radicals. For me, once someone willfully lies to me, I distrust them always. EVERYTHING you hear in leftist circles is either distorted or an outright lie. Rob

Boogah! boogah! As Elmer Fudd once said, " Be afwaid, be very, very afwaid."