Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r

2 Lawsuits Challenge New Arizona Immigration Law

151 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

An Arizona police officer and a Latino group filed the first legal challenges of Arizona's sweeping new law cracking down on illegal immigration Thursday.

Fifteen-year Tucson police veteran Martin Escobar argues there's no way for officers to confirm people's immigration status without impeding investigations. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Tucson, alleges the new immigration law violates numerous constitutional rights and could hinder police investigations in Hispanic-prevalent areas.

A Latino Clergy group also sued Thursday in federal court in Phoenix. The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders will seek an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law.

The group argues federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona's law violates due process rights by letting police detain suspected illegal immigrants before they're convicted.

...

Other Hispanic and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, are also planning lawsuits, and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the federal government may challenge the law.

...

At least three Arizona cities — Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson — also are considering lawsuits to block the law.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=10505268


Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idiots. These morons have no understanding of this law at all.

God forbid we should actually question people who have NO ID, can't speak English, etc. when they are in normal policing situations...


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The group argues federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona's law violates due process rights by letting police detain suspected illegal immigrants before they're convicted.

So they are supposed to convict someone before they can detain them?

"Excuse me, sir. You're being charged with armed robbery. Here is a citation with your court date. Please show up on time. Please note that if you are convicted then you will be detained."


12/15/2009 - K1 Visa Interview - APPROVED!

12/29/2009 - Married in Oakland, CA!

08/18/2010 - AOS Interview - APPROVED!

05/01/2013 - Removal of Conditions - APPROVED!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are supposed to convict someone before they can detain them?

"Excuse me, sir. You're being charged with armed robbery. Here is a citation with your court date. Please show up on time. Please note that if you are convicted then you will be detained."

I didn't quite understand that either. Maybe it has something to do with the civil versus criminal aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idiots. These morons have no understanding of this law at all.

God forbid we should actually question people who have NO ID, can't speak English, etc. when they are in normal policing situations...

so speaking another language = a crime or potential crime? Not having ID outside a vehicle = a crime or potential crime?

Huh, I always thought you were free to speak whatever language you wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a crime but certainly triggers a flag. I highly doubt Brits or Germans are jumping the border.

Considering how close to the unprotected border people live in Mexico (thanks google streetview from Mexico), the entire country needs some tough legislation.

Edited by Booyah!

According to the Internal Revenue Service, the 400 richest American households earned a total of $US138 billion, up from $US105 billion a year earlier. That's an average of $US345 million each, on which they paid a tax rate of just 16.6 per cent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so speaking another language = a crime or potential crime? Not having ID outside a vehicle = a crime or potential crime?

Huh, I always thought you were free to speak whatever language you wanted.

The law doesn't allow officers to stop random people because they 'look' a certain way or 'talk' a certain way, despite the rhetoric out there.

The law works so in cases where they would NORMALLY be involved in a law enforcement situation, they would be questioned further/detained if the 'shoe fits' so to speak. - You get pulled over by a cop, you have NO ID, you can't communicate, etc. then that officer is going to look into who you are. -- Guess what, a "white" person is just as much checked out if they don't have an ID as well.

OR you pull over a large van, pull of day laborers.. It's pretty well good to assume that those in the back of the van/truck aren't exactly of 'legal' status.

All this law does is allow local enforcement to work in conjunction with federal officials in determining the status of individuals. Also it enforces laws for employers on the books as well.

There no racial profiling ghost law in this bill that makes all Hispanics a target. There's no ghost law in here that tells an officer to stop random people on the street. It's nothing ilke that whatsoever.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law doesn't allow officers to stop random people because they 'look' a certain way or 'talk' a certain way, despite the rhetoric out there.

The law works so in cases where they would NORMALLY be involved in a law enforcement situation, they would be questioned further/detained if the 'shoe fits' so to speak. - You get pulled over by a cop, you have NO ID, you can't communicate in English, etc. then that officer is going to look into who you are. -- Guess what, a "white" person is just as much checked out if they don't have an ID as well.

OR you pull over a large van, pull of day laborers.. It's pretty well good to assume that those in the back of the van/truck aren't exactly of 'legal' status.

All this law does is allow local enforcement to work in conjunction with federal officials in determining the status of individuals. Also it enforces laws for employers on the books as well.

There no racial profiling ghost law in this bill that makes all Hispanics a target. There's no ghost law in here that tells an officer to stop random people on the street. It's nothing ilke that whatsoever.

Just highlighting where you statements conflict with each other.

"look a certain way" ....oh like a day laborer

"talk a certain way" .....oh like in a foreign language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just highlighting where you statements conflict with each other.

"look a certain way" ....oh like a day laborer

"talk a certain way" .....oh like in a foreign language

You're being very 'selective' in how you break that down and are taking what I'm saying completely out of context and you know it.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're being very 'selective' in how you break that down and are taking what I'm saying completely out of context and you know it.

He's really not. I think Sousouka has a pretty firm grasp on the issues; unlike you, who despite your claims of impartiality, critical thinking and clarity, seem to constantly get swept up in partisan rhetoric.

Edited by Madame Cleo

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's really not. I think Sousouka has a pretty firm grasp on the issues; unlike you, who despite your claims of impartiality, critical thinking and clarity, seem to constantly get swept up in partisan rhetoric.

Clearly ignorance is running through your mind as well.

If you had any sense of literacy, you would read it exactly as I wrote it. I was depicting two separate scenarios in my previous post. One of which was not suppose to happen based on this law, and one of which could happen based on this law.

There's nothing partisan about that.

Granted, all you would rather do is attack me than actually read what I said.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly ignorance is running through your mind as well.

If you had any sense of literacy, you would read it exactly as I wrote it. I was depicting two separate scenarios in my previous post. One of which was not suppose to happen based on this law, and one of which could happen based on this law.

There's nothing partisan about that.

Granted, all you would rather do is attack me than actually read what I said.

Of course, I now know what to expect :thumbs:


Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the cause for stopping the van of day laborers??

Simply because they are day laborers?

If so them I have a problem with this....

The law doesn't allow officers to stop random people because they 'look' a certain way or 'talk' a certain way, despite the rhetoric out there.

The law works so in cases where they would NORMALLY be involved in a law enforcement situation, they would be questioned further/detained if the 'shoe fits' so to speak. - You get pulled over by a cop, you have NO ID, you can't communicate, etc. then that officer is going to look into who you are. -- Guess what, a "white" person is just as much checked out if they don't have an ID as well.

OR you pull over a large van, pull of day laborers.. It's pretty well good to assume that those in the back of the van/truck aren't exactly of 'legal' status.

All this law does is allow local enforcement to work in conjunction with federal officials in determining the status of individuals. Also it enforces laws for employers on the books as well.

There no racial profiling ghost law in this bill that makes all Hispanics a target. There's no ghost law in here that tells an officer to stop random people on the street. It's nothing ilke that whatsoever.


kp7cnfvctuzu.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the cause for stopping the van of day laborers??

Simply because they are day laborers?

If so them I have a problem with this....

The law does not allow for that.

It has to be a legal reason for the vehicle to be pulled over.--- Speeding, traffic violation, other vehicle violation, etc. - Nothing allows them to "just pull them over because they think they are illegal."


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×