from the Constitutional Law Professor Blog

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Here's a photo of former First Lady Rosalyn Carter with notorious serial killer John Wayne Gacy. That proves she's a serial killer, too

Mr. Pearce forwards neo-nazi emails, and the photo is not the only time Mr. Pearce and Mr. Ready have chummed it up. Your pic of Gacy and Mrs. Carter was taken well before his arrest and she didn't really know him, it was a Polish Constitution Day photo op, so if you are going to be silly you should have claimed Gacy's role for the Democratic Party proves the Dem's support serial killers.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

You should suggest she visit the underwear thread. Her thong may be a size too small.

I have learned much about underwear today!

Glad to have been of assistance!

[GabiandVi 34]

The furor over illegal immigrants in the larger context of the Arizona law debate is directly relate-able to a long and ignoble history of anti-immigrant feelings to be found voiced by some groups throughout US history. The 'big debate' fueled by a certain media outlet, eaten up and regurgitated here on VJ are absolutely much ado about nothing, except of course the very heart of the matter, that the AZ law has it's heart in "white separatist" groups, which is just a polite face on "white supremacist" groups.

Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "politics makes strange bedfellows?" Are you really going to reject every political move you agree with just because of the strange bedfellows who are behind it? And what about Byrd, for one small example? Do you disagree with everything he stood for because he was a member of a white supremicist group? If so, you'd have to agree with this Arizona law.

If you think this AZ law, and the entire kerfuffle going on right now has anything to do with illegal immigrants destroying us as a nation then you fit right in with every generational wave of anti-immigrant fervor to be found in our historical past, i.e. hysterical claims that this group or that group will diminish our quality of life and destroy our otherwise would be perfect nation. Couching your feelings with "Ya but they are here illegally" doesn't really change that fact.

If you aren't anti-illegal immigration, then by definition you are pro-illegal immigration. Do you really support open borders and the exploitation of illegal workers? I think you must be the racist you see behind every corner. Let's just legalize slavery again. Or, because the slaves in this case desired the bondage to begin with because they consider it beneficial to themselves, let's just give them full rights of LPRs. That makes sense!

Why control immigration at all? Why would any nation that's not just a bunch of bigots want to do that? Uh oh, I guess the entire world if filled with bigots. Every country controls immigration. What horrible citizens they all have. Imagine this! They actually expect their immigration laws to mean something. Racist pigs!!!

As to the well documented link between who wrote the original law, Russel Pearce AZ State Senator and Neo-Nazi's it is pretty much as plain as this picture which is worth a thousand words:

That's a guy named J.T. Ready, who also happens to be one of Arizona's leading neo-Nazis next to Mr. Pearce, getting a hug in fact.

Nice picture. Really, though, what does it have to do with the rights of Arizona to have this law or not? Nothing! Let's say that everyone who wrote this law is a member of the KKK like Byrd was. Let's say that only KKK members supported this law. If it is constitutional, that changes nothing.

[Pooky 3,348]

The furor over illegal immigrants in the larger context of the Arizona law debate is directly relate-able to a long and ignoble history of anti-immigrant feelings to be found voiced by some groups throughout US history. The 'big debate' fueled by a certain media outlet, eaten up and regurgitated here on VJ are absolutely much ado about nothing, except of course the very heart of the matter, that the AZ law has it's heart in "white separatist" groups, which is just a polite face on "white supremacist" groups.

If you think this AZ law, and the entire kerfuffle going on right now has anything to do with illegal immigrants destroying us as a nation then you fit right in with every generational wave of anti-immigrant fervor to be found in our historical past, i.e. hysterical claims that this group or that group will diminish our quality of life and destroy our otherwise would be perfect nation. Couching your feelings with "Ya but they are here illegally" doesn't really change that fact.

Nice try, but a fail anyway. Nowhere in your attempt to brand me as a racist do you even touch on the main question in my post. So, tell me, if you believe the Arizona law is a Neo-Nazi White Supremacist attempt to target Hispanics, does that make current Federal law, which AZ SB 1070 mirrors, the same?

I support the Arizona law because I believe in the rule of law, and the government has abrogated its responsibility to enforce current Federal law. Look at the news stories from down there on the border. Look at the local news outlets, because national news agencies are notoriously political in their coverage. If the Federal government won't enforce the law, the individual States must be able to step in and do the job.

As to the well documented link between who wrote the original law, Russel Pearce AZ State Senator and Neo-Nazi's it is pretty much as plain as this picture which is worth a thousand words:

That's a guy named J.T. Ready, who also happens to be one of Arizona's leading neo-Nazis next to Mr. Pearce, getting a hug in fact.

Have I ever called President Obama a terrorist because he had tea with William Ayers, a known, unrepentant terrorist? No, but there's no denying they had tea.

At the end of the day, this is first and foremost a question of current Federal law and the government's refusal to enforce it. Anything else is partisan obfuscation, from both sides.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As you said I gave my opinion.

What is your authoritative knowledge?

You want me to find some legal experts to copy and paste as well?

Here you go:

The provision of the law that many have focused on is the one makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry registration documents on his person. They fail to mention that an individual is only guilty if he is in violation of 8 USC sec 1304(a) or 8 USC 1306(e). Those provisions have been around since 1940, making it a crime to fail to register or carry certain documents. The state statue literally refers to those federal statutes. A person can only be guilty under the state statute if he is guilty under the federal statute.

The principle that protects the Arizona law is the legal principle of concurrent enforcement. This has been recognized by several courts, including the 9th Circuit. It holds that a law is not conflict-preempted if the state law prohibits the same behavior that is already prohibited by federal law. Similarly, if a state officer acts in a way to assist the federal government in that action, he concurrently enforces what is already prohibited under federal law.

That principle guides any interpretation of S.B. 1070.

The controlling Supreme Court precedent is 1976′s De Canas v. Bica. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized states may enact legislation to discourage illegal immigration within their jurisdictions. The mere fact that a state law concerns illegal immigration or affects immigration in some way does not render it pre-empted.

You casually mentioned legal preemption in your earlier post in an authoritative manner and without making any articulated argument like you seemed to know something about it so I was curious where you're coming from.

Do you have a link to your copy and paste above (the part I put in quotations)?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Mr. Pearce forwards neo-nazi emails, and the photo is not the only time Mr. Pearce and Mr. Ready have chummed it up. Your pic of Gacy and Mrs. Carter was taken well before his arrest and she didn't really know him, it was a Polish Constitution Day photo op, so if you are going to be silly you should have claimed Gacy's role for the Democratic Party proves the Dem's support serial killers.

La Raza and MALDAF are both Hispanic racist hate groups who oppose SB1070. The Mexican government"s anti-illegal immigration laws and treatment of illegals is far harsher than Arizona's, yet they also oppose SB 1070. Are those the kind of groups you prefer to have a say over our immigration directives, over what we can and cannot do? They favor their race above others; they are racial supremicists and make no bones about it.

Our president sat in the pews of his mentor, Rev. Wright, a man who spews racist statements with ease. This was Obama's pastor for more than 20 years. Wright performed his wedding with Michelle, baptized his children. The president opposes SB1070. He and his admin heads spread lies about it in the media to confuse people and rile up dissent. They encourage boycotts against Arizona and fermented division between states, charging that Arizona, a state loaded with Hipanics, who support SB 1070, is a racist state with bigotted cops.

Knowing this, I and others on this board who support SB 1070 have never resorted to calls of guilt by association because people who want the law to fail are aligned with hoarded or race baiters and hate mongers. We just believe they are wrong and that diversionary tactics aren't required to make that clear.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Sofiyya

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Nice picture. Really, though, what does it have to do with the rights of Arizona to have this law or not? Nothing! Let's say that everyone who wrote this law is a member of the KKK like Byrd was. Let's say that only KKK members supported this law. If it is constitutional, that changes nothing.

It is relevant if you understood their agenda, which is reactionary to the 'browning' of America. These groups know that within the next few decades, whites will be a minority, and that scares many of them. In fact, that even scares regular white folk who don't consider themselves racist. Russel Pearce is already pushing forward legislation in Arizona that would deny U.S. Citizenship to babies born in the U.S. from undocumented mothers, defying the Constitution. These white supremacists are using immigration organizations like Numbers USA and FAIR as fronts to their extreme agenda, which is ultimately to greatly reduce all immigration. They'll deny that's their agenda, but the Southern Poverty Law Center has done extensive research and has documented proof that this is their ultimate objective. The reason why the Arizona Law is popular among Americans is because illegal immigrants have become the scapegoat to our economic crisis, which is ironic given the fact that they actually are a boost to our economy. We need pragmatic solutions to our immigration problems, not draconian, racist-based nativism driving policy.

Edited July 11, 2010 by El Buscador

[slim 1,514]

Why is everyone making this only about "brown" people? Won't the new law also make it mandatory for cops to check the status of anyone who looks "foreign?"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How does a person "look" foreign?

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Apparently it's in the shoes.

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

How does a person "look" foreign?

wearing corduroy pants and a wool sweater in arizona during the summer might work.

[slim 1,514]

How does a person "look" foreign?

I don't know. But, what I do know is the FED is trying to stop this law because it's discriminatory to "brown" people when, in fact, there's nothing in this law that says "check brown people." It does say something to the effect of "check those who's status is in question" which means "foreigners."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It doesn't really matter what the law says, only how it is likely to be implemented based on past precedent.

And there is precedent - and not just in the US.

[GabiandVi 34]

It is relevant if you understood their agenda, which is reactionary to the 'browning' of America. These groups know that within the next few decades, whites will be a minority, and that scares many of them. In fact, that even scares regular white folk who don't consider themselves racist. Russel Pearce is already pushing forward legislation in Arizona that would deny U.S. Citizenship to babies born in the U.S. from undocumented mothers, defying the Constitution. These white supremacists using immigration organizations like Numbers USA and FAIR as fronts to their extreme agenda, which is ultimately to greatly reduce all immigration. They'll deny that's their agenda, but the Southern Poverty Law Center has done extensive research and has documented proof that this is their ultimate objective. The reason why the Arizona Law is popular among Americans is because illegal immigrants have become the scapegoat to our economic crisis, which is ironic given the fact that they actually are a boost to our economy. We need pragmatic solutions to our immigration problems, not draconian, racist-based nativism driving policy.

But, again, what does it have to do with the constitutionality of the law? And so what if the majority of illegal immigrants happen to be from one particular ethnicity or even one particular nation. That's a product of geography. Does that mean that they are exempt from immigration law because we are afraid we might come off as racist to enforce it? That's nullification and I'm not buying it. Are there stupid people who are motivated by hatred in this situation? You betcha! On both sides of the issue! I just don't happen to be distracted by it.

What I've seen of this particular law does not seem to be unconstitutional, but I won't be making the decision and I'm not as informed about this law or constitutional law as those who will be deciding will, hopefully, be. But the decision should be based on constitutionality, not hatred or fear of it. Certainly not politics! My original question went to that issue. This lawsuit seems to be entirely politically motivated. Otherwise, why haven't suits been brought against sanctutary city laws?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Birthright citizenship is not in the Constitution and was not the intention of the amendment's framers. They were trying to insure citizenship for freed slaves, not anchor babies. That is from an interpretative ruling of an activist court that can and should be overturned.

I'm not White, but I am vehemently anti-illegal, not out of fear, but out of fairness for those who wait patiently to come here legally. Those are the people who must be supported and rewarded, not willful lawbreakers.