Arizona immigration laws blocked by court

The United States of Amarica is still a free country

Sammy;217575:
defaria 07-28-10, 08:48 PM The United States of America is still a free country. And when people’s basic rights are at stake. The federal laws are there to protect its citizens, as well as its non citizens. Let us remind those that want to promote, fascism, and racism. That they are making a big mistake to try and impose it in the United States of America. I believe that there are some sick minds in the state of Arizona, at the present. I do hope that with some help from the federal government, these minds will be cured, and abide to the United States Constitution that still is the law of the land. America is not a dictatorship,or under a gestapo government. It is still a free nation, that respects people’s basic rights. Sammy

Then WHEN will the Federal Government respect the Constitutional RIghts of citizens to live in a country that is NOT overrun with illegal aliens? Why are the Constitutional Rights of citizens being ignored for illegal aliens who have NO Constitutional Rights? Actually, Arizona did not write any new law. They only made it possible for the state to enforce federal law, just as the feds have been asking for in the war on drugs, etc. Arizona is correct, and the Administration is wrong because the illegal aliens are already criminals. They committed a federal crime by entering this country without proper authority.

] A federal judge in Phoenix issued a temporary injunction Wednesday blocking implementation of the toughest portions of Arizona�s controversial immigration law, known as SB 1070, but the judge allowed other sections of the state statute to stand. US District Judge Susan Bolton agreed to block the section of the law that required local and state law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of those they suspected were illegal immigrants. That was the provision that critics said would lead to racial profiling. Judge Bolton�s decision is an important victory for the Obama administration in the face of a rising tide of concern among several states that the federal government is not effectively enforcing immigration law or effectively protecting US borders. Five states have introduced legislation similar to Arizona�s law, and 20 others are reportedly considering it. The ruling adds fuel to an already heated national debate over US immigration policy and sets the stage for more rounds of litigation in a case that could eventually make its way to the US Supreme Court. In her ruling, Bolton also blocked a portion of the law that required state officials to check the immigration status of anyone in custody in Arizona before they were released from jail. The judge said the state measure was preempted by federal law because such checks would swamp federal immigration officials who are pursuing different priorities. �The number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established,� Bolton wrote. The judge said the same problem would arise under the provision requiring police officers to check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants. �Federal resources will be taxed and diverted from federal enforcement priorities as a result of the increase in requests for immigration status determination(s),� she said. The judge said the provision would also create an impermissible burden on immigrants who are lawfully present in Arizona. Bolton concluded that there was a likelihood of irreparable harm to the interests of the federal government if certain provisions of SB 1070 took effect. �The court by no means disregards Arizona�s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime, including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money,� Bolton wrote. �Even though Arizona�s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws,� she said. [url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0728/Why-Judge-Susan-Bolton-blocked-key-parts-of-Arizona-s-SB-1070:
MORE[/url]

gestapo and dictator and tyrant and oppressor = USA

I agree

Because this is not part of our democratic principles.

Sammy;217663:
Anonymous 07-29-10, 02:24 AM The federal government, along with state governments has a duty to control its borders against intruders. And these intruders should be stopped at our borders from entering our country. But it is against our principles to have the law enforcing officials going around and searching, or asking people to expose their ID inside our country, just on suspicion of a person, or group of persons of being aliens. Because if this is done, our basic freedom is in jeopardy, and surely will lead to a police state, and will encourage a fascist regime to rise and destroy our basic freedom in which our nation was founded upon.

Sammy, SB 1070 does not say that. Have you read the bill? Racial profiling is forbidden. A law enforcement officer can only ask WHEN he has resonable suspicion and has already made a legal stop for some other infraction, like speeding. SB 1707 prohibits law enforcement officers from stopping anyone just to ask for papers. You seem to get you information from the Department of (In)Justice.

Quote:
All people are innocent until proven guilty. But you cannot go around picking people up at random, and then prove them to be guilty. Because this is not part of our democratic principles. Sammy

Your Novel was too short

H.I.M. Obama

Pontotoc Bill;217742:
Sammy, SB 1070 does not say that. Have you read the bill? Racial profiling is forbidden. A law enforcement officer can only ask WHEN he has resonable suspicion and has already made a legal stop for some other infraction, like speeding. SB 1707 prohibits law enforcement officers from stopping anyone just to ask for papers. You seem to get you information from the Department of (In)Justice.

Demands visa procession while USA blantantly ignors other gardens visa procession

seems more like an ernormous joke

anon...mous;217767:
if the usa government and people want to be respected, and be respected at its borders, does it not follow, that the usa government and people,along with the corporations must then respect the borders and peoples of the rest of the world’s countries and peoples? the track record of thefts disrespects and hosts of crimes make the obvious, a joke and fools seems to be taken in, exponding on how priestly the usa people are.

Oh? What thefts, disrespects, or crimes are you claiming? Or are you on an Anti-American screed because you hate the United States?

where do we go from here?

A nation is respected on how it treats its lowest citizen's rights

Sammy;217826:
I believe that a nation obtains its respectability from the international community on how it treats its lowest citizens. In my regard: Its lowest citizens are those who have no shelter, are down on their luck, are jobless and hungry, are alcoholics, prostitutes, drug addicts, incompetent to care for themselves. And I believe it is a duty of a civilized nation, to cure these people, and to reestablish them in the mainstream of its society. And not to have speculators to thrive upon their misfortune. To me this is what determines the respectability of a civilized society. Sammy, and his thoughts

Understand and agreed. But SB1070 is about ILLEGAL ALIENS, not US citizens. Do you understand the difference? SB1070 directly addresses your concerns. The situation was created because the US government refused to protect citizens from illegal aliens. This is a direct opposite of what you claim is the respectability of a civilized society. These people, illegal aliens, do NOT have the right to be in the US, nor do they have any rights under the Constitution. They have already committed a federal crime by being in the US. They entered the US without proper paperwork or authority. That is a federal crime, Sammy. Why do you support the criminal over the citizen, yet again?