Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

This is just too much . . .

by Coryphaeus Jul 6, 2010 5:28AM PDT

Feds sue to block Arizona illegal immigrant law

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38110909

-----------------------------------------------

The Federal Government suing a state that is trying to enforce a federal law. This is just over the top. There used to be a saying back when protestors were complaining about the government, that if you don't like the United States, just leave. I'm beginning now to understand.

It's just plain sad.

Discussion is locked

22 Posts
- Collapse + Expand Details
- Collapse -
we tried that
by James Denison Jul 6, 2010 5:37AM PDT

They wouldn't let us leave. I doubt they will now either. Only thing left is to take it over and make it work right.

- Collapse -
I had a rueful laugh
by MarkFlax Forum moderator Jul 6, 2010 5:45AM PDT

at this;

"It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally". Huh? Is that something like a double negative?

Whatever, the legal action by the Feds seems silly to me.

Mark

- Collapse -
The Admin has no interest in enforcing the law...
by EdHannigan Jul 6, 2010 5:52AM PDT

that is obvious. What they want is amnesty and more "rights" for illegals.

Message was edited by: admin to remove promo link.

- Collapse -
(NT) Well, if a certain pres. hadn't set a precedent of amnesty..
by grimgraphix Jul 9, 2010 12:35PM PDT
- Collapse -
The story said...
by J. Vega Jul 6, 2010 6:00AM PDT

The story said "The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics.".
There is a Federal law forbidding the possession of heroin. Would that mean that states are forbidden from making it a state crime and adding its own punishment and enforcement tactics?
And, does it also mean that a state can not have a law that makes it a crime to intimidate voters?

- Collapse -
don't talk sense
by James Denison Jul 6, 2010 6:03AM PDT

It might upset people.

- Collapse -
RE: don't talk sense
by JP Bill Jul 6, 2010 8:49AM PDT

Can America "afford"(to pay to prosecute/enforce laws) to deport illegals?

- Collapse -
(NT) Irrelevant
by C1ay Jul 6, 2010 10:32AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) I'll take that as a "NO".....
by JP Bill Jul 6, 2010 8:38PM PDT
- Collapse -
crossing a "constitutional line"
by Mike_Hanks Jul 6, 2010 11:18AM PDT
- Collapse -
Just got this in my email
by Diana Forum moderator Jul 9, 2010 12:03PM PDT

We need to show more sympathy for these people.

* They travel miles in the heat.

* They risk their lives crossing a border.
.
* They don't get paid enough wages.

* They do jobs that others won't do or are afraid to do.

* They live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a different language.

* They rarely see their families, and they face adversity all day ~ every day..........




I'm not talking about illegal Mexicans ~ I'm talking about our troops! Doesn't it seem strange that many Democrats and Republicans are willing to lavish all kinds of social benefits on illegals, but don't support our troops, and are even threatening to defund them?

Diana

- Collapse -
So, here's an idea
by James Denison Jul 9, 2010 5:44PM PDT

Since they are doing that anyway, why not have them do it HERE instead, along our southern border under invasion. Two problems solved.

- Collapse -
The Fed is being ridiculous...
by grimgraphix Jul 9, 2010 12:58PM PDT

... but then again, the Fed has worked so hard these past 10 years to expand their powers over so many facets of our lives. No one should be surprised if the Fed will now fight against any State that dares to stand up for itself.

- Collapse -
Reminds me of the Fed response to medical marijuana
by Diana Forum moderator Jul 9, 2010 8:02PM PDT

Seems that people that agree with the Federal law ignore states' rights and those that disagree loudly promote states' rights.

Diana

- Collapse -
Good example, but I would focus on the constitutionalists...
by grimgraphix Jul 9, 2010 11:17PM PDT

... but I would focus on the constitutionalists too.

So many folks have spoke out vehemently against laws that threaten a favorite amendment... while tolerating other modifications of laws that met an immediate perceived threat, if it didn't step on their personal toes.

Rants about activist judges only apply to judges people don't agree with... while ignoring other judges that overthrow 50, 80, 100 years of legal and constitutional precedence.

I say, when it comes to immigrations laws, try enforcing the laws that are on the books. Yes... control our borders, but more importantly, penalize the people who give illegal immigrants a reason to come to this country. I don't fault anyone who wants to improve their life. I don't fault any illegal immigrants for coming to this country. I fault those who knowingly hire these illegal immigrants.

But... sadly, the genie is out of the bottle, and we have given up too many compromises to the Fed, for them not to fight against us trying to takes those powers away from them. The Fed is likely to fight for every bit of power it has gained over the people and the States. Why wouldn't they?

- Collapse -
Final American Power Rests In The Governors
by James Denison Jul 10, 2010 1:56AM PDT

Anytime they decide to call a constitutional convention, the entire Federal govt is placed on notice that things will change and they will have no power in it. That time may be coming soon.

- Collapse -
(NT) We the people?...........We the Governors?
by JP Bill Jul 10, 2010 3:37AM PDT
- Collapse -
That's right, we elect the governors
by James Denison Jul 10, 2010 5:38AM PDT

They then appoint whoever goes to the constitutional convention.

- Collapse -
It reminds me...
by J. Vega Jul 10, 2010 3:28AM PDT

The Arizona situation reminds me of the "sanctuary city" situation. Obama objects to Arizona making a law because they hold that immigration is a matter for the Federal government. Yet they don't file suits over sanctuary cities, although the same reasoning would seem to apply. Why one, but not the other?

- Collapse -
Sounds like illegal immigration is too lucrative
by Steven Haninger Jul 10, 2010 1:22AM PDT

for the government to fix properly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38176981/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times

Heck, fine the employer and turn the illegals loose to, maybe, do the same thing elsewhere. Then you can fine that business too. The money keeps rolling in and and the supply of illegals generating the cash is maintained.

Maybe government can start fining people who leave their doors unlocked and are robbed. Let the crooks go free to burglarize another unlocked home and fine that homeowner as well. I guess the old expression "Crime doesn't pay" isn't exactly the truth. Happy

- Collapse -
Same thing with crime. Too lucrative for the govt to stop.
by James Denison Jul 10, 2010 2:01AM PDT

you get to rip off criminal enterprise while also ripping off taxpayers, so you have to keep releasing more prisoners to insure there's enough crime to justify huge police departments, court systems, district attorney offices, prison systems, parole officers, bailsbonds, and all the associated "rehabilitation" services the govt provides.

- Collapse -
(NT) I somehow suspect that is not the case.
by MarkFlax Forum moderator Jul 10, 2010 5:29AM PDT
Back to Speakeasy forum

CNET Forums

Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Brand Forums
Roadshow Autos
Off Topic

Other Forums

Forum Info