The Cellar - What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=22610)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 667390)

Under the 4th Amendment exceptions to detainment can be made...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...s_Constitution

And here the courts found that stopping people who look like they are of Mexican ancestory is legal:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=428&invol=543

Absolutely, I think i pointed out earlier (days ago) that the Court had ruled that racial profiling in that manner to be legal, under limited circumstances (checkpoints).

Does the AZ law go beyond that?

In another case, the Court of Appeals ruled that “Hispanic appearance is not, in general, an appropriate factor” for determining suspicion, especially in areas with large Hispanic populations."

United States v. Montero-Camargo

Another precedent perhaps, not directly on immigration, but on the issue of supremacy clause and the matter of sedition (catching commies, not illegals):

Quote:

Nelson, a member of the Communist Party, was convicted of violating the Pennsylvania Sedition Act. This Act was implemented prior to Congress's adoption of the Smith Act of 1940 (amended in 1948) which prohibited the same conduct as Pennsylvania's law.

The Court held that Pennsylvania's law was unenforceable and was superseded by the federal act. Chief Justice Warren argued that the scheme of federal regulation of seditious activities was "pervasive" and "left no room for the states to supplement it." Furthermore, the federal act dealt with an issue of primary importance to the national government which made any enforcement of similar state laws potentially harmful to the smooth execution of national statutes

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_10

That is why, IMO, as I have said repeatedly, it is for the federal courts to make that determination.

Well, until then, I would hope that AZ can conduct it's business without interference from the Feds. Further, the sooner the other border states join AZ the better. Maybe the Feds will be pushed to control the borders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 667363)

Those cases were BEFORE Congress assumed its expressed powers to regulate/legislate immigration.

And as a result, IMO those cases are not likely to be cited, but I could very well be wrong.

The principles behind the supremacy clause have stood the test of time, but I could be wrong in the case as well.

Do you have links for these cases yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 667401)

Do you have links for these cases yet?

I provide the link to the case involving the supremacy clause that may has as much precedent as those cases you cited...the issue of a state sedition law (as opposed to immigration law). You want more cases involving the supremacy clause, I'll be happy to find them....where state laws have been struck down because the federal law was overriding.

The one I cited may or may not be cited as precedent....just as those you cited may or may not.

How many times do I have to say that IMO, it is for the federal courts to make that determination. Neither one of us or others who have expressed opinions are experts.

Why not let the the federal judiciary do what the Constitution expressly charges it to do?

You provided a link to a blog... that has some other links to some bills...

Quote:

What the Court has said since then is that Congress alone has the power to regulate immigration.

I would like the link to this case.
I have provided links to supreme court cases wich rule that specific immigration issues, not relating to commerce, are considered a police matter and are within a state's right to legislate. You said a later ruling refuted that. I would like a link to that case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 667425)

You provided a link to a blog... that has some other links to some bills...

I would like the link to this case.
I have provided links to supreme court cases wich rule that specific immigration issues, not relating to commerce, are considered a police matter and are within a state's right to legislate. You said a later ruling refuted that. I would like a link to that case.

I was referring to the supremacy clause in more general terms and stated it poorly as I later said. I was wrong to specifically refer to rulings involving that clause and immigration law, despite the fact that many constitutional experts believe it has merit.

I also provided a link to an Appeals Court ruing (the most recent) that a state cant use race to determine "reasonable suspicion"

And I am still not clear if you even support the idea that the federal judiciary should make the legal determination as the Constitution suggests when laws involve the U.S govt....or if you think the AZ law should be accepted on faith or because its popular.

added:

On another immigration issue, the Court did strike down a Texas law that attempted to deny education to children who were illegal immigrants....not on the basis of the supremacy clause, but equal protection.

Plyler v. Doe

For the record:

Quote:

Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) is a case applying the law of conflict preemption. The United States Supreme Court held that a state system of alien registration was superseded by a federal system (the Alien Registration Act) because it was an "obstacle to accomplishment" of its goals.

Justice Hugo L. Black emphasized the supremacy of federal power over this area of law:

That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787, and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court. When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute,...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hines_v._Davidowitz

And I am still not clear if you even support the idea that the federal judiciary should make the legal determination....or if you think the AZ law should be accepted on faith, because its popular and the governor says its constitutional or for some other reason.

BTW, the buzz is that the DoJ might announce its filing with the court tomorrow after Obama gives a speech on immigration reform.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 667722)

...

That is so true... :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 667832)

[IMG]http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/2571/fedsaz2.png[/IMG]

I think the assumption of an accent simply because of his outward physical appearance smacks of racism... where's my lawyer?:D

And how come that Uncle Sam has such a big nose? :D Big nosed people should protest.

I thought it was Ted Kennedy.

I'm not sure that's Uncle Sam. It's like Uncle Durante or something.

Skidamarink a dinky dink,
Skidamarink a doo

(my grandma used to sing that to me.) :)

Quote:

Dear Senator Frist:

There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran aliens. Consider the following:

1. Illegal aliens generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, and government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.

2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. Illegal aliens are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. Illegal aliens take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.

3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens. These illegal aliens knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children.

4. Illegal aliens are NOT critical to the economy. Illegal aliens constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents.

5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants (legal immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.

6. The United States is welcoming to legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are not immigrants by definition. The U.S. accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.

7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic vote". Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic vote" is a myth. Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end.

8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I Mexico allowed German Spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S. During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico. During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their schoolchildren.

9. Although some illegal aliens enter this country for a better life, there are 6 billion people on this planet. At least 1 billion of those live on less than one dollar a day. If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?

10. There is a labor shortage in this country. This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage.

11. It is racist to want secure borders. What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price? For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties. A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There have already been riots in the streets by illegal aliens and their supporters. There will be more. You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the illegal aliens who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders in this country. The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here? There will be a reckoning. It will come in November of this year, again in 2008 and yet again in 2010. We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves.

David J. Stoddard, U.S. Border Patrol (RET), Arizona

Collected via e-mail, 2006
Link
and a copy of his testimony from 2002.

I think Mr. Stoddard makes some excellent points and rebukes a lot of the political banter from both sides.