Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: Slap down from the Supreme Court

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    7,255

    Thumbs up Slap down from the Supreme Court

    So, apparently AZ has officially been naughty with regards to their interesting immigration laws. And, also, looks like the President also has the constitutional power to enforce immigration laws as he sees fit. Let the jaw gnashing begin.

    Today, the Supreme Court issued a decision invalidating most of Arizona’s controversial immigration law. Georgetown Law professor David Cole, a vocal civil liberties advocate, called the decision “almost a total victory for the Obama administration,” which challenged the constitutionality of the law. But the decision signaled that the court also views Obama’s recent immigration directive, halting deportations for many young undocumented immigrants, as legal. Essentially, the court underscored that the federal government has broad discretion under the law to decide who to deport. From the decision:
    Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. See §1227. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. See Brief for Former Commissioners of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service as Amici Curiae 8–13 (hereinafter Brief for Former INS Commissioners).
    …Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service.
    Kris Kobach, an immigration advisor for Mitt Romney, said that Obama’s order was illegal. It does not appear likely that the Supreme Court agrees.
    This explains why Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion, upholding the entire law, included a lengthy section blasting Obama’s immigration order. He also read from that section at length from the bench.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    3,248

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    I thought the real telling part was the bits that didnt get struck down.
    this is the way its supposed to work. AZ has a good handle on this and i hope will continue to enact laws to control its borders; Pity other states are so much on the dole that they dont.
    the other huge pity is that the fed seems to think that it can take this responsibility from the states. the high court upheld lots of this law that allows the state to control its own immigration. Sending a pretty clear message to the fed that there are things they dont have power over.

    Quote Originally Posted by ccmanuals View Post
    So, apparently AZ has officially been naughty with regards to their interesting immigration laws. And, also, looks like the President also has the constitutional power to enforce immigration laws as he sees fit. Let the jaw gnashing begin.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, Ca
    Posts
    6,752

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by 2MeterTroll View Post
    I thought the real telling part was the bits that didnt get struck down.
    Those "bits" not struck down will quickly become civil rights issues.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    3,248

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    that depends on if any right have been trounced. Personally i dont believe illegal aliens have any but the basic rights of humans. this does not allow for breaking the law of the place you are trying to immigrate to. this means you are a criminal, illegal and are not protected under the constitution. This includes anyone here in this country illegally; IMO the problem begins and ends in the breaking the law. I dont find the simple matter of applying for citizen ship and immigration all that confusing nor do those who have lawfully immigrated. Its the states job to control the state borders and keep the population, you have certain benefits for being a citizen of a state. this country is a republic that means each state ha a type of sovereignty this allows for some autonomy of law's, thought and policy. I think the supreme court has finally become conscious of this again.

    Many dont feel that way but i am not into screaming my views from the roof top.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,191

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    being mostly native american I always find it strangely humorous when a bunch of immigrants start complaining about immigration

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Peoria, Ill / Savannah, Ga
    Posts
    4,883

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Both sides of the aisle have declared this a total victory. Just sayin'

    Bobby

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    3,248

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Boston View Post
    being mostly native american I always find it strangely humorous when a bunch of immigrants start complaining about immigration
    same here when i hear natives complain about the same thing. let me know when you find the population that evolved on this continent. We are all immigrants from somewhere.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    3,248

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Figures. nether side IMO has a clue these days.

    Quote Originally Posted by hokiefan View Post
    Both sides of the aisle have declared this a total victory. Just sayin'

    Bobby

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    7,566

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Vicotry in the war with Mexico created the problem of where would slavery be allowed to spread to. The Civil War ended slavery. Mexico makes up the deficit in cheap labor. The rest is footnotes.

    Illegal immigration has costs which are spread to the lowest classes in inverse proportion to the profits flowing to the highest. The general population of the border states have finally realized that something isn't right but simply will not grasp that their exploiters are white capitalists. So they launch off on these Children's Crusades. The constitution slaps them down because, well, it's the constitution.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,191

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by 2MeterTroll View Post
    same here when i hear natives complain about the same thing. let me know when you find the population that evolved on this continent. We are all immigrants from somewhere.

    Half true, we didn't exterminate anyone when we got here. Nor did we displace anyone. Nor did we jail anyone who did happen to land on the continent we inhabited. Its a simple question if ethics. If a thief gets robbed, and then cries foul, who's to listen.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    3,248

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    And half true again because even verbal history doesn't delve far enough back to make those claims valid. As such they are not arguable with any degree of factual evidence. archaeology is a good science but hardly factual in it suppositions of history before the verbal record. Barely factual in the beginnings of the written; and revised daily in the modern. As i am wont in any-case i give the benefit of the doubt to native americans because nothing can be proven before the European invasion of north america except for the small amount of time when Europeans where allowed prior. that historical documentation is often over looked or ignored for the reasons of justification.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boston View Post
    Half true, we didn't exterminate anyone when we got here. Nor did we displace anyone. Nor did we jail anyone who did happen to land on the continent we inhabited. Its a simple question if ethics. If a thief gets robbed, and then cries foul, who's to listen.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, Ca
    Posts
    6,752

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by 2MeterTroll View Post
    this means you are a criminal, illegal and are not protected under the constitution.
    This will be the next big deal... and I suspect they (the supremes) want to deal with it as a separate issue.

    Do criminals not have any rights under the constitution?

    "shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States... [or] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, [or] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    link
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Civil_rights

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    3,248

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    No citizen criminals are still citizens and the first part applies to them. the protections of the law are not the protections of the constitution. a fair trial under the law is always mandatory as is protection of the law. this does not include freedoms enjoyed by citizens of either the state or the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoeyawl View Post
    This will be the next big deal... and I suspect they (the supremes) want to deal with it as a separate issue.

    Do criminals not have any rights under the constitution?

    "shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States... [or] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, [or] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    link
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Civil_rights

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    7,255

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court



    It's like we are living in an alternate universe.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tiny isle in Caribbean
    Posts
    3,227

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants on Monday, rejecting the Obama administration's stance that only the U.S. government should enforce immigration laws in the United States.

    The nation's highest court, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, unanimously upheld the state law's most controversial aspect, requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop.

    But in a split decision, the justices also ruled that the three other challenged provisions went too far in intruding on federal law, including one that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to work and another that requires them to carry their documents.

    "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration ... but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," Justice Kennedy wrote in a 25-page opinion.

    Kennedy said the mandatory nature of police checks did not interfere with the federal immigration scheme, and found unpersuasive the Obama administration's argument that this portion of the law must be preempted at this stage.

    He said it was improper to block that provision before state courts had an opportunity to review it, and without some showing that its enforcement conflicted with federal immigration law. Kennedy also left open the possibility for future constitutional or other challenges to the law once it goes into effect.

    Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer hailed the decision as a victory for supporters of tough immigration enforcement.

    “Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens," Brewer said in written statement. "After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution." SB 1070 is the official name of the Arizona law.

    “While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights."

    U.S. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, both of Arizona, also applauded the ruling.

    “While we still want to fully review the Supreme Court’s decision, today’s ruling appears to validate a key component of Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070," read a statement released by the two senators. "The Arizona law was born out of the state’s frustration with the burdens that illegal immigration and continued drug smuggling impose on its schools, hospitals, criminal justice system and fragile desert environment, and an administration that chooses to set enforcement policies based on a political agenda, not the laws as written by Congress. We will continue our efforts on behalf of the citizens of Arizona to secure our southern border. We believe Arizonans are better served when state and federal officials work as partners to protect our citizens rather than as litigants in a courtroom.”

    The decision in part was an election-year setback for President Barack Obama. It went to the heart of a fierce national debate between Democrats and Republicans over the 11.5 million illegal immigrants the U.S. government estimates to be in the country.

    Obama has vowed to push for comprehensive immigration legislation if re-elected on November 6. Opinion polls show Hispanics, now equal to 16 percent of all Americans, overwhelmingly support Obama.

    Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney opposed the administration's challenge to the law.

    Arizona, on the southwest border with Mexico, two years ago became the first of half a dozen U.S. states to adopt laws to drive illegal immigrants out. The high court's ruling cleared the way for other states to adopt similar laws.

    About 360,000 of the country's illegal immigrants, or 3 percent, reside in Arizona. Most of the state's nearly 2 million Latinos are in the United States legally.

    Obama this month announced an important change in federal immigration policy ahead of the election contest with Romney, who has taken a tough stance against illegal immigration.

    Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who were brought into the United States as children could be able to avoid deportation and get work permits under the policy change announced by Obama. Most illegal immigrants in the United States are Hispanics.
    © 2012 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.
    . . .
    Thou shalt incur undying wrath if thou post anything, however true, that is negative (however so slightly) of the Democrats or of POTUS on this forum.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    14,716

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by 2MeterTroll View Post
    I thought the real telling part was the bits that didnt get struck down.
    this is the way its supposed to work. AZ has a good handle on this and i hope will continue to enact laws to control its borders; Pity other states are so much on the dole that they dont.
    the other huge pity is that the fed seems to think that it can take this responsibility from the states. the high court upheld lots of this law that allows the state to control its own immigration. Sending a pretty clear message to the fed that there are things they dont have power over.
    As I see it, the parts that survived were already within the province of local police. If they stop you for running a red light, they can ask for proof of you being here legally. Back when this started I believe I posted links to this being a power state and local police already enjoyed.
    Congress begins every day with a prayer. Enough said.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    14,716

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Just to ask the question: why are they keeping their health care rulings underwraps while these other rulings come out? Or is this the order they got the cases in?
    Congress begins every day with a prayer. Enough said.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,191

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by 2MeterTroll View Post
    And half true again because even verbal history doesn't delve far enough back to make those claims valid. Verbal history ? who mentioned anything about verbal history, you suggested the first americans/native americans were just as guilty of displacing someone as the Europeans, which I find kinda humorous given that its kinda hard for the first people here to displace, who, invisible people ? First is first, as in, no one else was here to displace. As such they are not arguable with any degree of factual evidence. archaeology is a good science but hardly factual in it suppositions of history before the verbal record. Um, your the only one suggesting that, and yikes, are you seriously comparing the science of archaeology to the various and wildly inaccurate verbal histories/story telling traditions of the native tribes ? Suggesting that verbal traditions can be argued against the scientific process ? WOW. Barely factual in the beginnings of the written; and revised daily in the modern. As i am wont in any-case i give the benefit of the doubt to native americans because nothing can be proven before the European invasion of north america except for the small amount of time when Europeans where allowed prior. that historical documentation is often over looked or ignored for the reasons of justification. Huh, ??? can anyone translate that for me please. From what I can tell its a treatise denouncing the science of archeology by vague mention of any of the 500 or so nations use of verbal story telling.
    Um yah

    made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    but the whole issue of today can be summed up nicely by that little ethical dilemma presented earlier

    If a thief gets robbed, and then cries foul, who's to listen.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    North West Arkansas
    Posts
    49,995

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    I think the term 'slap down' in the thread title is rather prejudicial. I prefer to make up my own mind as to how to think
    The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
    Personal failures are too important to be trusted to others.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    3,248

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Odd even after rereading its a pretty cogent thought. maybe being blunt and stupid will work for you. you have no proof of your claims and therefor are either lying or being deliberately ignorant of your own heritages story telling and history. that only goes back a few thousand years at best, reliably. is that clear enough?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boston View Post
    Um yah

    made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    but the whole issue of today can be summed up nicely by that little ethical dilemma presented earlier

    If a thief gets robbed, and then cries foul, who's to listen.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    7,255

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Allen View Post
    I think the term 'slap down' in the thread title is rather prejudicial. I prefer to make up my own mind as to how to think
    simply an attention getter. I don't think I'm the only one guilty of misleading thread titles.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,191

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Sure is, its called a straw man argument. First you invent a line of reasoning and then you pretend it was anyone's other than your own.

    Seems perfectly clear to me.

    The native peoples oral traditions have nothing whatsoever to do with the rather humorous bleating of our nations present day masters and there complaints about immigration.

    But just for fun, what was that logic again. Something you refer to as oral history trumps the science of archeology, do tell. I'm not buying it. Its got nothing to do with the hypocrisy found in the present situation. Kinda curious what your on about tho. The innumerable oral traditions of the native peoples you'd like to consider as scientifically factual and compare them to an actual scientific field of study. Crazy but feel free, kinda adds to the humor actually.

    Cheers
    B

    even if the thief does backflips I'm somewhat less than sympathetic of him being robbed of what he stole in the first place
    Last edited by Boston; 06-25-2012 at 06:54 PM.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    7,566

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Arizona Cop: I believe you are an illegal alien and so demand you produce proof of citizenship.

    Citizen: I refuse.

    What next? Put in him jail, call the Feds and wait for the Feds to call back? That's stupid.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,191

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    failing to provide proper identification

    failing to carry proper identification

    Also failing to obey an officer

    and I'm sure there is more but that right there is more than enough to get you arrested if the officer feels like it.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    15,148

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Other than re-entering the country at an Immigration inspection station, now known as Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is there any time a US citizen is required to produce proof of citizenship?

    BTW, an out of state driver's license may or may not be accepted as proof of US citizenship.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    10,149

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    I've been stopped on the road by feds in California and asked to produce a social security card.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    15,148

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    By "feds" you mean Border Patrol? A social security card isn't proof of citizenship. My brother was green card Canadian most of his working life. He had a SS card.

    I keep mine in a file at work. What would they want from me- Canadian born with an AZ dirver's license?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Too far inland.
    Posts
    5,478

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan McCosh View Post
    I've been stopped on the road by feds in California and asked to produce a social security card.
    This is a peeve of mine.

    When issued a SS card (or a copy/replacement), you are instructed NOT to carry it on your person.

    When issued a commercial driver's license, you are instructed to carry your SS card at all times. Why? I have no idea. In case they need to run a credit check at a fuel purchase perhaps.

    Nonsense, all of it.
    Knowledge: Tomatoes are fruit.
    Wisdom: Tomatoes do not belong in fruit salad.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    15,148

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Get this! You are presumed to be an alien UNLESS you can produce one of the four forms of ID.

    Here's the law as written:
    A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
    1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
    2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
    3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
    4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    10,149

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by John of Phoenix View Post
    By "feds" you mean Border Patrol? A social security card isn't proof of citizenship. My brother was green card Canadian most of his working life. He had a SS card.

    I keep mine in a file at work. What would they want from me- Canadian born with an AZ dirver's license?
    Actually, I'm not sure about the agency. It wasn't any border patrol, we were quite away from the border. There are routine roadblocks in southern California looking for whatever.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    15,148

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan McCosh View Post
    Actually, I'm not sure about the agency. It wasn't any border patrol, we were quite away from the border. There are routine roadblocks in southern California looking for whatever.
    It probably was Border Patrol. They have checkpoints a hundred miles plus on the freeways north and east of San Diego.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    14,055

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Allen View Post
    I think the term 'slap down' in the thread title is rather prejudicial. I prefer to make up my own mind as to how to think
    no way

    when i'm told what to think i'll pass it along to you

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, Ca
    Posts
    6,752

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Figment View Post
    When issued a commercial driver's license, you are instructed to carry your SS card at all times.
    I don't think this is true, the CDL is directly linked to your SS number and it must be presented with the initial application, but I don't think you have to carry it.

    "And the victors shall become the vanquished"...

    May ve see your papers?

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    45,123

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoeyawl View Post
    "And the victors shall become the vanquished"...

    May ve see your papers?
    You think we have it bad. How do ya think the Greeks and the French and the Irish are feeling these days?
    I never learned from a man who agreed with me.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,191

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    actually we need three forms of ID to travel in this country, license, registration, proof of insurance, and now, proof of citizenship, which may or may not be satisfied by one of the former, depends on how this whole mess pans out, and its far from done yet.

    Oh well
    might as well sit back and enjoy the show

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    14,716

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    To put this into perspective, a documented person here legally is apt to be law abiding and have a valid driver's license, no?

    Someone who is not documented is not apt to have a valid driver's license. If you are an officer and you pull over a car for some violation and the driver has no license, maybe no insurance, I believe you have the right to pursue further. conversely, if the license is valid, insurance is valid, it would be reasonable to assume this person is here legally, no?
    Congress begins every day with a prayer. Enough said.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    7,566

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by John of Phoenix View Post
    Get this! You are presumed to be an alien UNLESS you can produce one of the four forms of ID.

    Here's the law as written:
    But doesn't that mean that if you do produce a DL, the little game is over?

    Do you have to show citizenship to get a DL?

    The solution obviously is for the federal government to close the border but the people aren't ready for the cost, not the up-front cost, not the maintenance cost, and most especially not the loss of profits from the exploitation of illegal labor. This dorking around with drivers' licences is a way for the Republicans to re-gain power so they can let more illegal aliens in while making a great show with which to awe the peasantry.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    15,148

    Default Re: Slap down from the Supreme Court

    But doesn't that mean that if you do produce a DL, the little game is over?
    An AZ license or one from another state that also requires proof of citizenship to get one.

    The odd thing about 1070 is that this DL BS is just a new provision to an old law. The original law requires employers to check the citizenship of new employees through the federal E-Verify program. Any employer failing to do so is subject to some pretty severe fines. Oddly, that part of the law has never been enforced. (Which proves your last paragraph.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •