Obama Suing Arizona for Enforcing a Federal Law? WOW!!

Apparently Obama is taking the side of drug cartels instead the side of the law!!! What a disgrace!



www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Quite the strawman you have there.

~

-

Looks like you're grasping for straws...

Just my opinion though, but I think liberals are becoming more moderate the farther to the right that "Republicans" drift

reply to post by Angelicdefender2012


well what do you expect! obama needs those extra votes ! i wouldn't be
surprised if he puts a sign on the border of mexico with a picture of him waving , saying come on down !! vote obama 2012 ! yes you can ! and together yes we can lol has any other president sued a
state of the union before? but hey this man gave us obama care he's
our man , just love how he sneaked in the healthcare budget , they didn't even see it in the bill why you ask? because they submitted it to be voted on a few hours before it had to be voted on ! very smooth
mr obama and no spell check i will not be capitalizing obama's name

This guy looks a little out of place without camo and shooting glasses and holding a Mini-14 or something.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Angelicdefender2012


Actually he's taking the side of American citizens who don't want to be pulled over by an Arizona state trooper for being browner-than-average.

"Achtung! Yoo vill zhow me yoor paperz, now! Schnell! Schnell!"

Which is exactly what this law amounts to. It's authorization for police and state troopers to harass and threaten nonwhites. It gives absolute discretionary power to the people in uniform to demand documentation of anyone they think might possibly be illegal. And awkwardly, the law also forbids those same men and women from not doing so.

That your source - and by extention yourself - is trying to defend this policy by claiming that it's aimed at "drug cartels" says an awful lot. Either they are totally ignorant of the law's provisions, or they think that everyone who "fits the description" is in fact guilty of being part of a drug cartel.

And since the "description" is based wholly on a law enforcement agent's guess and personal opinion...

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Angelicdefender2012

 

Actually he's taking the side of American citizens who don't want to be pulled over by an Arizona state trooper for being browner-than-average.

"Achtung! Yoo vill zhow me yoor paperz, now! Schnell! Schnell!"

Which is exactly what this law amounts to. It's authorization for police and state troopers to harass and threaten nonwhites. It gives absolute discretionary power to the people in uniform to demand documentation of anyone they think might possibly be illegal.

Ummm. Talk about a strawman!

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

www.azleg.gov...

1) Stopping someone for being "browner than average" is not a "lawful contact" and is, therefore, specifically prohibited by the act.
2) "Reasonable suspicion" is required to initiate an investigation of the immigration status of the person "lawfully" detained.
3) Any investigation of a person's immigration status must be "reasonable" and "practicable". The act does not establish a free-for-all. Nor does it "authorize" "harassment" or "threats" of non-whites.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Considering Obama has cut the budget for border defense, what do you suggest those in AZ do??

The individual states do not have the authourity to execute nor act upon Federal law hence why it is illegal.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
The individual states do not have the authourity to execute nor act upon Federal law hence why it is illegal.

But isn't the Arizona law merely enforcing Federal laws that already exist?
They don't call them illegal for nothing...

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

As everyone knows, the above quote is the oath of office of the President of the United States.

Now do me a favor. Don't just read it. Examine each word closely and think about what each word means. Each word does have a definition and their definitions are more than likely learned by the time each one of us reaches the third grade.

As simple as each word is, it is obvious they are arranged in a manner that a Harvard graduate can't understand.

Obama has broken this oath of office and by breaking this oath of office is grounds for removal from said office. Obama has been a joke since he was a nobody Senator from Illinois and now he's no more than a nobody occupying the highest office in the United States.

I've nothing more to say on this matter.

Star and flag!

reply to post by backinblack


States do not have the legal authourity nor have jurisdiction over Federal matters.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by backinblack

 

States do not have the legal authourity nor have jurisdiction over Federal matters.

That's not answering my question...

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by backinblack

 

States do not have the legal authourity nor have jurisdiction over Federal matters.

That's not answering my question...

That does answer your q as you are thinking about this on the State level which has no bearing on Federal level. Federal trumps State here everytime.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


You got that backwards actually... And it is not illegal for a state to pass a law, that says the exact same thing a federal law says, and actually enforce it...

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

You got that backwards actually... And it is not illegal for a state to pass a law, that says the exact same thing a federal law says, and actually enforce it...

The point I am making is not to deny a State the right to pass a law as all State have a sovereign right to do but to deny a State from enforcing Federal law as if it were it's own.

Immigration and National Security is Federal territory which means the States must stay away. This matter was Arizona law that illegally gave the State Border and Customs level authourity.

IE, New Jersey cannot touch nor enforce Federal law.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

You got that backwards actually... And it is not illegal for a state to pass a law, that says the exact same thing a federal law says, and actually enforce it...

May I ask exactly which federal law this law is supposed to be an exact mirror of?

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

You got that backwards actually... And it is not illegal for a state to pass a law, that says the exact same thing a federal law says, and actually enforce it...

May I ask exactly which federal law this law is supposed to be an exact mirror of?

Arizona's law that allows the State to act like that they are US Customs and Border Patrol.