The WSJ tells me this morning that I'm sure both sides of this issue have been thoroughly vetted in other threads. That's not what I'd like to see this thread turn into, though I fear that there is no avoiding it. Indeed, as the Obama administration has stated in their brief, the issue is states' rights vs. federal rights regarding immigration. The claim is that it is the federal government's job to set laws, and the states' job to enforce them. Regardless of your opinions regarding Arizona's law, what are your opinions on this matter? Given your answer above, what are your opinions regarding the local governments who have instructed police officers to NOT enforce immigration law? Given your answer above, what are your opinions regarding states' medicinal marijuana laws, which fly in the face of US drug regulations? Finally, should it be ok for California to decriminalize marijuana unilaterally? I remind commenters that the issue in this thread is NOT the Arizona immigration law, rather, it is the issue of states' enforcement or non-enforcement of federal laws.
Methinks that this is gonna get ugly. Especially considering Arizona's controversial laws are identical to the Federal Government's laws for illegal immigration enforcement. On the bright side, at least this should prove to be entertaining! (I know, I'm a twisted individual)
Arizona should secede. The Federal government is insulting all of the sovereign states with moves like these.
your right legalizing descrimination is definatly the way to go i think the federal goverment is right federal goverment trumps state law thats why in california its legal to have mary jane if perscribed but the dea can still bust in your front door and arrest you for illegal drugs
What right does the federal government have to tell states what laws it can and cannot enforce/create? States should be able to make all the laws they please, so long as it's what the people want. You said it. States rights has led to war before.
While I agree that Arizona is well within it's rights to protect it's borders, and SHOULD secede considering that Arizona's immigration law is identical to the very Federal Government which is attempting to sue them... it's would be an INCREDIBLY foolish move considering the potential consequences. Although that's not to suggest that Arizona would be alone should they choose to secede. Texas, New Mexico, and their surrounding states would most certainly support them. What's sad is that Boycott supporters don't even know the basics... Peggy West, a county supervisor, didn't even know that Arizona shares a border with Mexico. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plj6waQbZLk It just makes me laugh, it really does. People are so stupid.
Arizona's Law is identical to the Federal Government's law. It is made very specifically to protect people against discrimination. The only difference is that it empowers Arizona Law Enforcement to actually enforce the laws and conduct trials on their own independently from the Federal Government. That's you're opinion. I don't agree with you, but hey... oh well right? Not true at all, read the constitution. There's a difference between using prescribed drugs (or Marijuana) or growing it with a license, and growing without a license and using without a prescription. The Federal Government RECOGNIZES California's medicinal marijuana practices so long as farmers and users are obeying California Law. That's why they DON'T bust in your front door if you have a prescription or a grower's license.
I am standing with Arizona on this one.. the state is being over ran with illegals.. if the feds want Arizona not to protect its legal citizens interests and well being, then The USA should be doing a better job of making it so Arizona does not have to Protect there People, In this way, or should finance the losses to Arizona from illegals..It is within Arizona's right and within the constitution that they have the right to protect there People.. Removing Illegals from there soil is well with in there rights, when they are causing hardships and in certain cases harm to the People of Arizona. (The Illegals)
I think there is a slight difference in the way that the laws are stated: I think illegal immigration is a minor offense by federal law, but a major offense under the AZ law. Another, more relevant question (I feel) was raised in the OP: what about those municipalities who have (unilaterally) decided NOT to enforce immigration laws?
The point is, it's clear that states have no rights to pass ``any law they want to''. Brown vs. Board of Education (for one), recent Supreme Court verdicts regarding the second amendment... I could keep going if you need more examples...
Look at California. They passed a law and the federal government had no problem with it. This proves that states can pass and enforce their own laws. The only problem, is that Arizona passes one, and there is suddenly a problem. Because the government didn't like the law. So I ask, what gives the federal government the right to pick and choose which ones are ok? I get your point, and I do concur that they can't pass "any law they want to". But rather any law within reason.
Ahhh now you get it! If you read the OP carefully, then you will see that this is the point of the thread Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! To restate the question succinctly: is it right for the federal government to bring suit against a state who's laws are (allegedly) in conflict with federal policies, while ignoring similar actions by other states?
The Federal Government represent the nation, and enforces national interests ( hopefully ). It is the bigger picture.... Also in this case, the issue involves foreign affairs, therefore the Federal Government have every right to intervene.
It depends on the issue, and if it is in conflict with national interests and foreign policy and affairs, then the Federal Government have every right to intervene. If it is state domestic issues, not in conflict with nation interests and the will of the entire nation, then the state should enforce laws that its people want.
Immigration involves other nations, independent sovereign nations not a part of the United States of America.
I am not an American and obviously I only can look at this situation from outside. And when you look at America from outside, the rest of the world don't see any point of the "states" (you may have realised I didn't call the country as the U.S., I used the identity that is used by the rest of the world: America) other than being administrative boxes (this is how they look on the map) because of some practical reasons. Did or did not Union States occupy Arizona after the Civil War? That's it. The end of the story. Obama suing Arizona just to stay on the safe side in terms of publicity. What kind of rights Arizona (or any other state for that matter) could possibly have? What will be the result of this judicial circus? Who is suing who and in which courts? OK, individual states may sometimes win some cases against Federal administration, but what kind of cases are they? Has any state won any serious one against Federal Administration? When I say serious, I mean the type of cases we are discussing now. Let Arizona go for a couple of months, let it be an independent country from the U.S. Then occupy it again and declare a Martial Law. What happened now? Who is going to complain and where? Everybody knows why Arizona is behaving that way (Republican agenda), and everybody knows Arizona will get nothing at the end of the day. Total nonsense.
