Ask Me Help Desk - Arizona v Rhode Island

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton ,doing the bidding of the Obots,issued an injunction preventing parts of Arizona's immigration law from going into effect today as scheduled.
Arizona immigration law: State to appeal injunction

But there will be no permanent settlement of this dispute between Arizona and the Obama Administration at the district court level . Why ? Because all Arizona is asking for is the "equal right" to enforce laws that has already been ruled Constitutional in the court system to the State of Rhode Island.
I mean we aren't even talking about decisions that are dated . The 1st Circus Court of appeals decided in February that Rhode Island had the blessing of a previous SCOTUS decision that police do not need ANY probable cause at all to ask someone about their immigration status .
The relevant cases are 'Estrada v Rhode Island '
Estrada v. State of Rhode Island, No. 09-1149 - Criminal Law - U.S. First Circuit
... and the SCOTUS decision in 'Muehler v. Mena' .By unanimous opinion SCOTUS said that “mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure,” and that Fourth Amendment detention standards are not to be implied by such questioning.
Muehler v. Mena - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rhode Island has used these opinions to enforce laws and standards that are essentially the same as Arizona adopted in it's law.

Why the difference ? Why don't the Obots file lawsuits against Rhode Island then ? Because it's a blue state ? Because there would be no political advantage in doing so ?

Arizona will ultimately win this in the court system because their laws are resonable and based on Federal standards already adjudicated in the court system. The Obots know this .That is why they gave a weak rational for their suit (the Supremacy Clause ) and wouldn't touch any misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment with a 10 foot pole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton ,doing the bidding of the Obots,issued an injunction preventing parts of Arizona's immigration law from going into effect today as scheduled.

Arizona will ultimately win this in the court system because their laws are resonable and based on Federal standards already adjudicated in the court system. The Obots know this

Hello tom:

Judge Bolton, who was recommended for her judgeship by Senator John Kyle, Republican, was doing the bidding of the Constitution, which is what we want our judges to do. I'm surprised that you didn't call her activist.

Arizona's law is unconstitutional on several fronts, but the supremacy clause is reason enough for the purposes of this discussion. If you want me to BASH Obama, I'm happy to do so because he isn't hammering for immigration reform. All Arizona is doing, is what the federal government refuses to do. However, when and if the congress decides to do its job, all the states laws dealing with immigration will be moot - as they should be.

excon

PS> Toward that end, will you please describe what a "secure" border means. If you tell me that secure, means that NOBODY get's by, then it's clear that you have NO intention of passing immigration reform. Since that threshold is impossible to attain, exactly how many people can get in and we can STILL call it secure? Personally, I think a "secure border" is right wing CODE for SCREW the Mexicans! That's what I think.

Quote:

PS> Toward that end, will you please describe what a "secure" border means. If you tell me that secure, means that NOBODY get's by, then it's clear that you have NO intention of passing immigration reform. Since that threshold is impossible to attain, exactly how many people can get in and we can STILL call it secure? Personally, I think a "secure border" is right wing CODE for SCREW the Mexicans! That's what I think.

That's a strawman .You very well know from previous discussions that I don't think it's possible to hermetically seal the border . I'm amazed however how often I hear the argument that if the attempt is not 100 % effective it shouldn't be tried at all. The truth is that a significant reduction in the infiltration would make the task of developing a rational immigration policy much more manageble.

Sorry if you don't approve ,but your solution of open borders doesn't work on too many levels.

Now back to the op . If Az law is unconstitutional as you say;and it's a mirror image of the law and policy that other states and localities adopt. Then why are the Obots going after Arizona and not Rhode Island ? Why did SCOTUS rule 9-0 that the standards RI applies is lawful ?
Finally ,if the Supremacy clause is the true issue than why aren't the Obots going after sanctuary cities ? And since you think the Supremacy clause is so sacrosanct ,why shouldn't Federal standards apply to medical marijuana ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Then why are the Obots going after Arizona and not Rhode Island ? And since you think the Supremacy clause is so sacrosanct ,why shouldn't Federal standards apply to medical marijuana ?

Hello again, tom:

Why not Rhode Island?? Because they don't have a redneck, right wing, racial profiling sheriff, like Joe Arpio.

Why not medical marijuana? Because immigration is CLEARLY the job of the federal government. We can't have 50 different immigration laws. But, we COULD have 50 different state policies on medical marijuana. After all, we have, do we not, several THOUSAND, or more, county laws dealing with alcohol, and that works OK, doesn't it?

excon

Yes immigration is a national concern because it is a national security issue. The problem here is that the Feds REFUSE to enforce their laws . The way I see it ,Arizona should be suing the national government and not the other way around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The way I see it ,Arizona should be suing the national government and not the other way around.

Hello again, tom:

No disagreement there.

excon