Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
You have to show identification, not prove you're a citizen or legal alien. I don't see any difference in protection. What's at issue is jurisdiction and the presumption of guilt.
Jurisdiction is not an issue. Federal jurisdiction is not infringed. AZ law assists, does not usurp, the Federal Government in finding illegals. Actual guilt, not presumed guilt, is the target.
Any why we already have Federal laws to deal with this issue.
As JR says, the laws are not being properly enforced. Law without enforcement is law that does not exist. Normally, the Federal Government appreciates and encourages local assistance. It is, after all, so "overburdened." The AZ law actually makes the Federal law more meaningful by assisting in its enforcement.
That's not really the issue, it's about a State potentially usurping Federal law and the discrimination of legal citizens and legal aliens in doing so.
There is no possibility that the AZ law can "usurp" Federal law. Any state law that did so (not possible) would be struck down. The AZ law "usurps" no Federal law, no Federal power, no Federal action. It "potentially" assists the Federal Government. There is no special targeting of legal citizens or legal aliens. They are all subject to the same law enforcement. Any "potential" discrimination that occurs from improper enforcement is subject to reverse suits and monetary compensation.
That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.-spence
|
It's based on the Federal Government doing what it is supposed to do, rather than the Government doing a piss poor, less than half-hearted, job, and then rejecting help to do what it seems incapable of doing. Which controversial elements? What the Federal Government is doing and not doing, is extremely controversial.