Was the Supreme Court's Decision on Arizona's Immigration Law Appropriate or Unjust?
SodaHead News
2012/06/25 20:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
266 votes
|
|
48% | |||
|
293 votes
|
|
52% | |||
The Supreme Court has finally come to a decision concerning Arizona's controversial immigration laws, put into effect in 2010. They struck down most aspects of the law, chiefly those dealing with how illegal immigrants are punished. However, the Court upheld the most controversial part of law -- the part that requires officers to check immigration status at lawful stops under reasonable suspicion.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The national government has significant power to regulate immigration. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law." Do you think the Supreme Court handled the case appropriately? Or did it use its power unfairly?
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The national government has significant power to regulate immigration. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law." Do you think the Supreme Court handled the case appropriately? Or did it use its power unfairly?
Top Opinion
-
Lord Emperor of Dune 2012/06/25 21:12:01Appropriate
+21It's appropriate that they check, but unjust that they aren't just dumped back out into the desert. Every dollar we spend mollycoddling illegals is a dollar that could be spent on an American in need. Why don't we treat illegals like they are illegal?
Absolutely, you have no right to anything from anyone. They earned it they should keep it. The only reason you have any marginal right to the "benefits" (is it beneficial to get less than you otherwise could for your money) "provided by the government" (they are not really provided by the government) is that you were forced to provide it to the government. If you get more than you pay in you are also freeloading. If you get less, you've obviously been ripped off. However, none of that can actually be measured because socialized expenditures cannot be accurately assessed for value (and whatever we pay, the product is worth less than we could have paid since government is inefficient). The fact is that you owe me nothing no matter where I was born and likewise, I owe you the same.
It is inhumane to cage people for moving and it is inhumane to steal from you and I to pay to cage them, and that simply to enrich the private prison owners and the prison guard unions is simply icing on a cake made of sh*t.
For what it's worth, many of these "illegal" aliens actually do pay income tax, as well as all of them paying sales taxes, property taxe...
Absolutely, you have no right to anything from anyone. They earned it they should keep it. The only reason you have any marginal right to the "benefits" (is it beneficial to get less than you otherwise could for your money) "provided by the government" (they are not really provided by the government) is that you were forced to provide it to the government. If you get more than you pay in you are also freeloading. If you get less, you've obviously been ripped off. However, none of that can actually be measured because socialized expenditures cannot be accurately assessed for value (and whatever we pay, the product is worth less than we could have paid since government is inefficient). The fact is that you owe me nothing no matter where I was born and likewise, I owe you the same.
It is inhumane to cage people for moving and it is inhumane to steal from you and I to pay to cage them, and that simply to enrich the private prison owners and the prison guard unions is simply icing on a cake made of sh*t.
For what it's worth, many of these "illegal" aliens actually do pay income tax, as well as all of them paying sales taxes, property taxes (via their rent), excise taxes and any number of other taxes. There are very few activities where the government does not coerce money from us one way or another. "Illegal" aliens cannot escape them any more than you or I can.
EVERYONE (unless tax-exempt by Federal statutes) pays sales taxes on purchases, and if they buy a car, etc., they pay excise taxes, even illegal aliens do that, but there is no way to avoid it. The taxes that they don't pay are the ones that they have avoided paying by various means. And just since "There are very few activities where the government does not coerce money from us one way or another", then it's alright to be here 'illegally', right? This justifies breaking the law, right?
Once again, the Law is the Law and if we are to make special consideration for the violator of one law, we should do the same for all violators. Let's just open the borders for anyone to come in...... Criminals, drug lords, escaped cons, radicals, murderers, terrorists, subversives, and the like. Then just deal with the consequences later, I'm sure that no one would mind a 500% increase in crime in America.
The only tax I think they could avoid would be income tax (but I'm no CPA). If they use a fake SS# then they pay income tax. If they work under the table then they are like any other person working under the table and they don't.
As I am vehemently opposed to all state welfare, I would happily get rid of all of it so no one would be paying for services for those who cross the border or anyone else for whom they did not choose of their own volition.
The law may be the law, but is that moral? Is it moral for someone who doesn't own property to tell another he may not travel or live on that property? Who in the government owns the property these people live on or work at? If you or I don't own that property, why should either of us say who someone hires or allows to pay him rent?
Drug lords don't work as farm laborers, janitors, maids, and taco bell clerks. Criminals (I'm assuming you mean murderers, thieves ie. actual criminals) can always be dealt with and you can't know who is one until they commit an actual crime, whic...
The only tax I think they could avoid would be income tax (but I'm no CPA). If they use a fake SS# then they pay income tax. If they work under the table then they are like any other person working under the table and they don't.
As I am vehemently opposed to all state welfare, I would happily get rid of all of it so no one would be paying for services for those who cross the border or anyone else for whom they did not choose of their own volition.
The law may be the law, but is that moral? Is it moral for someone who doesn't own property to tell another he may not travel or live on that property? Who in the government owns the property these people live on or work at? If you or I don't own that property, why should either of us say who someone hires or allows to pay him rent?
Drug lords don't work as farm laborers, janitors, maids, and taco bell clerks. Criminals (I'm assuming you mean murderers, thieves ie. actual criminals) can always be dealt with and you can't know who is one until they commit an actual crime, which is pretty much why police are just historians. If you believe the border is as porous as it is then shouldn't your statistic for the increase in crime already bear out (there are millions of illegal immigrants)? Their "crime" is violating an unjust law, like violating a law against free speech...for which we Americans get arrested, unjustly. Any perpetrator of a violent crime is a real criminal and should be dealt with properly, of course. Moving over an imaginary line is not a moral crime, but a false crime that turns innocent people into fake criminals.
Reread the first sentence to my post to which you are responding. I'll quote it for you here:
"Absolutely, you have no right to anything from anyone. "
I was referring to Lord Emperor of Dune's statement that he has no right to public services in a foreign country simply for moving there. I agreed. No one has a right to public services anywhere. Insisting one has a right to his neighbor's earnings is insisting theft is a right. That's logically impossible. it affirms and denies property rights at the same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Page is titled "Incarceration in the United States" in case it won't work again.
(I think that reply went to the wrong post last time...we'll see)
Automatic citizenship? Certainly not. Compassion and respect? Always.
But when people try to do that, IE healthcare, the rest of you morons get upset and cry about how you shouldn't have to help lazy bums who deserve whatever they got because they didn't work hard enough (because that TOTALLY makes 100% sense)
PS - as to the Federal Gov't 'blatantly' not abiding by the law what do you mean? I think the enforcement priorities have changed to those having committed crimes but enforcement priorities is NOT the same as not abiding by the law and EVERY LAW faces executive decisions as to where resources are placed.
We will find out Thursday as to whether he & his partners in crime wrote an Unconstitutional Health Care law (which he did), & bypassed the people by shoving it onto the people even before anyone, including our legislatures, had read it, much less understood it. Then there's the Fast & Furious debacle, & I imagine a lot of other stuff that none of us have yet to be made aware of. I'm quite certain that the POTUS & his cronies are doing all kinds of evil, wicked & illegal behind the scenes stuff.
First, my daughter is stationed in the UK & some of my family lives in Mexico, so I need a passport in case of an emergency where I need to travel, & it's safer when in my possession. Secondly, it's required by law that I have my driver's license when I drive, & I do that daily. Finally, I carry two guns on my person, & it's required by law that I have my license with me when my guns are in my possession. It has nothing to do with needing permission.
So, if I can have 3 forms of ID & not have a problem with it, I don't see why other citizens should find it such an inconvenience. If you're not guilty of criminal activity & are in the country LEGALLY, then being asked to present proof should be a privilege of citizenship. Other countries require ID or "papers" when moving about on their continents, so why should the USA be an exception, especially during an age of terrorism & stolen identities?