Immigration bills

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Immigration bills

Postby kiryan » Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:32 pm

Original thread (AZ Immigration Law in General) viewtopic.php?f=43&t=22185

LOL this is great. For once, maybe we should listen to the UN.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56615.html

Civil rights groups, business interests and the Obama administration contend the state cannot enforce federal immigration

== Obama doesn't want states enforcing immigration law. Duh he needs the illegal votes to keep Democrats in office.

Yet Arizona’s more comprehensive — and controversial — law actually implements international law.

== this is a bit of a stretch, but keep reading

Though Arizona officials seem oblivious to that fact, the World Court — formally the International Court of Justice — has suggested that U.S. law enforcement officials routinely ask people arrested whether they are U.S. citizens as a way to give effect to a treaty the U.S. has been violating.

The treaty — the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations — requires that foreign nationals who get arrested be notified of their right to contact consular officials from their home country.

== there you have it, all AZ is doing is determining the nationality of the people arrested so they can make sure their internationally recognized rights are honored.

The World Court agreed with Mexico, ruling that Washington was in violation of the treaty and had to do more “by means of its own choosing” to comply.

Then-President George W. Bush issued an order to Texas courts, directing them to comply with the Avena ruling. In the Medellin case, however, the Supreme Court held that “while the ICJ’s judgment in Avena creates an international law obligation on the part of the United States, it does not, of its own force, constitute binding federal law that pre-empts state restrictions” on criminal procedure.

It also ruled that Bush could not enforce the international law obligation against the states. Without federal legislation, compliance with international law was left to the states.

== I remember Texas Bush to get stuffed. This is hillarious, the court ruled the feds couldn't require Texas to do anything (at least without legislation).

“In view of the large numbers of foreign nationals living in the United States, these very circumstances suggest that it would be desirable for inquiry routinely to be made of the individual as to his nationality upon his detention, so that the obligations of the Vienna Convention may be complied with. The United States has informed the court that some of its law enforcement authorities routinely ask persons taken into detention whether they are United States citizens. Indeed, were each individual to be told at that time that, should he be a foreign national, he is entitled to ask for his consular post to be contacted, compliance with this requirement under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), would be greatly enhanced.”

To Mexico and international civil rights organizations, the question is: Can a state only ask about U.S. citizenship to determine an arrestee’s nationality when the state’s motive is to benefit the foreign national?

== very good question. So they only want you to ask about national status when it benefits them, other than that you can't ask!

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests