US SC upholds part of AZ immigration law (Chatt you in the house?)

There were two issues up in the air:


The provision that allowed officer's to arrest someone without a warrant if they had probable cause that they were committing an offense that would get them deported and the provision requiring officers who have already stopped or detained somone to make an inquiry in certain circumstances, into the immigration status of the individual.


The Court struck down the first one because it enlarges the arrest authority of state cops, who Congress have made it expressly clear have very limited authority when it comes to immigration enforcement, as opposed to immigration agents.


Teh Court upheld the second provision because all it does is require cops to verify immigration status with INS and other immigration services, which is not something at odds with federal law so as to be preempted.


Very reasonable decision by the Court.

UPHELD:

_ A requirement that police, while enforcing other laws, question
people's immigration status if officers have reasonable suspicion
they're in the country illegally.

STRUCK DOWN:

1. A requirement that all immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers.

2. A provision making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job.

3. A provision that would allow police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.

The question on one, the provision that it is up for review, the Hispanic Community can challenge if they can show the law discriminates based on racial and ethnic grounds. That will be difficult not to show, I doubt a lot of Danish, Korean,or Ukrainian speaking people will be asked to prove they are citizens. Still, I don't have a problem with the law, or Clement's argument to keep it. The fact is, Illegal Immigration is an issue, and that the overwhelming majority are from south of the border.

Kennedy writing that opinion means, based on opinion count for this term, it is now highly likely CJ Roberts is writing the healthcare opinion. Or at least likely. Chatt or other lawyers please correct me on this if this isn't the case. If that is the case, then history says that the healthcare law is getting overturned.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...141927514.html

They shouldnt have struck down any of the other ones. Key word is ILLEGAL and last I remember police are here to fight ILLEGAL activities. As far as I'm concerned, jumping the border without permission is ILLEGAL and should be dealt with appropriately.



And to those who say illegal aliens aren't bad, tell that to my buddy who got hit by one and obviously didnt have insurance so he got stuck with a major repair bill.

"And to those who say illegal aliens aren't bad, tell that to my buddy who got hit by one and obviously didnt have insurance so he got stuck with a major repair bill."

So illegal aliens are the only ones that drive with no insurance???

From my personal experience, yes.

I'm sure other people don't have it as well, but good luck taking an illegal to small claims and getting some money from them.

Originally Posted by Raf1985

From my personal experience, yes.

I'm sure other people don't have it as well, but good luck taking an illegal to small claims and getting some money from them.

If your buddy has insurance why would he need to deal with small claims or a major repair bill? I have and I assume most people have provisions relating to uninsured motorists on their policies, if not I guess your buddy is just as guilty regarding not having insurance as those "illegals."

He has liability coverage only on a paid off vehicle. Nothing wrong with that.

One point, the provisions of the Arizona law "struck down" were not held unconstitutional, but invalidated due to conflicting with federal immigration laws. So Congress could amend the immigration laws to permit states to enforce.

Second point, when are lawsuits going to be filed challenging the sanctuary policies of several cities? This decision would be the basis for those lawsuits. In other words , the ramification of the ruling is in favor of the conservative side. Once Obama's out of office, the Federal agencies will resort back to enforcing the current law, has grounds to demand the dissolution of sanctuary cities.---no longer defendable since today's decision clearly provides that the Feds hold minion on immigration enforcement, not states , not counties , not cities.

I disagree. This seems to be much more of a victory for the federal govt and not the states. If left for the states to decide then maybe this could be considered a "conservative victory" but alas it was not.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I didn't say anything about a state victory...

"Once Obama's out of office"

2016 is a ways away.

The only way to any part of the ruling is in "favor of the conservative side" is B.S. GOP spin. Brewer looked like a fool at the press conference today.

I guess you didn't read the part I posted about sanctuary cities... But whatever, my neighbor now keeps an affidavit in his glove box that gives parental authority to his cousin in case he is arrested. He also said he is thinking about leaving Arizona.

Yup that sounds like a win for illegals

For those actually interested in how we got where we are today:

Broken Promises: The 1965 immigration reform and the New York Times

Originally Posted by Tucker_McElroy

I didn't say anything about a state victory...

Didn't say you did bub.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Originally Posted by wake77

"Once Obama's out of office"

2016 is a ways away.

The only way to any part of the ruling is in "favor of the conservative side" is B.S. GOP spin. Brewer looked like a fool at the press conference today.

He really did. This was not a conservative victory. It honestly wasn't a clear victory for anyone IMO.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

"But whatever, my neighbor now keeps an affidavit in his glove box that gives parental authority to his cousin in case he is arrested. He also said he is thinking about leaving Arizona."

I'm surprised you haven't turned him in yet.

No way is this a conservative victory. It concentrates power in the hands of the feds and is a real blow for states' rights. If you are a conservative, and believe in a government of limited powers, power in the hands of the feds is BAD regardless of whether your guy might be in office.

Wasn't a split 5-4 (5-3 with Kagan sitting out) decision either, surprisingly. Kennedy and Roberts both joined the majority.

An interesting prelude to the anticipated release of the Obamacare decision on Thursday.

I'm not the only one...


Say goodbye to in state tuition!

Originally Posted by wake77

"Once Obama's out of office"

2016 is a ways away.

I know what you mean. It is hard to beat the guy that gives away the store and at someone else's expense.

Problem: Losing votes due to no real hope or change.
Solution: Need more voters.
Answer: Temporary Amnesty for the latino vote!
Accomplished? Check
Method: Executive privilege

Problem: Possible loss of campaign due to voter fraud reduction.
Solution: Re-establish voter fraud.
Answer: Eliminate picture identification for voting which is beginning in Florida.
Accomplished? Check
Method: Eric Holder (Justice Department)

Problem: Losing the minority vote due to latino favoritism.
Solution: Need to re-establish minority strong hold.
Answer: Create bottom up economy.
Accomplished? Check
Method: False hope and promises, taxing the "rich", government handouts.


Obama is great. Great at buying votes, creating false hopes, promises that he never plans to keep and enslaving us all in the process.