Supreme Court Upholds Part of Arizona Law

[The T]

Another article I read said they could check the immigration status of people they arrest, not just stop.

They cannot arrest an illegal just for being here illegally. But they may check his/her immigration status IF they have otherwise lawfully stopped/detained the person.

yeah, and mistakes will happen. will Arizona citizens and taxpayers support holding more people in jails?

I'm sure Sheriff Joe Arpaio feels vindicated.

 

[mudwhistle]

CNN is calling this a win.

The SCOTUS overturned 3 provisions they said were already federal law.

The non-discrimination aspect was upheld, which is the heart of the lawsuit.

 

[Ravi]

They cannot arrest an illegal just for being here illegally. But they may check his/her immigration status IF they have otherwise lawfully stopped/detained the person.

yeah, and mistakes will happen. will Arizona citizens and taxpayers support holding more people in jails?

I'm sure Sheriff Joe Arpaio feels vindicated.

How so? He's now guilty of illegally detaining thousands of people.

 

[Liability]

yeah, and mistakes will happen. will Arizona citizens and taxpayers support holding more people in jails?

I'm sure Sheriff Joe Arpaio feels vindicated.

How so? He's now guilty of illegally detaining thousands of people.

If he was relying on a law UNTIL it was the subject of an injunction, he isn't "guilty" of anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all, but you are entitled to your opinion, TrulyALiability. Have the last word, please.

A much easier fix than you suggest. Romney is quite sensible on this issue, and has demonstrated no animus toward BHO's executive order about children brought here.

I suspect MR will introduce a very extensive and solid immigration reform bill.

A lot more difficult than you care to admit. And future President Romney is probably more than reasonable (meaning flexible) given his inadequate conservatism. The Incumbent's executive order [sic] about children brought here is actually just a usurpation of CONGRESS' authority. It is also a subject area which should be amenable to Congressional action.


Fakey: you really mangle the use of the quote function.

EDIT: The President's unilateral decision on the non-enforcement of our immigration laws as they pertain to illegal alien children brought here at a young age was NOT an Executive Order. Here is a complete list of ALL of his actual executive orders so far: 1,461 Days of The Obama Administration: Current List of President Obama's Executive Orders

 

[Liability]

Not at all, but you are entitled to your opinion. Have the last word, please.

A much easier fix than you suggest. Romney is quite sensible on this issue, and has demonstrated no animus toward BHO's executive order about children brought here.

I suspect MR will introduce a very extensive and solid immigration reform bill.

A lot more difficult than you care to admit. And future President Romney is probably more than reasonable (meaning flexible) given his inadequate conservatism. The Incumbent's executive order [sic] about children brought here is actually just a usurpation of CONGRESS' authority. It is also a subject area which should be amenable to Congressional action.


Fakey: you really mangle the use of the quote function.

EDIT: The President's unilateral decision on the non-enforcement of our immigration laws as they pertain to illegal alien children brought here at a young age was NOT an Executive Order. Here is a complete list of ALL of his actual executive orders so far: 1,461 Days of The Obama Administration: Current List of President Obama's Executive Orders

Since your random keystrokes don't make it clear, it is up in the air what you are responding to, Fakey.

And you still suck at the use of a rather simple quote function.

I am entirely correct about how wrong you were in saying that the President used an Executive Order on the matter of the children of illegals.

And I am quite correct also in suggesting that clearing up the "mandate" problem is going to be thorny. The effort to force fit a solution under the name of a mandate (a stupid idea) is evidence of how difficult a good solution would be to craft.

 

[Flopper]

Breaking news now. Arizona law provision constitutional, two others out the window.

Police can check immigration status if somebody stopped for other issue.

Other whacky Tea Party type laws are out. States Rights cuckoo crap is out

Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Immigration Law - WSJ.com

The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough immigration law but struck down others as intrusions on federal sovereignty, in a ruling that gave both sides something to cheer in advance of November elections where immigration is a major issue.

The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop.

It seems so many SCOTUS decisions are political comprises. To bad the Congress can't do the same.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

They totally de-fanged the law, from what I can tell. So they can ask for papers, but really not much else, especially since the provision that made it a crime to not have registration papers was struck down. So my question is, what's the point in checking the legal status if they can't really do much else but tell the authorities they have an illegal immigrant, and can they detain him or her if they have no jurisdiction to do so? I'm not clear on that, but seriously, 75% of the bullshit bill was tossed out, so I can't see how this is anything but a big win for Obama.

 

[Jackson]

They can most likely arest them and tell the Federal government that they have detained them. Then when they arrest too many legals the civil rights cases will end any policy enacted.

rationality has one another one

Maybe. It looks more like they can ask them but can't arrest them simply for not having their papers. If so, woot!

true, but they will most likely detain them and then face lawsuits. Arizona is as stupid as Florida. It's the heat ...

oops!

As long as they are stopped for a legal reason, they can ask about their immigration status and if illegal, detain them. It sounds fair to me and most of America, Dante.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A good decision, I think, and if someone is detained for any lawful reason, s/he can be asked for his or her papers. Very sensible.

 

[Buford]

They can ask immigration status but can't arrest them?

They can most likely arest them and tell the Federal government that they have detained them. Then when they arrest too many legals the civil rights cases will end any policy enacted.

rationality has one another one

Maybe. It looks more like they can ask them but can't arrest them simply for not having their papers. If so, woot!

That's the point....the cops can ask them. America wins.

 

[Dante]

Breaking news now. Arizona law provision constitutional, two others out the window.

Police can check immigration status if somebody stopped for other issue.

Other whacky Tea Party type laws are out. States Rights cuckoo crap is out

Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Immigration Law - WSJ.com

The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough immigration law but struck down others as intrusions on federal sovereignty, in a ruling that gave both sides something to cheer in advance of November elections where immigration is a major issue.

The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop.

It seems so many SCOTUS decisions are political comprises. To bad the Congress can't do the same.

lol

true on some level, but it is almost criminal how the GOP obstructionist congress has hampered anything that would benefit Obama at the expense of what is good for the USA

 

[Ravi]

I'm sure Sheriff Joe Arpaio feels vindicated.

How so? He's now guilty of illegally detaining thousands of people.

If he was relying on a law UNTIL it was the subject of an injunction, he isn't "guilty" of anything.

Has he released anyone from the tent cities yet?

 

[Dante]

Maybe. It looks more like they can ask them but can't arrest them simply for not having their papers. If so, woot!

true, but they will most likely detain them and then face lawsuits. Arizona is as stupid as Florida. It's the heat ...

oops!

As long as they are stopped for a legal reason, they can ask about their immigration status and if illegal, detain them. It sounds fair to me and most of America, Dante.

You speak for most of America? delusional!!!

seriously, that part of the law is already being challenged. how the states enact that part of law(s) will dictate how things will turn out legally. I predict whack-a-doodle-doos who support draconian Arizona techniques will lose further on down the road

America is better than what people like you desire of us

 

[The Rabbi]

The main issue is that the Supremes put a limit on Federal power. It is not a win for Obama&Co. It is a loss.

 

[Dante]

They can most likely arest them and tell the Federal government that they have detained them. Then when they arrest too many legals the civil rights cases will end any policy enacted.

rationality has one another one

Maybe. It looks more like they can ask them but can't arrest them simply for not having their papers. If so, woot!

That's the point....the cops can ask them. America wins.

More illegal immigrants both violent criminals and average people, have been deported under President Obama than under any other President.

America wins with President Obama!!

 

[Dante]

The main issue is that the Supremes put a limit on Federal power. It is not a win for Obama&Co. It is a loss.

OMFG the Spin Factor is spinning widly. Will the meltdown come sooner than later?

 

[Dante]

How so? He's now guilty of illegally detaining thousands of people.

If he was relying on a law UNTIL it was the subject of an injunction, he isn't "guilty" of anything.

Has he released anyone from the tent cities yet?

He should be made to pay the county and state back for all the funds he's been wasting

 

[Liability]

How so? He's now guilty of illegally detaining thousands of people.

If he was relying on a law UNTIL it was the subject of an injunction, he isn't "guilty" of anything.

Has he released anyone from the tent cities yet?

By asking that question I gather that you don't know. So what is your "question:" a preemptive whine?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

The main issue is that the Supremes put a limit on Federal power. It is not a win for Obama&Co. It is a loss.

75% of the law's provisions that were up for debate were struck down. That's not a victory for AZ, so it's a win for Obama. Also, the Supreme Court also said the key provision they left in place can still be challenged in lower courts, and eventually it will probably make its way back to them, I'm sure. The injunctions from the lower courts until then will keep this law dead in the water.

So yeah, spin it all you want, but Obama won pretty big in this one, certainly more than he likely will on the ACA.