Supreme Court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
This is just happening so details are still coming out.

I am hearing conflicting reports as to which parts were struck down and which have been upheld...but it sounds like 3 of 4 of the key parts have been outright struck down.

Here is a link to the ruling...it's all legal talk so I don't know exactly what it says.
www.supremecourt.gov...


More details coming soon.



+1 more 
posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I'm just going to paste what I replied in the earlier thread. Just keep diminishing those state rights.

This is the direction we're going. Sooner or later the states are going to have had enough.

Where is the line drawn? As a nation do we have a definitive line that the Federal Government can't cross any more. Is there a consensus on this? This is what the states need to start discussing.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Well...even though most of the law was struck down...it looks like the worst part of it (in my opinion) was upheld.

news.blogs.cnn.com...


The Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. government, striking down three parts of the Arizona immigration law, but the Court did uphold one the most notorious provisions: A requirement that local police officers check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.

The question now is can that single provision stand on its own, or does the court action mean Arizona has to go back to the drawing board on their immigration law.



edit on 25-6-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-6-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


LOL, had no doubt the madness in Arizona that was this bill, wouldn't hold water. Looks like that hag Jan Brewer is going to have to try again.


+16 more 
posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Procession101
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


LOL, had no doubt the madness in Arizona that was this bill, wouldn't hold water. Looks like that hag Jan Brewer is going to have to try again.



Yes because keeping out illegals is just madness? The states should be able to do whatever they deem necessary to keep out illegals if the federal government is going to sit back and do nothing and that is what is going on here. The state of Arizona took matters into its own hands because the federal government wasnt doing its job and now instead of them doing their jobs they would rather waste our tax dollars having the supreme court look at it.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Procession101
 


I wonder if the state of Arizona can actually close the border and/or defend it on its' own?

This is a good reason to bring troops back home. The violence near the borders is an immediate threat to American security, whether either side wants to admit it or not.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Here is the text on the rulings from the Supreme Court:


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 11–182. Argued April 25, 2012—Decided June 25, 2012
An Arizona statute known as S. B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State. The United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect. Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C)makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”; and §2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, toverify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the United States had established a likelihood of success on its preemption claims

online.wsj.com...


Seems like a lot to read, but it's all there.

Enjoy, I would be mad if I was in Arizona. The federal government seems as if they don't care what the states have to say about this issue.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
The Feds would rather give our tax dollars to the illegals than to Americans, unless they're rich and white.

Now watch, calling a liberal to call me a racist in 3... 2... 1...



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Finally found exactly what parts were upheld and which were struck down.

Struck down

AZ RULING: Court has overturned sections requiring a) aliens to carry a registration papers



AZ RULING: Court has overturned section of AZ law: b) prohibiting illegal immigrants to seek work, saying fed. law overrides this state law.



AZ RULING: Court has overturned section of AZ law: c) allowing police to stop and arrest a person they suspect of being deportable (illegal)


Upheld

AZ RULING: SCOTUS UPHELD requirement that police try to get immigration status of anyone they arrest, but court ruled on procedural grounds



So, in is a win in my opinion for freedom. Police in Arizona can't just go up to someone and ask for their papers. All they can do is to try to get their immigration status during a valid interaction and they have a reasonable suspicion that they are illegal. However...the part of the law that allows them to do anything about it has been struck down...so they can't arrest them or detain them even if they find out they are in fact illegal. All they can do is notify ICE.


It's also a huge win for Obama and the Federal government because it really solidifies that the federal government can challenge and override state law.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheTardis

Originally posted by Procession101
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


LOL, had no doubt the madness in Arizona that was this bill, wouldn't hold water. Looks like that hag Jan Brewer is going to have to try again.



Yes because keeping out illegals is just madness? The states should be able to do whatever they deem necessary to keep out illegals if the federal government is going to sit back and do nothing and that is what is going on here. The state of Arizona took matters into its own hands because the federal government wasnt doing its job and now instead of them doing their jobs they would rather waste our tax dollars having the supreme court look at it.


Immigration is a Federal issue...not a State issue.

It is the job of the Federal Government to protect the Freedoms of US citizens...and this law posed a direct threat due to the potential of racial profiling and harrasement.

The State of Arizona just wasted resources, time, and effort because they knew what they were doing was against Federal law and would not stand.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by GD21D
I'm just going to paste what I replied in the earlier thread. Just keep diminishing those state rights.

This is the direction we're going. Sooner or later the states are going to have had enough.

Where is the line drawn? As a nation do we have a definitive line that the Federal Government can't cross any more. Is there a consensus on this? This is what the states need to start discussing.


The States do not have a right to over-step their bounds.

Immigration is soley a Federal issue...the States have no say and should have no say into it.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
So this part that was upheld says police can somehow "determine" immigration status while "enforcing" another law ?

Maybe a law that says not stopping completely at a stop sign applies ?

And, if they ask for immigration "papers" and the "suspect" has none, then police can "detain" until status is verified ?

Am I seeing this correctly ?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


The police are obligated to TRY to determine the status of a person suspected to be here illegally IF they are arrested. That's how I understand it. So, they would have to arrest someone to harass them about it.


From several posts up:



AZ RULING: SCOTUS UPHELD requirement that police try to get immigration status of anyone they arrest, but court ruled on procedural grounds


.
edit on 6/25/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 
Apparently, the states don't really have any rights to regulate anything anymore. No healthcare, education, drugs, immigration. What can states do now? So the state of Arizona is not allowed to take any measures to protect it's own citizens.I understand the issue with profiling, but what we have here is violence spilling over from the Mexican border threatening the people of this state.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I believe BH has it correct...that they have already have arressted them for something else and then they can check their status.

IF they decide to do it at a traffic stop...the law does not give them the ability to detain them even if they find they are here illegally...from what I understand by reading it.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Not exactly, I don't believe they can detain until they establish. They have to make the effort to establish once established they have to then send it over to immigration. This will probably end up back in court once the police start abusing and arresting people because they suspect and use other things to do so i.e. traffic violations, and other inane things like that to give them an excuse.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   


I don't care as much as I used to but anything that pisses-off Sheriff Joe just makes me laugh. Oh and his creepy friend Governor Brewer I bet she is just fuming!!!!






posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Not exactly, I don't believe they can detain until they establish. They have to make the effort to establish once established they have to then send it over to immigration. This will probably end up back in court once the police start abusing and arresting people because they suspect and use other things to do so i.e. traffic violations, and other inane things like that to give them an excuse.


I'm not even sure they can detain unless they have already arrested the person on a seperate charge.

The part of the law that allows them to detain was struck down. They can contact ICE like they have always done...but I don't believe they have any jurisdiction to actually detain the person.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Oh no I didn't mean to imply they could detain on legal status. They just simply have to send the information to ICE. And follow procedure for whatever crime they charged them with originally.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by TheTardis

Originally posted by Procession101
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


LOL, had no doubt the madness in Arizona that was this bill, wouldn't hold water. Looks like that hag Jan Brewer is going to have to try again.



Yes because keeping out illegals is just madness? The states should be able to do whatever they deem necessary to keep out illegals if the federal government is going to sit back and do nothing and that is what is going on here. The state of Arizona took matters into its own hands because the federal government wasnt doing its job and now instead of them doing their jobs they would rather waste our tax dollars having the supreme court look at it.


Immigration is a Federal issue...not a State issue.

It is the job of the Federal Government to protect the Freedoms of US citizens...and this law posed a direct threat due to the potential of racial profiling and harrasement.

The State of Arizona just wasted resources, time, and effort because they knew what they were doing was against Federal law and would not stand.


I know the law and so dose Arizona. Their claim is that the federal government is not enforcing it. I know you just hate republicans and republican states and your having some circle jerk at your house because these got overturned but how about if you get upset because the federal government wont do anything to enforce their laws. Dont you think it is pretty stupid to have laws but then go to court to make sure no one can enforce them? Thats what just happened here. The federal government just said that Arizona cannot enforce the law that the federal government refuses to enforce themselves. Who exactly wasted resources? I guess if your a radical liberal Arizona did. If you are the average joe citizen the federal government did.
edit on 25-6-2012 by TheTardis because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join