It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
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.
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
Ask any Cop anywhere. All Americans are required by Law to have proper identification on them at all times.
But Illegals don't?
What The F**k ?
No, they aren't.
If cops think that...then they are ignorant of the law.
About half the states have "stop and identify" laws...all that requires is that you give the officer your name and in some cases your address. You don't have to provide any "papers" at all...and you can't be charged with anything for simply not having "papers" on you.
If you are driving..you are required to have a valid drivers license...this includes "illegals" too.
I really wish people knew the law of their own country.
The problem with this is I have had Cops actually tell me this before. I have been told I could be arrested for failing to provide proper identification via a license or ID
You wanna tell the cop who told me that he didn't know the law? Good luck with that. How DARE YOU sir assume i dont know the law or need to know the law. When a cop is standing in front of you.. Law doesn't matter. It's the Cops Law that counts.
Think Hurricane Katrina. All those law abiding citizens who had their guns illegally stolen from them by Cops. Go ahead.. you tell them they can't take your gun because it's illegal. Not only will they take your gun, but they won't be very nice about it either. You may wind up in jail or the infirmary or both.edit on 25-6-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp
Really?
Originally posted by Kali74
Yes really. Look for sources on the other side of the issue.
Your one sidedness doesn't really say much about your self claimed love of liberty.
Overall, in FY 2011 ICE's Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations removed 396,906 individuals — the largest number in the agency's history. Of these, nearly 55 percent or 216,698 of the people removed were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors — an 89 percent increase in the removal of criminals since FY 2008. This includes 1,119 aliens convicted of homicide; 5,848 aliens convicted of sexual offenses; 44,653 aliens convicted of drug related crimes; and 35,927 aliens convicted of driving under the influence. ICE achieved similar results with regard to other categories prioritized for removal. Ninety percent of all ICE's removals fell into a priority category and more than two-thirds of the other removals in 2011 were either recent border crossers or repeat immigration violators.
Even as deportations have been rising, apprehensions of border crossers by the U.S. Border Patrol have declined by more than 70%—from 1.2 million in 2005 to 340,000 in 2011. This mirrors a sharp drop in the number of unauthorized immigrants entering the U.S. since the middle of the last decade (Passel and Cohn, 2010).
Originally posted by Kali74
The Arizona law as it stood and to a significant degree, still stands is a threat to American Liberty.
As for deportation of violent criminals only?
So that brings to mind, exactly how effective is stopping every illegal "looking" person. How many legals do you have to stop to find one illegal?
Originally posted by Anonymous404
A huge electrified fence would make the border so hideous.
What makes you think tunnels wouldn't be possible?
What that tells me is that they aren't just stopping people based upon looks. The law prohibits that. So unless there are suspicious circumstances or another crime being committed, illegals aren't being stopped.
Originally posted by Kali74
The law did just that, allowed law enforcement to stop anyone until that part of it was struck down today, by SCOTUS. So was Arizona correct in passing legislation that allowed Fascism especially considering that their target is equal to approximately 4.3% of Arizona's population?
Originally posted by Kali74
There is no way to reasonably suspect someone is here illegally no way to tell if someone is a citizen or not. Speaking a language other than English doesn't cut it.
Originally posted by Wolf321
Originally posted by Kali74
There is no way to reasonably suspect someone is here illegally no way to tell if someone is a citizen or not. Speaking a language other than English doesn't cut it.
An inability to speak conversational english is enough to suspect that the person is at a minimum a foreign visitor, which is enough to ask for identification. That is reasonable to most people. I additionally gave other examples besides language that look suspicious.
An inability to speak conversational english is enough to suspect that the person is at a minimum a foreign visitor, which is enough to ask for identification. That is reasonable to most people. I additionally gave other examples besides language that look suspicious.
Originally posted by jam321
When immigrants apply legally for their family members to come to US after a long wait, what is the odd that these relatives speak conversational English?
Why should these people be burden just because they don't speak conversational English?
Originally posted by jam321
When immigrants apply legally for their family members to come to US after a long wait, what is the odd that these relatives speak conversational English?
Why should these people be burden just because they don't speak conversational English?
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
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.