Supreme Court strikes down key provisions, but not all, of Arizona immigration law

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwizzleStick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
salusanimarum17 said:
Then one should probably not be driving a car.
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean,but what I meant is many people born here in the U.S. never learn how to drive,thus never have a license. Is a driver’s licence a form of proof one is okay with the law?
 
Nicea325 wrote: " understand what you mean,but what I meant is many people born here in the U.S. never learn how to drive,thus never have a license. Is a driver’s licence a form of proof one is okay with the law?"

In these rather extreme times of terrorism and human smuggling - no. One can not kill a lion with a BB gun.

Stricter measures are requisite methinks.
 
Nicea325 said:
Did I name a particular race? :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
You said AZ is a racist state, you basically condemned all citizens of AZ as racist. Don’t wag your finger at me if you can’t understand proper English. You can call AZ laws racist, but when you call the state racist you are condemning all Arizonians. :tsktsk:
 
Nicea325 said:
I understand what you mean,but what I meant is many people born here in the U.S. never learn how to drive,thus never have a license. Is a driver’s licence a form of proof one is okay with the law?
Click to expand...
Well, yes; according to what was posted earlier, a driver’s license is proof (in this Arizona law) that a person is a legal resident. If a person is walking down the sidewalk and mugs somebody, and the cops catch the person and have reason to think he/she is not a legal resident, they might not expect that person to be carrying a driver’s licence. But, as was also noted earlier, federal law requires immigrants to have their “papers” with them. If they don’t have them on their person, and can’t produce any such documents, that’s a problem…for the person, not the police.
 
salusanimarum17 said:
. But, as was also noted earlier, federal law requires immigrants to have their “papers” with them. If they don’t have them on their person, and can’t produce any such documents, that’s a problem…for the person, not the police.
Click to expand...
Here is the problem. How does one know if the person is an immigrant that doesn’t have their “papers” or a citizen who is not required to have their “papers” with them?
 
Then of course there is the related identification issues in terms of Voting…

Yum Yum! I am also eagerly anticipating Electronic Voting! Not!

Hmmmmm Perhaps we should issue drivers liscenses to the ghostly "dead that vote in Chicago’ as well?

Ooooops! Is that discrimination too?
 
rlg94086 said:
Here is the problem. How does one know if the person is an immigrant that doesn’t have their “papers” or a citizen who is not required to have their “papers” with them?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what they would do, in practice. I suppose the police would have to make that determination after questioning the person, looking at public records, having the person go home and get documents, etc.

When I was working in a foreign country, I always carried my papers with me–it was just a photo ID card, giving my status, and I kept it in my wallet. Is it that much different in the USA?

Well, maybe I shouldn’t say “always.” I guess there may have been a time or two when I went for a walk or something without carrying my wallet. But, if I would have been stopped for something I am sure I would have been profiled, since I was obviously not a native. I would think that the authorities there would not have deported me before giving me a chance to go home and get my card.
 
salusanimarum17 said:
I don’t know what they would do, in practice. I suppose the police would have to make that determination after questioning the person, looking at public records, having the person go home and get documents, etc.

When I was working in a foreign country, I always carried my papers with me–it was just a photo ID card, giving my status, and I kept it in my wallet. Is it that much different in the USA?

Well, maybe I shouldn’t say “always.” I guess there may have been a time or two when I went for a walk or something without carrying my wallet. But, if I would have been stopped for something I am sure I would have been profiled, since I was obviously not a native. I would think that the authorities there would not have deported me before giving me a chance to go home and get my card.
Click to expand...
Exactly here in my state if you get pulled over w/o your driver’s license you have 24 or 42 hours (I’m not sure which) to produce a legal document. I find it hard to believe the police are just going to deport on demand, considering all the lawyers who are seeking to sue police forces and the media looking for a scandal.
 
austenbosten said:
You said AZ is a racist state, you basically condemned all citizens of AZ as racist. Don’t wag your finger at me if you can’t understand proper English. You can call AZ laws racist, but when you call the state racist you are condemning all Arizonians. :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
LOL! Understand proper English? Speak for yourself. Did I say every citizen is racist? Stop assuming I condemned all citizens. Have you ever lived in AZ? If not,you really have no idea what you are talking about.
 
The SCOTUS ruled officers can check a person’s immigration status. According to this article the Obama Administration’s solution to that is to not assist in any way. I think it was last year I saw an article saying many pools would not open because of some new federal regulation regarding some minor modern safety standard. The federal government can enforce some silly pool law but not one regarding one of the very few reasons for existing at all. This country is beyond broke and neither political party has the sense or courage to fix it.
 
Nimzovik said:
Hmmmmmm… Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...
Sorry to say this, I cannot say what % of white people are racists in AZ, but I for one encountered it on more than one occassion. If I recall, I believe AZ was the last state to ratify Martin Luther King as a national holiday? It think it was around 1996-1997?
 
Nicea325 said:
LOL! Understand proper English? Speak for yourself. Did I say every citizen is racist? Stop assuming I condemned all citizens. Have you ever lived in AZ?
Click to expand...
I live in a state where the Klan still exists in some circles, but I’m not about to call my state a “racist state” and condemn everyone in it, because of a few bad eggs.

When you call a state racist, whether you like or not you are calling everyone who is a member of that state racist. It’s the same as calling America an evil empire…it implies every American is an evil imperialist, which is not true.
 
On Immigration, Antonin Scalia Challenges Barack Obama
''Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive’s refusal to enforce the nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the states conceivably have entered into the union if the Constitution itself contained the court’s holding?” Scalia asked. “If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state.”
Click to expand...
Scalia effectively charged the administration with fibbing with its explanation for not deporting DREAM Act-eligible immigrants as one of discretion in handling scarce prosecutorial resources.
Click to expand...
“After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants,” Scalia said. “The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since those resources will be eaten up by the considerable administrative cost of conducting the nonenforcement program, which will require as many as 1.4 million background checks and biennial rulings on requests for dispensation.
Click to expand...
“To say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind,” he added.
Click to expand...
rollcall.com/news/on_immigration_antonin_scalia_challenges_barack_obama-215643-1.html

Obama declares victory in SCOTUS ruling on Ariz. immigration law
President Obama hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Arizona immigration enforcement case as a victory for his administration, which argued that the state law undermined federal immigration laws, but he “remain concerned” that the court’s ruling will result in racial profiling.
Click to expand...

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law,” Obama said in a statement this afternoon. “What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it’s part of the problem.”
Click to expand...
The high court invalidated three of the four main provisions in the law: “making it a crime under state law for immigrants to fail to register under a federal law, making it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or to try find work, and allowing the police to arrest people without warrants if they have probable cause to believe that they have done things that would make them deportable under federal law,” the New York Times explained.
Click to expand...
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a 5-4 majority opinion that “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
Click to expand...
The justices allowed Arizona to implement its policy of checking the immigration status of people detained by law enforcement.
Click to expand...
Obama criticized that decision. “I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally,” he said in the statement. “Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court’s decision recognizes.”
Click to expand...
He added that “what makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are,” — an observation that echoes his campaign talking point that “generally people named Barack Hussein Obama are not sure things in presidential races,” as he said during a campaign fundraiser on June 6th.
Click to expand...
The president noted that the ruling does not affect his decision to implement the DREAM Act by refusing to enforce illegal immigration laws on young people who would qualify as DREAMers if the law had passed through Congress.
Click to expand...
“[W]e will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education – which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own,” he said.
Click to expand...
washingtonexaminer.com/obama-declares-victory-in-scotus-ruling-on-ariz.-immigration-law/article/2500550

Justice Scalia said of the inefficiency of the federal government in controlling the borders and Obama claims victory? There would not be an SB 1070 law if the federal government was doing what it is supposed to be doing, which is protecting the borers. This law is not racist, and it is not anti - immigrant, there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration.
 
Hopefully, he is crowing this “victory” because he realizes that ObamaCare is toast.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top