U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Arizona
12,734 posts, read 7,355,472 times
Reputation: 6693

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
This victory is about LE during lawful contact (traffic stops for example) being able to inquire about status in this country if someone can't provide a valid ID. This would be prior to being jailed. Why do you think that the pro-illegal side was having such a hissy fit about sb1070 if you think this ruling was no big deal then and was being done already of which it wasnt? You know, all those cries of racial profiling, etc.?

Ah, and it is amazing what you find out about what the actual decisions made by the SC actually means when you read the wording of the actual law and their decisons on it.

The only part I had disagreed with on the SC was the decison to not make it a "criminal" offense for illegal aliens to work or seek work in this country. I still do disagree with that decision but I had thought initially that it meant that illegal aliens were completely exempt from the law by doing that. Not so! There already is a law on the books that it is a "civil" offense. That just hadn't changed with this new decision by the SC. That was a small victory for the pro-illegals. Two of the other parts of 1070 were shot down but I considered them irrelevant anyway.

However, AZ and the anti-illegal side had a huge victory by the part of the law that was upheld for them.
I think you have a pretty good take on what the SC ruling actually did. your post prompted me to read the whole ruling.

In the end, the real ruling is all about federal law's preemption over state law and covered a much larger legal arena than just illegal immigration and proper search and sezure procedures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:19 AM
 
Location: The #1 sunshine state, Arizona.
12,172 posts, read 15,006,838 times
Reputation: 64014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
It can now also be done in the field by an officer at a traffic stop.
And that is a victory! We also need to crack down on identity theft, as many illegals are using stolen identities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:22 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,455 posts, read 21,469,319 times
Reputation: 8410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruin Rick View Post
This was a great decision for the most part. If you read it carefully, it fully establishes that the Federal government is the SUPREME government and states must be submissive. Hopefully this will finally shut up the "states rights" fools. Now that the Republicans have failed to harrass the poor immigrants out of the country, we can get about the REAL job of fixing the immigration in this country including a limited amnesty.
Umm, no, that's not what they said. Article I of the Constitution states in part that Congress has the power: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

In short, the SCOTUS simply followed that. Immigration laws must be uniform across the Union and the power was given to Congress. States need not be submissive whatsoever. The SCOTUS also refused to strike down the portion of the law that was constitutional, namely, allowing police to question the immigration status of people they stop when they have legally justifiable reasons to. IOW, states can round up the illegals, but it will fall on the feds to prosecute them for immigration crimes.

Amnesty? Maybe their home countries can give them amnesty when we deport them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:28 AM
 
1,150 posts, read 990,803 times
Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Sorry, but I don't think wanting our immigration laws respected and enforced is being a hardliner especially putting over 1 million of illegal foreigners into our workforce with work permits with millions of Americans out of work.

There were 4 provisions in this law. Two that were shot down were irrelevant IMO. There was one victory for the pro-illegal side and one for the anti-illegal side. See my post above for the details. I would still like to hear how the SC could justify their decision on allowing illegal aliens to work or seek work in our country when it is against the law already. Were our immigration laws null and void then from the get-go? If so, why didn't the SC challenge them in the first place? Something is definately amiss here.
As I understand the ruling, the court is saying although it's against the law for illegal aliens to works here, it's already a federal law, so states can't make it a state law also. I'm not sure I agree with them on that, but that's how I understood the ruling. It appears that they're also saying while it may be against the law for illegal aliens to work here, the act of seeking work in itself isn't illegal. That doesn't surprise me, because remember they ruled that using a stolen SS# wasn't a crime, unless the illegal alien knew it was stolen. It seems the court has a certain amount of sympathy for illegal aliens, excusing them in certain situations, and putting the burden on citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Arizona
12,734 posts, read 7,355,472 times
Reputation: 6693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayarcy View Post
As I understand the ruling, the court is saying although it's against the law for illegal aliens to works here, it's already a federal law, so states can't make it a state law also. I'm not sure I agree with them on that, but that's how I understood the ruling. It appears that they're also saying while it may be against the law for illegal aliens to work here, the act of seeking work in itself isn't illegal. That doesn't surprise me, because remember they ruled that using a stolen SS# wasn't a crime, unless the illegal alien knew it was stolen. It seems the court has a certain amount of sympathy for illegal aliens, excusing them in certain situations, and putting the burden on citizens.
Seems strange?.... as the court is stacked with mostly conservative justices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacknight04 View Post
Your opinion is irrelevant in this case! 4 provisions, 3 struck down. The provision that was upheld is being done in most jails anyway. I don't see how you can spin that as being some sort of victory for Jan brewer.
Perhaps you can explain why so many Latino activists consider this a green light for racial profiling. If, as you claim, this is standard procedure for law enforcement, then what's the issue? Why did I hear them whining today on TV?

Luis Gutierrez. . . .

Quote:
The crux of the Arizona law, which requires state and local law enforcement to check someone’s citizenship status in the course of their duties, was upheld and will sanction pretextual stops and racial profiling. This gives a green light to Arizona sheriffs like Joe Arpaio and others to use someone’s clothing, accent, or appearance to take them to jail and hold them until their immigration status, if any, is sorted out.

“I know they will not be using that kind of tactic on people with the last name Roberts, Romney, or Brewer, but if your name is something like Gutierrez or Chung or Obama, watch out. The express goal of the authors of Arizona’s SB1070 is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they will leave, and a key tool in that effort was upheld by the Court.”
Statement from the Hispanic Caucus about Supreme Court SB 1070 decision – read and post your comment « Gretawire
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 69,881,813 times
Reputation: 27519
So the Fed isn't doing a great job in the area of illegal immigration.
States try to enact laws to enable them to do what the Fed is not doing.
The Supreme Court says states can't do what the Fed is authorized to do.
And I guess it doesn't matter whether or not the Fed is doing its job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:45 AM
 
3,204 posts, read 2,383,305 times
Reputation: 1544
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
Seems strange?.... as the court is stacked with mostly conservative justices.

In listening to the talking heads I guess Scalia wrote that he has concerns with Obama's new amnesty and is concerned that Arizona is in a bad situation because of the lack of enforcement on the Federal level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:47 AM
 
3,204 posts, read 2,383,305 times
Reputation: 1544
If I'm understanding what Scalia said, I wonder if states could sue the feds for non enforcement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2012, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruin Rick View Post
This was a great decision for the most part. If you read it carefully, it fully establishes that the Federal government is the SUPREME government and states must be submissive. Hopefully this will finally shut up the "states rights" fools. Now that the Republicans have failed to harrass the poor immigrants out of the country, we can get about the REAL job of fixing the immigration in this country including a limited amnesty.
I wasn't aware that anyone was harassing "immigrants" or trying to force them out of this country. On the other hand, illegal aliens are here in violation of our laws, and should be made to feel uncomfortable. We don't coddle others who choose to live outside the law. Why should illegal aliens be the lone exception?

Another amnesty will have the same result as the 1986 amnesty, because nothing has changed. Our borders remain porous, our laws remain ignored, employers receive a slap on the wrist, and illegals enter at will. The last, and so-called FINAL amnesty, increased the illegal population from 3 million to 12-20+ million. I shudder to think how many we'll have if we pardon them again.

Hopefully, more states will now follow suit. Clearly, the federal government refuses to enforce our immigration laws. At the very least, we have a right to know if a suspect is here illegally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top