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.
The court ruled that Arizona cannot make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to carry identification that says whether they are in the United States legally; cannot make it a crime for undocumented immigrations to apply for a job; and cannot arrest someone based solely on the suspicion that the person is in this country illegally.
However, the court let stand the part of the law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain, if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully in the United States. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges. The court said it was “improper” for the federal government to block the provision before state courts have a chance to interpret it and without determining whether it conflicts with federal immigration law in practice.
They struck down 3 of the 4 major provisions in the Arizona law. The ironic thing is that the Obama administration is already enforcing the only provision they upheld thanks to their SCOM initiative. Another major blow to the hardliners who refuse to compromise and find a reasonable solution to this problem.
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled largely in favor of the federal government Monday in a case involving Arizona's immigration law, but it upheld the most controversial provision involving police checks on people's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
Just how is constitutional for illegal aliens to be allowed to work or seek work in this country when they are in violation of our immigration laws? I'll be waitiing.
I see this as a split victory for both sides. The above was a victory for the pro-illegal side and the part where LE can now check immigration status under lawful contact by when the person can't provide a valid ID was a victory for the anti-illegal side. So I wouldn't be putting my party hat on if I were you.
They struck down 3 of the 4 major provisions in the Arizona law. The ironic thing is that the Obama administration is already enforcing the only provision they upheld thanks to their SCOM initiative. Another major blow to the hardliners who refuse to compromise and find a reasonable solution to this problem.
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.
Well, i guess this is the beginning of going back to the 1950's and 60's. Racial profiling as always been going on, but now they are starting to make it legal.
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.
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.
