Quantcast

Comments about ‘High court rejects part of Arizona immigration law’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, June 25 2012 11:03 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
1Infidel
APO, AE

And the unraveling of the Republic goes on.....

DougH2
Lithonia, GA

I know, I know, judicial activism. I they rule with ARZ, they are a conservative court. If they rule against them, they are judicial activists. The Republican lie continues.

BobKjar
Humble, TX

Once again truth, justice and homemade apple pie have been struck down.

williary
Kearns, UT

Wow, this one makes a lot of sense. It also makes sense that the 3 usual suspects of conservative activisim on the court diagreed, while Chief Justice Roberts was part of the majority.

prelax
Murray, UT

Relax, carrying documents and not being able to work are covered by Federal law.

The big win is allowing officers to ask for citizenship after a stop. Not arresting minor immigration offenses makes sense, our jails can't hold them. It will give us a list of those here for a future administration to work with. Meanwhile we get rid of cartel members, hardened gang members, etc.

Sanctuary cities can't use the excuse of profiling or not obeying the law.

marcamus
goochland, va

Well thought out. It is extremely telling that Roberts formed the majority. If Kagan had participated it would most likely be a 6-3 decision.

Vote Mitt, change the administration, and then it will be amazing to see people who hate this decision screaming that it is the administration's right to enforce immigration.

The S.Ct. has already ruled that states can require e-verify. Enact e-verify.

ute alumni
Tengoku, UT

turn the keys to the country over to mexico. u.s. citizens come in second again.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

With this decision, it seems there will not be much motive to profile and that is good.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

One of the big issues in enforcing immigration laws already on the books is by allowing enforcement. This appears to have allowed that part to continue. Now, with a heavy election year for President, Governors, U.S. Senate and Congress, and state offices, it will be very enlightening to see what the politicians and campaigns do with this read. It will put the Legislative Branch of our country to task. They have stayed back hoping that someone would make the decision for them. The State of Arizona and a lot of the other border states will have action and voices from now until November. The President will have to rethink his lack of real policies and make adjustments. I still can see the Governor of Arizona on the tarmac with the President when he gave her no respect. States are trying to do the right thing with inaction from active enforcement from the Federal side. We hope for protection and common defense against our enemies. Not everyone coming to the U.S. of A want to help us in our cause of freedom. We have large borders and tongue and cheek protection with a Homeland Security that should protect US

Terrie Bittner
Warminster, PA

We have to remember that if immigrants have to carry papers, we all do. Otherwise, an illegal immigrant need only say, "I'm legal--I don't need to carry papers." Not all immigrants are Spanish and if they stop you based on skin color, you have a serious discrimination issue. We can't only require Spanish-looking people to carry ID. I have blond hair and blue eyes, but I could be here illegally from Canada. (I'm not, but I could be.) When I was growing up, we were taught the evils of Russia and China, which forced all people to carry ID papers. We were taught to fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening to us because it was a sign of Communism. It seems we've forgotten that fear.

I am guessing many who like the idea of minorities having to carry papers feel secure their own skin color will keep them from being stopped every ten steps to "prove" citizenship. I don't always carry ID when I walk to the corner or sit on my front porch and I don't wish to carry identify paperwork everywhere I go.

Hunt
Spanish Fork, UT

"The court struck down these three major provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers, making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants."

These were struck down only because they are already federal laws. It does not mean they are unenforceable by the state.

The Key provision of checking the immigration status is a huge win for Arizona. The court was unanimous on this point. Of course this story is going to be spun to make it sound like Arizona lost.

Virgil
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Headlines are very funny things. Here is what the BBC says "US Supreme Court upholds key Arizona immigration clause- The US Supreme Court has upheld a key part of a tough Arizona immigration law that would give new powers to police to check the immigration status of people stopped and arrested."

Seems like a different perspective than this article, even though it says much the same thing in the text.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

The case before the Supreme Court was NOT to rule on the merits of the Arizona law but on its Consitutionality. It wasn't surprising that the vote was unanimous that allowing state officials to check the papers of supected illegals was not an encroachment on Federal jurisdiction. What was interesting and reassuring was that on key issues of enforcement, the conservative Chief Justice Roberts crossed over to vote with the liberals.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

The reason states have been modifying their driver's license processes is to have it more consistent with a policy that it is one form of identification. In other countries, the process is already defined, you carry your passport if you are from another country and or a visa. Immigration is not a skin color issue and police officers, etc. who will be enforcing the law in Arizona already have a process as do some other states, already. We live in a great country and our ancestors paid a large price for us to enjoy the benefits of this law and order country. We pay a price for our freedoms we enjoy and the Preamble to the Constitution is such a beautiful part of the Document that we somewhat pay honor to in a week on Independence Day. Freedom doesn't come without a price. For those coming to this country, will have their price to pay by participating in our country's laws and order and some will even do public service through the military. For those who forgot the reason of Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veteran's Day, etc, it is more than just fireworks. Life, liberty, pursuit.

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

This decision is a slap in the face to all 50 States and to every patriotic American citizen. Sadly, it is just one more in a long string of outrages that have occurred under the reign of the current left-wing administration.

The left-wing is leading this Country down the path to lawlessness, anarchy, and atheism. The left claims that States have no power to enforce laws because doing so is the job of the federal government, and then the federal government refuses to enforce the law. Under this reasoning, we might as well have no laws at all.

M. Butler
Brooklyn, NY

A lot of people seem to be in favor of a police state, so long as they think the police will spend their time bothering other people. When the wheel turns and the police start bothering them, maybe they'll change their tune.

Or they can change now, and stand for freedom.

ouisc
Farmington, UT

I just can't help but think of the implications of the Supreme Court rulings. Currently, when I get pulled over, I have to submit my drivers license. The officer needs to know who I am, and the officer gets to run a background check on my driver license and my car license, searching for warrants and criminal activity.

However, if I was an illegal immigrant, I have a right to hide sections of my criminal activities. Thank you, Federal Government, for facilitating such an amazing inconsistency, providing more civil rights for our illegal immigrants than your own legal residents.

A_Chinese_American
Cedar Hills, UT

The first sentence of this AP report is very misleading.

The more accurate statement would be following:
"The Supreme Court on Monday struck down much of the controversial Arizona immigration law, but upheld for now a key provision that required police officers to check the immigration status of those they suspect may be in the country illegally."

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

Its a good start!

You have to remember: the information is being "reported" by the lamestream press who think providing freebies and amnesty to any and all who manage to arrive here, is PEACHY KEEN!

Rest assured, the amnesty advocates are disappointed!

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Interesting that even the liberals upheld the portion (cops CAN ask for identity) all our usual lefty posters said was racist. I am waiting for our usual leftist friends to now call the liberals on the court racist.

Terrie Bittner,
If they are driving, which is when most of the stops occur, they HAVE to carry papers (driver’s license).

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments