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

Return to article »

Published: Monday, June 25 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Centerville, UT

I thought I was required to carry ID since I was sixteen, when driving. Thus also proving my citizenship, which has been asked for, when ever I have been pulled over for any minor infraction, like a burned out headlight. So I now learn I do not have to carry any identification or it is a police state requirement.

Terrie Bittner
Warminster, PA

Lost in DC--you carry a driver's license to prove you have a right to drive, not to prove you are a citizen.Your passenger doesn't need ID.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

you are correct that the passenger does not need to carry a DL, but it is rarely because of the passenger's actions that a car is pulled over

ute alumni
Tengoku, UT

m butler
having lived in NYC i know something about living in a police state. good luck with your no salt, >16 oz drinks, no guns etc etc. your comments prove that those living in a police state loose a sense of reality.

Farmington, UT

The DL is used for much more than proof of a right to drive. If you hand your DL to the police, they will match you against their databases, looking for previous activity as well as warrants that may not even be related to driving. Why should illegals be exempt of such database scans?

Centerville, UT

It is a wrong assumption to think that a passenger in an auto does not need ID. Police will require ID of passengers if they appear to be underage in a curfew check. I have had my ID requested as a passenger in a car. What were they thinking. If a car smells of marijuana they will take the ids of the passengers. A drivers license is more than a privileage to drive card. It is an ID used at voting polls. It is a proof of citizenship and residence.

Iowa City, IA

Funny headline. Real story is the judges were unanimous that law enforcement can as for identity. Big win, untouchable. Enforce it with law breakers. If the feds would enforce current laws, this is a non-issue.

No DREAM for citizenship, let them DREAM for a green card. Citizenship needs to be earned, not given out like candy.

Vince here
San Diego, CA

Understandably, the law of the land is the law of the land.

It is regrettable that politicians, namely Brewer will use a political football for self-gain, not because she cares what would stand up in court. She has taken this issue for Tea Party voters who look not at the legal, economic, and social implications, but rather, get caught up in the moment of scape-goat politics.

People who dream, who contribute to society, who make up the social fabric of America should by right eventually earn a place alongside others. America has ALWAYS been the land of the immigrants, except for those whose land was taken away and treaties with the same government who take them were broken---every single treaty, at that.

Let the dream continue.

Mcallen, TX

Careful now. The Supreme Court is provoking Obama.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

3grandslams said:
DREAM for citizenship, let them DREAM for a green card. Citizenship needs to be earned, not given out like candy.

So how did you earn yours, inherited, like a right, that you earned thru no work of your own.
I see what you mean.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

So, how will this ruling be used in other areas. The court has essentially created a wall between LEAs and federal agencies.
Will it be a case to strike down local police involvement in a bank robbery? or a kidnapping? or a RICO investigation? or a civil rights violation? perhaps a Special Ed case? or Title IX?
Although most states have their own ordinances and enforcement governing these matters, can they use this ruling to undo the local effort?
Once the feds take ownership of all enforcement, the principle can and will be applied where it was not intended.

Murray, UT

I earned my citizenship by having relatives that came here the honest way. Dream about making things right for your children and follow our laws.

Scola pwned Obama in his 22-page dissent.

Joan Watson

Perhaps one should read the full account of the S.C. decision.
"Arizona bears the brunt of the illegal immigration problem...Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem...and are unwilling to do so."
Rather a disquieting situation?

CA. reader
Rocklin, CA

When an LEO detains/arrests someone, there are certain obvious questions that are asked: what is your name?; what is your date of birth?; what is your place of birth? The LEO is trying to properly ID the person just in case he or she is wanted for a crime somewhere else. If the person says "I was born in (fill in the blank)" which happens to be somewhere other than the US, there is a pretty good chance the person is a foreign national. Next obvious question: What is you immigration status? Most states have long-standing agreements with the Feds to report foreign nationals they have in custody for other crimes so all of this borders a big fat waste of time and money.

President Whoever needs to commit to enforcing US laws no matter what they cover.

Salt Lake City, UT

The US Supreme Court just committed a major boo-boo.

The US Constitution assigns immigration policy to the Federal government. But it is silent on who is responsible for immigration enforcement. That task is not assigned to anybody. Immigration policy is on the federal books... laws passed by the US Congress. All that Arizona (and other states) was trying to do is enforce federal immigration policy on the books. Seems like a natural teamwork arrangement of federal/state governments managing immigration. For one thing, the fed doesn't have the manpower to enforce immigration law effectively. States do.

This action by the Supreme court means the borders will now be open with hordes from the south pouring in. And they don't necessarily cross the border on foot. Fully 60% of illegals fly in, and overstay their visas.

The Supreme Court and the federal government have gone amok. They all need to be kicked out and replaced.

Salt Lake City, UT

This issue concerning possible racial profiling by Arizona law enforcement as arrests and stops are made... is easily resolved. Police check EVERYONE'S immigration status regardless of the hair and skin color, whether they can speak English, etc., etc. Problem solved.

If it turns out detainees can't prove citizenship, hand-cuff them, run them over to the ICE office, and drop them off on their front porch.

And, for those who are stopped while driving and can't prove citizenship, pull their driver's license so they can't drive in Arizona until the citizenship issue is resolved.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Secure our border to keep the crazy right wingers form Arizona coming here.

Mcallen, TX

This nation is being downgraded to the kind of country these illegals came from. After a length of time, war (revolution) begins and freedom triumphs. Than the cycle starts again.

We just can't hold freedom and greatness for very long. I don't get it.

Salt Lake City, UT

Good-bye, America. We can now expect hordes of illegals crossing our southern border, which is as porous as a sieve despite the billions that are spend trying to secure it.

The only way we can save this nation from becoming a third world county is to go to the polls and vote the buffoon out. We want immigration laws enforced. To not enforce them is to have no immigration laws at all.

to comment

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