Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court OKs 'show me your papers' rule’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 26 2012 1:12 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

Is this AG still not willing to accept the rights and soverignty of the United States? What does it take for Shurtleff and the ACLU to care and think about this country's rights and citizens rights over those of illegal aliens?

Profiling is how many laws are written so they can be enforced and the laws do specify the profiling criteria. Without profiling there would be no laws or law and order and that is one argument irrelevant for ACLU to use.

Race, religion, culture, and past are all profiles legally useable for law enforcment. The ACLU just likes to use this argument to try and intimidate our rights and security as individuals and a nation. Our national and personal security are the inalienable rights granted to all Americans and profiling is our modis operandi. Anyone breaking our laws and attempting to harm rescinds all rights, liberties, and protections of our laws.

IdahoStranger
NEWDALE, ID

I read that the Supreme Court justices expressed great concern for the plight of Arizona in that they are being swamped with huge numbers of illegals and yet the court has done nothing to provide relief. And now this ruling which provides no relief at all. What hypocrisy!

What good does it do if a police officer is now able (maybe?) to ask for identification papers relating to the legal status to be here and then must turn them over to the Feds who still are doing nothing? How does that solve the problem? Obviously it doesn't and it should be obvious that there is another agenda here.

What the court ruling does do however is provide work for thousands of lawyers on both sides of the issue. While the court did not protect the citizens of the US they have certainly provided job protection for their own. As my neighbor says, "Follow the money!"

Why has Congress not defended the borders of Arizona and all other border states? Another agenda.
Congress can fix this problem and its time to apply real "term limits" this election and every election. Change Congress to fix this problem.

Ex Pat
Salt Lake City, Ut

When I came across the border, legally, i wss told I had to carry my green card with me at all times. I had to be prepared to show it, if asked. So what exactly is the problem? I'm sure millions of legal aliens were told the same thing. So if your legal, you are told to carry it, and if you are illegal - you can't ask.
For all of you who came becasue you think this is a better country, leave your socialist/communist thinking in the country you came from. This is a country of laws, at least it was until this administration took over. With obama, he obeys if it suits him, if it doesn't he ignores. So is this what we want? If Republicans take over, do you want them to ignore the laws as obama has done? NO!

Tators
Hyrum, UT

Activist Mark Alvarez was quoted as saying that undocumented (illegal) Hispanics will now feel anxiety when driving, due to the parts of the law that the Supreme court passed. Well of course they will! And they should!
Anyone who has to sneak across our borders illegally should feel a constant anxiety. They know they did not follow our established rule of laws in coming and staying here. Common sense should tell every illegal alien here that until he or she follows the rules and does things legally, they are subject to deportation at any time. That is, until Obama recently got involved and decided his federal government would only enforce the provisions of the law that he personally likes or doesn't disagree with. His approach is causing more division in our society than any other administration I can remember. And I've been around to see quite a few.
This entire issue would pretty much go away if the current administration would simply enforce the immigration laws that have been in place since our country was founded. But they won't. That's exactly why individual states are forced to pass their own laws to do so.

Dixie Dan
Saint George, UT

What does Carl Wimmer has to say about this ruling? Why isn't Utah enforcing the historical 1986 Immigration Reform Act of 1986 that was President Reagan's key accomplishment while he was in office? Remember, he proudly proclaimed that his bill would solve the illegal immigration problems.

Kathy.
Iowa, Iowa

Within hours of the Supreme Court upholding the verification of immigration status part of the bill President Obama stopped Arizona's access to the database that would allow them to verify.

I agree with Scalia. A state has a right to protect it's borders and population.

Middle of the Road
Home Town USA, UT

The legals are instructed to have their legal status on them at all times. Like having your ID. It IS their identification. The ones who have to be ready are the illegals and they know who they are themselves. The law is made for everyone. Not just the ones who are legal. If the illegals don;t like it, then they need to comply.

Why do we have to bend the law just to make the ones who are here as undocumented okay?

If they come here, they need to speak the language, learn it and make every attempt to become legal.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

The rest of the Court, however, did not agree with Scalia, or at least with the more radical of his dissent read from the bench. As for all the ID checking, it will have to be done as PART of the normal law enforcement process rather than looking for "the usual suspects".

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Tators,

"....Alvarez was quoted as saying that undocumented (illegal) Hispanics will now feel anxiety when driving, due to the parts of the law that the Supreme court passed. Well of course they will! And they should!"

Merely being swarthy-looking enough to appear Hispanic can be reason enough for a traffic cop to find some pretext for pulling over a motorist to see if he might be an undocumented worker. That’s not the intent of the Utah law, of course. That’s the unavoidable fallout that’s going to ensue from such a harebrained statute.

At least it’s not as open-ended as the Arizona law which REQUIRES state law enforcement to determine immigration status of someone pulled to the side of the road for reasons other than suspicion of being an illegal immigrant. If I were an Arizona cop, I certainly wouldn’t want to be charged with carrying out such a law for which there are no guidelines to what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

From the opinion of the court-

"The federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled."

---

Let's assume for a moment that federal power on this issue will never be questioned again. Then the pressing problem would simply be that the federal government is not adequately enforcing the law as unlawful entry is a federal offence. As it stands, justice is being robbed effectively nullifying law, being moot.

Therefore, the appropriate course of action isn't states 'patching up federal holes'. We ought to simply be requiring or coercing federal enforcement through the democratic process.

The REAL problem is very simple and I believe we all are aware of it. It is that this nation is loosing sight of its original values and personal convictions which motivated our willingness to uphold our civic duties and responsibilities. We no longer accept moral self-restraint and a sense of self-debt to the liberties this country protects for us in favor of self-interest and idleness.

I figure that my being a person who supports compromise means that if I can see this growing problem of Americans not magnifying ourselves, then surely those with more polarized opinions must know it also.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

As for this democracy and the compromise it was designed to rely on in order to function- I cannot possibly see how people continually refuse to accept the simple options of compromise that are available.

'We don't need to send everyone back' and 'we don't need to keep them all here.' Those are polar opposites. Meanwhile the clear alternative of compromise somehow is violently opposed.

We the people authorized the federal government to work out a plea bargain form of arrangement to allow those who would be willing to work for and earn citizenship and freedom to do so- while expelling those who do not from this country.

Any attempt to say that such an arrangement is unlawful nearly has to look away from every principle of law in order to maintain that position. 1) plea bargains are lawful 2) we authorize our government, not the other way around 3) Pardons are ALSO a lawful act. Technically the U.S. President could pardon all persons who have been charged with "unlawful entry" into this country.

Our unwillingness to fix this issue only weakens this nation. It threatens our democratic strength and our strength against any outside threats.

Trooper55
Williams, AZ

I believe it's time to do something to enforce the laws that gorvens the illegals and they need to be enforced now. Their are people waiting to enter this country legally and all all everybody is worried about the illegals in this country. I say sewnd them back to the counties they come from and lets get the one into this country that are doing it the legal way. They broke the law or laws to come here illegally, so as far as I am concren deport and send a clear message. I for one believe that the President overstep his power and has created a big mess that will take years to clean up and I for one willn't be voting for him in Nov., it's time for him to go he's not doing the will of the people but for his own gain in this election year. What he fails to relizes is that what he did if they are here illegally they can't vote without being a citzen of the U.S.

wrz
Salt Lake City, UT

@A voice of Reason:

"We the people authorized the federal government to work out a plea bargain form of arrangement..."

Wait a minute, Voice. What about the US Constitution? As I read that document, it tells us that all, ALL citizens (including non citizens) in this country are to receive equal, EQUAL treatment under the law. That tells me that you can't say to some illegals, because you attended high school or joined the military, you get the special treatment of amnesty, temporary or otherwise.

Giving special treatment or preference to any individual or group because of their demographics (race, gender, ethnicity) automatically results in illegal and unconstitutional discrimination against the individual or group who is excluded from such special treatment. That includes all forms of preferential treatment and all forms of discrimination including so-called reverse discrimination.

Laws, programs, policies, and regulations which dictate that individuals or groups with certain demographic characteristics receive preferential treatment are unconstitutional and should not be tolerated by Americans.

Based on the above, the recent edict by Obama that certain selected illegals are to get amnesty is a violation of the Constitution that he took an oath to defend.

tabuno
Clearfield, UT

From a reading of both ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES No. 11–182 (June 25, 2012) and H.B. 497 UTAH ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACT, one can likely conclude that H.B. 497 as written violates the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in several ways. (1) H.B. 497 makes a crucial and likely erroneous assumption that there a "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States on the basis that a crime has been committed justifying that mandatory verification of a person's immigration status; (2) requires local law enforcement officers to behave in some ways as "untrained" deputies of the Federal government in transporting such undocumented individuals into Federal custody; and (3) on its face as H.B. 497 requires "A peace officer may make an arrest under authority of a warrant or may, without warrant, arrest a person: (5) when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person is an alien" both of which were deemed preempted by Federal laws.

Kathy.
Iowa, Iowa

First he armed Mexico with 2,500 weapons they he surrendered Arizona, is this the act of a President that supports and defends the Constitution?

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

wrz,

The 14th Amendment reads: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The same laws apply equally to everyone, yet we still offer plea bargains as a constitutionally valid legal practice. How you feel about the constitutionality of a practice we currently adhere to is not relevant to my stance on immigration.

With that being said, I will still address this point. It is entirely constitutional so long as the same law applies to everyone. That isn't to say that the same punishment applies, just that a form of legal retribution MUST apply to all persons convicted of a crime. Take two illegal immigrants- one willing to work, pay a fine, and work to earn citizenship and then one who refuses and remains illegal for some other purpose. Deporting one and fining another satisfies "equal protection of the laws" simply because no one can escape legal prosecution.

Furthermore, a 'equal punishments' doctrine would devastate this country and bring greater injustice on everyone. My suggestion is still FAR more reasonable and rational.

to comment

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