High court rejects part of Arizona immigration law

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Neanderthal Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2012 11:26 p.m.

    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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 25, 2012 9:38 p.m.

    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.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2012 8:29 p.m.

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

  • Alfred Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2012 8:23 p.m.

    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.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2012 7:51 p.m.

    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.

  • CA. reader Rocklin, CA
    June 25, 2012 6:01 p.m.

    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.

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    June 25, 2012 5:59 p.m.

    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?

  • prelax Murray, UT
    June 25, 2012 5:40 p.m.

    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.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    June 25, 2012 5:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 25, 2012 4:50 p.m.

    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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 25, 2012 4:19 p.m.

    Careful now. The Supreme Court is provoking Obama.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 25, 2012 4:04 p.m.

    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.

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    June 25, 2012 2:06 p.m.

    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.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 25, 2012 1:59 p.m.

    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.

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    June 25, 2012 1:28 p.m.

    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?

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    June 25, 2012 12:03 p.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 25, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    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

  • Terrie Bittner Warminster, PA
    June 25, 2012 11:47 a.m.

    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.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 25, 2012 11:19 a.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 25, 2012 11:16 a.m.

    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).

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2012 10:49 a.m.

    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!

  • A_Chinese_American Cedar Hills, UT
    June 25, 2012 10:30 a.m.

    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."

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    June 25, 2012 10:12 a.m.

    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.

  • M. Butler Brooklyn, NY
    June 25, 2012 10:11 a.m.

    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.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    June 25, 2012 9:58 a.m.

    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.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    June 25, 2012 9:53 a.m.

    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.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 25, 2012 9:52 a.m.

    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.

    June 25, 2012 9:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Hunt Spanish Fork, UT
    June 25, 2012 9:32 a.m.

    "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.

  • Terrie Bittner Warminster, PA
    June 25, 2012 9:26 a.m.

    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.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    June 25, 2012 9:21 a.m.

    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

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 25, 2012 9:19 a.m.

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

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    June 25, 2012 9:16 a.m.

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

  • marcamus goochland, va
    June 25, 2012 9:12 a.m.

    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.

  • prelax Murray, UT
    June 25, 2012 9:04 a.m.

    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.

  • williary Kearns, UT
    June 25, 2012 8:56 a.m.

    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.

  • BobKjar Humble, TX
    June 25, 2012 8:52 a.m.

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

  • DougH2 Lithonia, GA
    June 25, 2012 8:52 a.m.

    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.

  • 1Infidel APO, AE
    June 25, 2012 8:43 a.m.

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