Even some of the court's liberals seemed to find no strong objection to the most controversial part of the law, which requires local police to check on the immigration status of anyone they detain or arrest.

____________________________________________________

OUCH!!!!

THAT'S gotta hurt lefty liberals.

Here's another way to deal with illegal immigration from Mexico: Re-elect Barry and make America's economy so bad that Mexican's stop coming here for work. And then we can see what Mexico does when American's start illegally immigrating to their country looking for work.

Heck, even Romney employed illegals...until he realized it was time to run for president!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CZ-4gnNz0vc

Every American needs to watch this video.

End the scourge of liberalism. Vote for Romney.

Heck, even Romney employed illegals...until he realized it was time to run for president

Ursula,

Oh... so true!

Meg Whitman comes to mind.....

Even Slick Rick Perry said that the AZ law would not be good for Texas but.....as for those who are in Texas illegally, if they are domestic workers, landscapers, nannies, etc......no harm, no problem!

Slave wages indeed. The employers should rightly be punished....it's like buying an item that you know is stolen!

Mitt made it clear that he wasn't morally opposed to hiring undocumented workers--he just didn't want the negative publicity.

Probably a good idea for Mitt---he generates enough negative publicity as it is. Witness his latest remark about enjoying his vacations in Paris.

Straight from the horses mouth ass;

Romney, who was criticized for this incident in the 2008 presidential race, responded that he fired the gardeners after he found out about their immigration status.

"We went to the company and we said, look, you can't have any illegals working on our property," he said. "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals."

Axelrod pointed out that Romney said, "not that it was wrong or not that it was illegal, I'm running for office."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503544_162-503544.html

chilled,

If you had even bothered to follow the issue with Meg Whitman you would clearly see that her "housekeeper" presented fraudulate papers. She misrepresented herself to both Whitman and the employment agency that presented her to Meg Whitman. Meg was 100% right to kick her illegal butt to the curb.

Once again … If the court strike down part while upholding part isn’t that called making law from the bench?

The court can say which parts are constitutional and which are not but if any part is unconstitutional then the entire law should be struck down thus allowing AZ to write a new law knowing full well what cannot be included.

I guess it's difficult when one lives in "IL" to have a feel for the problems of a state a thousand plus miles to the south. I don't think the folks in Illinois have much to worry about people from Canada sneaking over their border by the millions.

States should be able to deal with problems that are specific to them.

I don't think Mr. Obama...the constitutional scholar...is having a particularly good year with constitutional issues.

Next this radical court will say it's okay for each state to ask for a picture ID before you vote.

Obama 2012 - "Damn that pesky Constitution"

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Straight from the horses mouth ass: - I assume you meant Axelrod

Looking like the Court is going to hand Obama a tough summer. It will be interesting to see what happens to his support when they Approve SB1070 and Shoot down Obama Care in the same month

JoAnna...

Yeah...what a tremendous burden it must be for a voter to have to show identification !

In my loopy state of Connecticut, our Democrat majority in the statehouse and lefty governor want to pass a law that says anyone can vote for the first time, but then must complete the registration forms within 30 days AFTER the election.

Wow...tough law !!!

This is a victory for American and a big defeat of Obama's socialist policies!

Congratulations Arizona..... ! Romney's campaign is starting out on a high note!

What Williams said is true; I don't have a problem with police asking people who have been stopped for some infraction to provide identification as long as ALL people are asked regardless of the color of their skin or the language they speak. They've always been able to do that. The trouble is that it unfairly puts the police into the business of enforcing immigration laws instead of just focusing on crime prevention, investigation, etc; it also becomes too easy to abuse the law and the Sheriff Joe's use their badge as an excuse.

it also becomes too easy to abuse the law and the Sheriff Joe's use their badge as an excuse.

Ahh yess - good old Sheriff Birther Joe!

The hero of the RWNJ's!

How many investigations is he currently under?

but, but JK1963......

Reportedly, Megs employee had been working 9 years in that household.

Meg and her hubby ignored repeated notices from Social Security Admin about the questionable ssn.

Meg, the CEO, ignored it all for cheap labor.

Jody, Iowa: The trouble is that it unfairly puts the police into the business of enforcing immigration laws instead of just focusing on crime prevention, investigation, etc;

What an amazing statement!

So you're saying it's unfair that the police . . . . are enforcing the law . . . .

You see Jody, and it looks like this is a real stunner for you, illegal immigration is a crime.

How many investigations is he currently under?

and carrot top, how many wigs have you lost walking into rooms with ceiling fans?

We should all be thankful that the SCOTUS is not kowtowing to obama's onerous policies!

I don't think Mr. Obama...the constitutional scholar...is having a particularly good year with constitutional issues.

You have that very wrong .. American's are not having a good year with constitutional rulings laid down by the ALEC owned SCOTUS. They might as well re-write the constitution to be;

"We the Corporations of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, eliminate Justice for citizens and protections provided by the Federal Government...."

But but chilled...

Let me ask this...why isn't she is prison for identity theft? Why hasn't she been deported? Meg was notified one time and at time she fired the illegal. You just crack me up with your inane defense of criminals. And then this illegal gets represented by the joke of all lawyers, Gloria Alred...who then claims that it's all Meg's fault for hiring an illegal...what about the illegal that falsified documents and used someone else's social security number?

Meg pulled a Mitt, JK1963, 9 years after the fact! I'm sure Meg was very busy, but 9 years,....... and only after it was brought to National attention.

One would think that a CEO like Meg, would know how to properly check her household staffs' employment history.

Identity theft? I don't know about that one.....

Chilled,

And I thought you were well versed on the issue...LA Times reported that she used another person's social security number on her application both to the employment agency and to Meg Whitman...last I checked that was a crime...

And why doesn't Gov. Brown endorse the use of E-Verify? Requiring all businesses (such as the employment agency) to E-Verify would enable potential employers to people that are not who they claim to be...

Fiesty.....sounds like Romney found out the company he hired was using illegals so he did the right thing and got rid of them. A lot of bleeding heart liberals using illegals should follow his example!!

I am going to hazard a guess that the liberals posting to this thread do not live in areas that are seriously impacted by large numbers of illegal immigrants. It is something that they might read about in the news, but it isn't in their backyard so to speak. It is easy to be liberal and hold hands and sing KumBayAh when your community is not being plagued, when your neighborhood resources are not being exhausted. It is also easy to speak ill of those in Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California....who have usually been the ones to suffer the greatest hardships due to the illegal immigration problem and costs....you don't live there!!!! Amnesty, making everyone legal with the sweep of the pen, does nothing to repair the damages already done, nor to prevent future damage from occurring. There is an inherent respect for law, as well as this nation, and it's institutions among those who will live and attempt to work here without legal right to do so. As a nation, we look foolish and ineffectual for allowing it to continue and awarding welfare to those who violate our laws.

I take it that sue doesn't really know much about human behaviour.

The illegals are entering the country for one reason, jobs. If you cut off the job supply, then they will stop coming into the country. How do you cut off the job supply, well you make it a felony to not perform due diligence when hiring employee's if they turn out to be an undocumented worker. You start putting employers in jail for 5 years for hiring an employee, the job supply will dry up big time, and then there will be less of a problem.

There are FAR fewer employers than there are undocumented workers, and they have records (tax records etc...) that make it easier to find them. So why not work at it from this angle. Well the reason is that the GOP will refuse to ever sign on to that, because their constituency likes the ability to hire illegals cheaply.

Dennis

I'm expecting a 5-3 to uphold the majority of AZs law. As to your earlier post I don't believe it is making law from the bench, only deciding the constitutionality of the law.

Hi Sarge,

Justice Kagan has recused herself so there are only 8 justices on the bench to rule on this.

When the court upholds only part of a law they basically change the law as written - I see that a making law.

5 plus 3 is 8

You must have learned your math from turbo tax tim

Bo,

I never said he said it as 5-4. I just said why I think it might be a tie.

But with a loss of a liberal it might be 5-3 or even 6-2.

Dennis,

Leave Bo alone - he's a freshly hatched re-reg... ☺

Any guesses as to who? lol

Penguin boy

Penguin boy

BINGO!

We have a winner... lol

Before the right gets too excited, perhaps it is best to see what the Supreme Court decides. That goes for ACA and the mandate as well as the arizona state law that attempts to erroneously enforce immigration policy, a responsiblity only the Federal Government is able to enforce because it relates to federal and foreign affairs - foreign nationals.

On another note immigration is dwindling thanks to increased federal deportation and effects of the recession and economy. It is sad to think that the GOP policies appear to want to make the economy so bad so that immigrants will self deport - a Romney idea.

_________

per MSNBC...

Nearly 1.4 million Mexicans moved from the US to Mexico between 2005 and 2010, double the number that came a decade earlier. The number of Mexicans who moved to the US during that period fell to less than half of the 3 million who came between 1995 and 2000.

The reversal appears to be the result of tightened border controls, a weak US job and housing construction market, a rise in deportations and a decline in Mexican birthrates, said the study, which used US and Mexican census figures and Mexican government surveys. Arrests of immigrants entering illegally have also dropped precipitously.

Ah - fisting redhead - you flatter me

Republican action taking place in Arizona today - the rest of the country if Romney is elected.

“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/25/supreme-court-casts-doubt-obamas-immigration-law-c/

But even Democratic-appointed justices....

“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

It is clear to me that obama would prefer to ignore laws protecting our borders! And it is no coincidence he and the democrats are fighting to prevent IDs to be shown when voting! This is a frightening thing that is happening to America!

"It is clear to me that obama would prefer to ignore laws protecting our borders! "

If this is true, why has deportation increased: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html , more money been provided for border patrol: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/22/nation/la-na-border-patrol-20100623 , and illegal immigration dipped: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2010/09/01/us-unauthorized-immigration-flows-are-down-sharply-since-mid-decade/ under the Obama administration?

Do you actually have any evidence for your statement?

@Dr.Dr... Like everything else it's Bush's fault for increasing the number of border patrol agents and the size of ICE. Plus there are so many more illegal aliens here than there was in the past so naturally the number being deported is up. Wait until Obama's "violent criminals only" are to be held accountable to immigration laws policy is fully implemented if you want to see the number of deportations go down.

"Like everything else it's Bush's fault for increasing the number of border patrol agents and the size of ICE."

I'm sorry, what? My second link demonstrated (clearly, if you bothered to read it) that the number of border patrol has increased under OBAMA. Not a word was said about Bush. Except by you.

"Plus there are so many more illegal aliens here than there was in the past so naturally the number being deported is up."

Uh, no. You obviously did not check the third link I provided, the one that demonstrates the rate of illegal immigration is DOWN, meaning that there are fewer people here illegally in the past.

Our economy sucks and hence the desire to come and profit from us has waned....Pretty soon things will be better in the third world.

So you don't want people to be responsible for their for their medical bills? Just go to the ER and let the tax payers pick up the tab.

so much for the argument that liberals will "take away our freedoms!"

also, so much for the argument that conservates are more Libertarian than Democracts. What would Ayn Rand say about the Arizona laws requiring people to prove they are legal citizens. "Show me your papers!" Somehow, I think she would be against the state having that much power.

Massachusetts has had the mandate in place for years. No appreciable change in ER visits since enacted.

Rob...

Common sense and fact, like what you offered, often fall on deaf ears. The Court's decision on Mr. Obama's rushed and mushed health care reform plan is being decided on constitutional issues. I don't think the court will be heeding the advise of 'Newsvine' posters in making it's decision.

Rob - it isn't about reducing the number of ER visits. It's about where the money to pay the hospital comes from. Does it come from other peoples insurance premiums and taxpayers for those who don't have a policy, or does it come from your own insurance and a fund that EVERYBODY pays into if you don't have a policy.

"No appreciable change in ER visits since enacted."

That's not what the latest data says. http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2012/01/report-emergency-department-visits-down-for-first-time-since-health-reform

You should really read the articles before posting them to dispute what I posted....

From your link..

First, on the face of it, it's good news to see ED use going down after so many years of no changes, and especially because that was an outcome many expected out of MA health reform. We expected this to happen, and when it did not, many were puzzled, and many used the non-drop as evidence of health reform's failure.

Second, given the time lag, it's not clear this most recent drop is because of MA health reform or because of other factors. I don't know of any specific policy changes that might account for this drop at this point in time — so one would have to view a connection with some skepticism.

Huh, and perhaps you could read the whole article including the research involved instead of selectively quoting one person whose opinion on the drop was solicited. But of course, that would not support your perspective.

Here's the actual findings, not an interpretation: "Between fall 2006 and fall 2010, there were reductions in emergency department use overall (down 3.8 percentage points), frequent emergency department visits (down 1.9 percentage points), and the use of the emergency department for non-emergency conditions (down 3.8 percentage points). This is the first reduction in emergency department use among nonelderly adults in Massachusetts observed in the MHRS."

Then logically when the economy improves we can say it was because of Bush's economic policies instituted years prior, right?

Why not, right?

How would that claim be any different to claiming that ER use reduction was from MA health reform.

I already have to document and prove that I am a US Citizen in order to hold a job, open a bank account, file for a social security number (which is pretty much needed for everything else that I might do), so why should I feel offended being asked to show ID to vote????? The whole argument is silly. The only difference is that my job, my social security, my bank account....well, it won't guarantee any politician an extra vote for office, but the voter ID thing will. Really sad when we have to come up with new and improved ways to vote "early and often"

"Then logically when the economy improves we can say it was because of Bush's economic policies instituted years prior, right?"

Actually, no. The MA healthcare law was instituted in 2006, which is as you will note, the first of the years cited in the research.

I find it hard to fathom the whole Voter ID dilema. One is "registered to vote". After you are registered you are assigned a "precinct" to vote in and your voting location. You go there to vote, and only there. They have your "information" from your registration...and you have to "prove" who you are at that time to vote. By showing some form of ID.

Why do Democrats have such an issue with this?

How can someone vote if they are not on the list of "voters" in any given precinct?

Once you have voted your name is crossed off, marked, whatever to signify you have voted. Here we use a sticky dot address label which was next to your name on the list which is removed when you show your ID and given to you.

No one else can then vote using "your name".

Bob, One thing I want to understand. Kagan recused herself on the immigration law because she was former U.S> solicitor general. She was invloved in the writing of the ACA, shouldn't she recuse herself from that case as well? I would certainly think so.

Bruce,

NO, she was NOT involved in writing the ACA, because, as Solicitor General, she was in the executive branch, NOT the legislative branch of government.

The reason why she recused herself from this case is because she worked on the legal team that was involved in challenging the law in court.

More illegal immigrants have been deported in three years under Obama, then were deported in eight years of George. W. Bush.

Just wait till police start checking red heads for papers, I hear there are plenty of Irish "illegals" in Massachusetts.

Yes - Obama deports all the brown skins he can - Why does he hate them so much?

Amy B. Portland, ME

Just wait till police start checking red heads for papers - does this mean we finally have a chance to get rid of Feisty?? Thank God for the Supreme Court!!!

Amy you liberals astound me. The reason more have been deported is because more are coming over the border, and yes more are remaining even still. And by the way all Arizona is trying to do is help the deportation President, just think how many more could be deported if we checked their ID when law inforcement has reason to believe they are here illegally. I don't understand why you oppose the law if you are proud of your boy wonder now just think how far your chest will stick out, lol if he deports even more. See how easy that was Amy.

Bob Jones-3591206

Actually, there are one million fewer illegal immigrants in the US, mostly due to the recession - no jobs here, so they went home. That is a fact, but perhaps not one reported on FOX.

Alabama also has a very strict new 'papers please' law!

....can you say kiss-up...after a Benz Exec was stopped and marched off because he only had his German ID. So, he called his peeps......

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/11/21/mercedes_benz_executive_arrested_under_alabama_immigration_law.html

And Alabama's law has already hurt farmers: http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20110808/news/110809782

Illegal citizens can't and don't vote. That is a fact.

Sure they don't

Like they don't get social security cards or they don't get driver's licenses or EBT cards or instate tuition or or or or or or or or or

Sure they don't

Oh course you can prove this... right?

We will be waiting for your sources...

TeaPeople have been pushing that lie forever........Repeat the Lie, Repeat the Lie......

It's still a lie......Folks here illegally, DO NOT VOTE!....Can't Vote!

TeaPeople with their Voter ID laws do want to disenfranchise US Citizens!

Rob can't prove this because he lives in the Republican Bubble where facts aren't an issue. You know like listening to some fat dumb a$$ on the radio who tells these bubble people something that is a lie, and they take it as a fact.

Over 40% of legal voting age US citizens didn’t vote in 2008.

Why would illegals bother?

It can easily happen. For example, where I live, my voting place is a large church around the corner and in the last two times I've voted, all I've done is gone in there and told them my name and my address. They looked in their regsitry and then gave me my ballot. Not once did they ask for my id, nor any other proof that I am who I say I am. The last occassion, I had my drivers license out to hand to them and they said that they don't require it. So if someone (an illegal, for example) knows your name and your address, at least where I live, they can vote. The fact that no one has found an instance doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

It can easily happen.

Again, I requested sources, NOT some hypothetical fairy tale from a RWNJ!

The fact that no one has found an instance doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Sorry, but, I am sick & tired of the 'take my word for it bull@!$%#' *wink wink*

If you want to make accusations, you better be able to back them up with substance!

In my state we don't have to show an ID. If someone says they are someone else and votes in their place then they have committed a crime. This is not happening.

Wide spread voter fraud is a myth made of by the Republicans, because they still can't accept the fact that a Black Man had been elected as President.

It only happens in rare cases.

Wide spread voter fraud is a myth made of by the Republicans, because they still can't accept the fact that a Black Man had been elected as President.

Job1,

Voter fraud consists of 0.003% - isn't it just like the GNOP to fix something which isn't broken...

Still waiting for a source on how illegals are able to vote though...

I am shocked that you guys don't have to show ID when you go to vote. I live in a very small town where we have a post office, a school, a bar and a gas station, and I have to show my ID or voter registration card every time. I grew up here and the people KNOW me and still make me show ID!!

Rob in Ma, please check and see if the drunk illegal alien Uncle Obama has voted.

In the country illegally for 20 years (or at least in the Peoples republic of Moonbatachusetts), Obama the illegal has a drivers license even after being convicted of driving drunk....and Aunti Zenuiti, illegal, gets free welfare on the taxpayer's dime. Voting must be a cakewalk for illegals...

Recently A reporter was able to vote using Eric Holder's name in Holder's polling station... no ID asked for.... should have been a big story but wasn't shown in the old liberal media! Hmmm, wonder why?

I wonder if Eric Holder himself can vote under the name Mickey Mouse?

jub1 for your information barrack hussien obama's mother was Caucasian. You can't get an African American/Black man from the womb of a Caucasian and no matter how much you keep saying it he is as much Caucasian as Black. And if you are refering to skin color he would be the first caramel not Black POTUS. Sorry to burst your little bubble, lol : ()

If you want to make accusations, you better be able to back them up with substance!

carrot top, the same could be said for most of your inane posts, eh?

should have been a big story but wasn't shown in the old liberal media! Hmmm, wonder why?

My guess would be, because James O'Keefe who is currently on parole was behind it & NO voter fraud occurred?

Talk about deceptive practices - you go right on swallowing the worm, junior!

Briebart lives... lmao!

Fisty,

I'll remember that next time you spout off something from the top of your head and "claim" it's the truth...no one on here is better at just making stuff up than you...

I'll remember that next time you spout off something from the top of your head and "claim" it's the truth...no one on here is better at just making stuff up than you...

Whatever...

What's next out of you - I'm rubber you're glue? lol

No worries the sting of ME embarrassing YOU is only temporary - you will recover eventually! ;o)

Embarrassing?? Is that what you call it?? You just made a fool out of yourself yet again... Whatever...have a nice day lightweight...

[Recently A reporter was able to vote using Eric Holder's name in Holder's polling station...]

First, James O'Keefe is not a journalist...he's a weasel scumbag...

Second, O'Keefe's assistant DID NOT VOTE...if he had voted, it would have been voter fraud, and the assistant could have been prosecuted.

Fox "news" didn't tell you that, right?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295431/why-we-need-voter-id-laws-now-john-fund

I am shocked that you guys don't have to show ID when you go to vote.

There is no need to show ID. If you are on the voter rolls you vote. Simple and easy.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

It can easily happen.

If you want to make accusations, you better be able to back them up with substance

Now I am surprised you would make this statement. Just re-read posts from Bev and yourself and ask why this is so important of an issue.

Job1,

Your comment doesn't address someone that comes in off the street posing as another person. Sure, the voter rolls have your name and address, but the poll workers don't verify that you are who you say you are when you come to vote. It's that part that needs fixed. Like my example, twice when I've gone to vote at my polling place, I never asked to provide any proof of who I am. The second time I went to vote I actually had my drivers license out to show them and they said that they didn't need it. Now granted, my example, would be odd as to why in the world would someone inpersonate me, but it points to a problem with voting practices. But to people who claim that there has never been any evidence of voter fraud just isn't looking at all the possibilities of where the system fails.

Hmmm...someone here illegally "can get"...

an SSN, a Drivers License, a place to live with a "utility bill"...

all of those things are accepted for voter registration...

But Democrats insist that illegals can't and don't vote, and also have issues with simply showing ID in order to vote.

Interesting.

al as amy stated earlier bammy has deported more illegals in the past three years than any other POTUS so what you talkin about. No wonder you support this deportation fool you hate illegals too. And thats make two of us that are glad you are from the land of picnicing and dick L___i__. lol : )

@al... You are obviously a progressive. How do I know. Because you have no issue with telling blatant lies. The lie that the "cops can simply look at you and demand papers..." is easily refuted by simply reading the bill. But of course you are more concerned with "winning" than being honest or ethical. Typical progressive. Tell me, were you a Marxist, socialist or communist before climbing under the "progressive" banner?

@dmac - correct. The progressives of the Democratic party have adopted all of the ideals of both communism and socialism.

The communists thought a "race war" should be used to overthrow America.

The socialist thought it should be a "class war".

The "progressives" are using both.

Hey al #'s,

I'm so thankful I live in California. If Republicans want to live in state where cops can simply look at you and demand papers then by all means go ahead. Try not to call yourselves "small government" though.

Yeah, I guess you are happy to live in a California ruled by the runaway Dem controlled spending party. Bet you also enjoy reading about the train to nowhere, and the unique accounting methods of the HSR Authority and Moonbeam II.

Only in our state is it against the law to detain a criminal alien.

No they don't. Perhaps this happened years ago, but not modern times. The only voter fraud that is taking place is among the Republicans and their voter suppression laws.

Of course...it's those rascally Repblicans again.

Yes indeed.

Job1, sorry to disappoint you but there have been ghost voters in every election here and they are constantly cleaning the roles. You do realize that the city continued to pay ghost employees up to the end of the last Daley administration. Its nice that you live in your own little fantasy bubble. just an fyi voter ID laws dont create voter fraud, they prevent it just a little tidbit you might want to take with you so you dont sound so uninformed

Oh I know the facts. However, facts don't matter to Republicans living in the bubble.

Jobs, you aren't effective with your arguments about voter fraud in IL.

Perhaps you need to call in the Red One for help in your presentation.

Not hard for an criminal alien to vote Democrat Party.

The dumbest statement of the day.

Job1

Not hard for an criminal alien to vote Democrat Party.

The dumbest statement of the day.

Not by a long shot when you have Bev, Feisty and all the rest of the lib loon group on here. Not by a long shot.

Job1,

Winemaker is telling the truth. I have seen hundreds of fraudulent documents where I used to work. I saw Green Cards, Birth Certificates, ID cards, Drivers License you name it.

I remember one that was really bad. It was a green card and the age on the card was 71, but the man standing in front of me was around 20. Even better, the picture was one you can take at a photo booth.

I remember one that was really bad. It was a green card and the age on the card was 71, but the man standing in front of me was around 20. Even better, the picture was one you can take at a photo booth.

And how do voter ID law prohibit this type of fraud. Proof again, proponents of this law are clueless idiots that do not understand actual voter fraud vs. the GOP/TP fraud myths.

So you're sayin a picture id won't stop voter fraud? So what's the point?

If you're serious, we need national id cards with fingerprints, and possibly retinal patterns, that can be compared to the national database of registered voters.

Otherwise - you're blown smoke up someones orifice and just need to stfu.

So why do you care then Reddevps? You are on the wrong side of this issue. First you want to argue that voting is such an important constitutional right so if its that important, what is wrong with making sure that you set a model for the rest of the world and you do it correctly? You realize how silly anyone sounds when they try to argue that it disenfranchises minorities and you ask why? Are you saying minorities are unable to fend for themselves in comparison to white people? What an amazing elitest condescending attitude. Second it disenfranchises college kids or young people who move around. Well if they can figure out how to get an ID to drive or buy beer, then they sure can figure out how to do it to vote. I have some sympathy for old people but why would you care they are more likely to vote GOP anyway. If they are so old and poor and dont need an ID to function and they cant figure out how to get a free ID, do you really think they are going to be able to be able to or really want to vote. You say voter ID fraud is only .003 percent which you clearly couldnt really know because without IDs its virtually impossible to know and catch, do you really think the number of trully disenfranchised is even close to .003 percent of the voting age population. The democrats should drop this because its a losing argument and it actually makes them seem like they want illegals to vote.

Typical libs, will not accept the truth that picture ID's are available with minimum investment.

Just goes to show you how ignorant of the facts the liberal cause is.

Jobs, get a reality check. You're so far up the liberal bum that you refuse to accept reality.

It is a violation of the constitution to charge anyone to vote.

By requiring anyone to have to purchase anything so they
can be permitted to vote is called a Poll Tax and is illegal.

ID's for voting must be free

Kirk - First of all, thanks for attributing all those issues in your post to my rather vague 'myths' comment. Secondly, I am not on the wrong side of this issue - it is my constitutional right to vote, and I should never be denied that right because of an expired or lost ID. I guess you do not realize that all students or elderly have a drivers license. What world do you live in where every citizen has a drivers license. Your mock sympathy for the elderly was rather funny - first you claim they all vote GOP then you claim they are too old get walk over the polling location to vote. I guess in your world, you have no problem denying them their constitutional right. And finally, there you go again with myth perpetuation - assuming I care about voter ID laws because I want illegals to vote. One last time, for the very dense, I am against voter ID laws because they deny and discourage public voting.

Reddevps--that is just bogus. Is there any data that shows needing an ID discourages flying on an airplane or that needing a birth certificate before your kids can play sports discourages parents from allowing their kids to play. There is nothing in voter ID laws that deny your constitutional right, its call self reliance and personal accountability. If you think voting is so important then you better make sure you can vote. I dont live in a world where I think everyone has a driver's license but I live in a world where its pretty easy to get one or get an ID. Just as I think the GOP is on the wrong side of some social issues (like reasonable gun control laws or gay marriage), you progressives are on the wrong side of this issue.

In many ways I agree with you and there does need to be reform. However, lets remember that this problem has been going on for years, and it just didn't start on the watch of President Obama. And no it didn't get worst under President Obama.

Job1...

Not everything in the universe has to involve Mr. Obama. Arizona passed a law they felt was needed to provide for the people of their state...as they should.

Mr. Obama..."constitutional scholar" as his top qualification for his job...just had to shove his nose into Arizona's issue in his continuous sucking up for hispanic votes.

That's all this is about...dredging for votes.

It's more about getting a ruling than anything else. Illegal immigration is either a fed responsibility or it isn't. Do you want immigration laws enforced the same in all states, or does each state have its own set of laws?

If Arizona wants to do the job then the feds should bow out and leave Az to its own devices. Do their own border security and reassign the fed border patrols to NM and Ca.

My husband, who happens to be Hispanic, was driving from Phoenix to Albuquerque in our old Subaru station wagon when he was stopped by a state policeman. He had to show all his "papers" which were in order because he was born in the USA as were his parents and their parents. The state cop actually called our insurance company to make sure the car was insured and registered properly. He was not happy that he could't give my husband a ticket. He wasn't speeding or breaking any laws - he was "profiled" for sure.

Diane,

That is your perceived assumption that the peace officer couldn't give you a ticket. As for "papers", you must be referring to the documents any other licensed driver has to have and that is a drivers license, proof of insurance and your registration. Making the feeble association that having your "papers" is somehow akin to being in a communist country, only reinforces to people how weakness of your argument. As for confirming that you have valid and current insurance, most states require you to carry insurance when operating a moter vehicle, so it sounds to me that while you might have had a few minutes taken from your day you weren't "profiled".

Too bad he didnt see fit to deport his Aunt and Uncle.....

all other countries check passports and id's whenever they want. A

All this time I was under the impression America is the land of the FREE & home of the brave!

What WAS I thinking? *facepalm*

[all other countries check passports and id's whenever they want]

I thought we didn’t want to be like “other” countries … doesn’t sound like freedom to me !!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

What WAS I thinking?

Geez if you don't know how do you expect us normal people to figure it out??

You said it, Dennis. The right talks about freedom yet they're perfectly happy to eliminate the freedom of travel from one state, city, town to another without having to present proof of who they are. While they assume it applies only to Latinos, think again; it's just a matter of time. Wonder how many conservatives would support the AZ law if it meant they must carry their birth certificates with them.

Well, at least Arizona reaps what it sows. Nothing like going for broke to stand by your bozo law. I know I can personally say I am contributing to the loss of revenues for the state - I no longer drive there to visit relatives and I no longer fly via the PHX hub, resulting in losses in spending and airport revenues. Boo-Hoo to the draconian louts.

A 2011 report by Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda and Marshall Fitz found that deporting all of the unauthorized immigrants in Arizona would decrease total employment by 17.2%, eliminate 581,000 jobs for immigrants and native-born workers alike, shrink the state economy by $48.8 billion, and reduce state tax revenues by 10.1%.

http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/just-facts/bad-business-how-anti-immigration-legislation-drains-budgets-and-damages-states%E2%80%99-economie

You mean where countries are the size of states? Are we the United States of America or the United Countries or America?

Since when do you think you are free?

Free to pay taxes?

Free to drive on the roads?

Free to steal or kill?

What are you really free to do?

If you don't like the law in AZ move. Bet lots will move to AZ if it passes.

Next need to be free to stop wasting federal tax money.........

Dennis,

But yet liberals want to remind all of us how supposedly great other countries health care systems are for their citizens, right?

It’s not about how great their system is but how cost effective their system is.

So you think brown skins are like DOGS?

According to the democrats, brown skins are less than dogs. Cant your read?

Excuse me - Bo - license Latinos like dogs??!!

Let's not go there.

Obama has a license

You have a license

Why dont you want latinos to have a license - are you a racist?

Obama has deported more people than Bush.

Obam has put MORE boots on the ground than Bush.

Oh, and a majority of Americans want health care reform, AND a large number of them wanted universal health care.

You need to change your name to "Fabricator Sam"

So your saying Obama is worse than Bush?

Ayn Rand was also pro-abortion rights. Pretty sure she would object to the vaginal probe business.

Obamas administration is backing a policy to deport only select illegal aliens -- namely those who are criminals or are considered threats -- while showing no signs of looking to deport the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens.

"This is yet another instance of the president and the administration picking and choosing what laws to enforce, or better yet, not enforce.

Sure, as long as EVERYONE who is in police presence should have to SHOW papers!

Once the white man is treated like an illegal, you may have a different point of view.

You do realize that Canadian's and European's are also part of the illegal problem.

They are not brown skinned.

Perhaps we need check points every few miles to weed out all these illegals!

You want to live in Nazi Germany?

Sounds like it to me.

The law on the books is the Constitution which gives the power of immigration and border security to the federal government and not local police. State and local laws already give law enforcement the right to check immigration status when there's reason to suspect someone is not here legally.

Incidentally, since when it is a problem for the DOJ to challenge laws they feel are unconstitutional. That's what we all should want them to do.

Ayn Rand was an atheist, wonder what she'd think of today's GOP fundamentalist faith shoved down every American's throat.

They cant check "everyone" - just the ones that have committed a crime.

You already new that though - didn't you - you just wanted to make a point my making things up. Right?

Definition of probable cause

Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution, or that a Cause of Action has accrued, justifying a civil lawsuit.

Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that is required to sue a person in civil court or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court. Before a person can be sued or arrested and prosecuted, the civil plaintiff or police and prosecutor must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true.

One thing that SCOTUS should look at is what is the definition of probable cause as it relates to the newly granted, in most cases unasked powers the police have been granted. Other than catching someone in the immediate act of crossing, how would an officer be expected to find probable cause that someone is undocumented, exept by racially profiling?

Common sense should have it that the police shouldn't have this burden placed upon them. Let them "serve and protect" not "inspect and deport". Seriously though, I can see a trial lawyer's dream unfolding if naturalized or born american citizens are denied civil rights, arrested etc. on accident or on purpose. They could raise law suits against city police forces.

From what I remember of the law, my only particular objection to it was the part about demanding immigration papers for a completely unrelated stop. If someone was arrested, that would mean they are taken to a police station etc... and I have no problem with inquiring there, but the law goes way beyond that.

On the other side, we have drinking and driving stops, so that may be the precedent for this, but on the other side of that, drinking and driving is a road and highway safety issue, and immigration status isn't.

All I can say, as an immigrant, I rarely carried my 'papers'. I have my drivers license, I have my SSN card on me, and the drivers license has my address on it (you also can't get a drivers license without a SSN in my state) so if there was a question due to an arrest, my 'documentation' can be retrieved. Now if I go on a trip, I carry my passport (which has my documentation stamped in it), but for my daily living, I don't.

Now I am not likely to be asked as I am a white anglo person, but that just opens up the concerns that many people have with regards to this law, the issue of racial profiling, so the answers aren't easy to come up with.

You said you had your drivers license - those are your papers - they prove you legal.

The problem is when they are stopped they have no drivers license - which is illegal - and they have no other form of ID - and when asked their name they say John Doe - or Jose Rico.

At that time the Officer can and should ask...

1. why are you driving without a license

2. show me something that proves who you are

Bo The Dog

aka Fred Smith aka spend thrifts aka my boys can swim aka Buck Naked Sr. aka Faux Feisty aka deepintheswamp aka dontgivemethepenguin aka dontgivemethepenguinisback aka +++

bo

If the person doesn't have a drivers license, then they are already breaking the law. The law goes beyond that however, THAT is where the problem with it lies in my opinion.

Jonathan,

They were already breaking the law or they would not have been stopped in the first place!

Thats the point - under the current law - when they give a fake name they are processed and released and set a court date - they never show up for court and continue running.

The new law allows them to check them for legal status and detain them if they cannot PROVE who they are.

Under the current law (or lack of) they have more rights than you do.

Part of getting your drivers license could be showing birth certificate or passport.

That would make your drivers license good enough.

NOW anyone can get a drivers license without proof.....major problem.

greg,

I think that would depend on your state law.

Here if you lose your current DL (as happened to me when my wallet was stolen) or are getting a DL for the first time you must provide your birth certificate and you Social Security card.

Good for Ohio.

But in CA any fake socical card and birth certificate will do.

Why? because no one checks. ( I would bet the same in Ohio)

They feel it is better to have them get drivers licenses because MAYBE they will buy insurance coverage. NOT

Several of my friends have been in fender benders and they either drive off or RUN away. Why waste money on insurance????

greg,

Ohio BMV sends out letters to millions of car owners (registration records) and they have 10 work days to show up at the BMV with proof that they have insurance and it was in effect prior to the date when the letter was sent.

It is like a random drug test.

Sarge,

I believe that for those that are issued temporary Visas they do not get a green card and our government issues millions of them every year.

Dennis,

People issued temporary visas, vacations, visiting relatives etc., can not get a green card and can not work legally in the United States. One problem we have is there is no way to track people her on temporary visas.

Sarge,

We had people from all over the world come to our HQ for training and meetings (which is work) and all they needed was a temporary work visa – no green card.

I agree that our government, even after 9-11, cannot track all the foreigners here on visas. I don’t know how you fix that without it costing billions.