I'd like to know exactly why ALL members of the SCOTUS didn't vote on this action.

I am simply very curious why any member wouldn't vote on this. Will the same happen again on Thursday?

Why are you such a racist?

I'd like to know exactly why ALL members of the SCOTUS didn't vote on this action.

"Justice Elena Kagan said Monday that she would recuse herself from the challenge to Arizona's controversial immigration law, presumably because she served as President Obama's solicitor general when the federal government filed the original lawsuit against the state."

thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/198749-kagan-to-recuse-herself-from-arizona-immigration-challenge

Thanks for the information why Kagan didn't vote.

I have to agree that there will certainly be partisan voting on the ACA. We can count on Thomas to be the voice unreason again.

Romney considered Arizona's immigration law a "Model law". Now a conservative Supreme Court strikes down most of the law. BTW, it is not a crime for illegal aliens to work or seek work in Arizona. Guess that ends Romney self-deportation notion.

What that tells me is that Romney may be a businessman but he knows nothing about the law. Perhaps he should return to being a businessman.

We can count on Thomas to be the voice unreason again.

Thomas doesn't speak.....he's afraid!

I only wish the Mummy would find a set of teeth that fit her big mouth!

Feisty, Lets be fair now. I think a few of her teeth are still actually her own. Rumor has it at about 6 or 7. Even with that many, look at how much she saves the State of Ariz. on toothpaste.....

Obama/Biden 2102

What the hell. That wasn't the most controversial part. That just makes it a "secondary offense". You still have to get pulled over for doing something else wrong before they can check your papers. The most controversial part of the law was section 3!! That required people to carry papers and made it a "primary offense". People could have been detained just for looking like an immigrant. Here's an excerpt of the court's ruling striking down the requirement to carry your papers:

Section 3 of S. B. 1070 creates a new state misde- meanor. It forbids the “willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document . . . in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §11–1509(A) (West Supp. 2011). In effect, §3 adds a state-law penalty for conduct proscribed by federal law.

Really, these journalists need to STFU until they read the damn thing.

Not at all suprising that the Republicans and Tea Sips don;t even realize when they have LOST! You know, they have of way of twisting and ignoring the facts and truth of almost everything!

The Supremes upheld the part of the law that requires officiers stopping someone to make efforts to to verify the person's immigration status.

That was the part all the libs loading their depends over ... right Feisty?

Striking down a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government ... which is federal law anyway?

Big deal.

Regarding Kagan's recusal ...

Yea ... trying to make an unbiased ruling on the lawsuit you helped write is the same as someone knowing who the Koch brothers are ....???

Libbies claiming voctory?

Yea .... just like the 2010 elections ... Wisconsin ...

So SCOTUS Upholds the only part of the law that anyone knew about, upholds Citizens United and expands it to the STATE level campaigns as well and the Libbies here at FR claim victory.

Only at First Read.

I can't believe that you libbies think you won anything. This case was about the "racial profiling" that would occur if the police could pull you over and demand to check your status in this country. That part was UPHELD. And that is what you screamed about the loudest. It's a good day for the United States of America.

Why do we have to always make life easier for illegals in this country? Why can't we just make our immigration laws mirror Mexico's?

Check your ego, remove your ideological prejudice, and read the ruling (or anything other than Fox News and conservative blog-drivel.)

Yea .... dumbass bob read and relied on liberal FR / MSNBC, not taking time to check a real news agency.

Oh well, my bad.

JH: That part as you describe it was not upheld because you described it incorrectly. The police cannot just "pull you over." Try to deal with reality.

jh w/ #s the law has not taken affect and when it does that sec will be challenged as racial profiling is against the law.

i am in awe at your blataint judgement re the hispanics and your lack of support for our constitution. however, you are the tpye that it must happen directly to you to understand.

just as i am sure you are against the health bill and know nothing about it or its benefits for you and yours.

Funny how MSNBC chose to spin today’s headline. Instead of saying “High Court Upholds Key Part of Ariz Immigration Law” they choose to say:

“High Court Strikes Down Key Parts of Ariz. Immigration Law”

The most controversial portion of the AZ State Bill, at least according to Democrats, was the one the Court Upheld, 8-0! SB 1070 allows police to require people to produce ID and proof of immigration status.

The other portions, far from being “unconstitutional” were simply already aspects of law the Federal Government is supposed to be enforcing. The Supreme Court simply said that those parts of the law aren’t things the State should be doing, but things the Feds should do, at least until Obama declares his refusal to obey existing laws, like he did last week.

Looks like another lose for Odumbo and a victory for the American People. How sad that a lose for our President is a victory for America.

NOBAMA 2012!

.

bob-1805084,

I quoted the part from the supreme court ruling. Read the ruling. Section 3 made it a primary offense for not carrying your papers. If an officer thought you looked like you didn't have papers, they could detain you. That's what people were freaked out about. That was thrown out. It's section 3 of SB 1070. The part which was allowed to stay (and also to face further challenges) was that the police could check the status of someone they've already pulled over or arrested for something else. That's fine. It was the "carry your papers and if you look like you're not, I'm gonna detain you" part of the law which we didn't like.

That's okay, it's entertaining to see them with their tales tucked nice & tight!

We got what we wanted ... the important issue, but lost because Arizona doesn't get to do Obama's job ... the job he swore to do ... the oath he took and broke?

Yep we are all losers for having this loser as President, but we have known that for years.

Regarding this ruling, Feisty ... if you think this is a big win, by all means - get the tree house gang together ... break out your "World Famous" beans and the vodka logged watermellon and have a cheerful, imaginary elegant celebration.

Bob...

The tree house gang together! I like that!!! But also so true.

Its so refreshing to see the libs (fiesty) talking about how great the decesion was. On earlier post they (Supreme Court) were a bunch of blood-sucking no good for anything right wing idiots. Now when they think they got their way they are telling us how smart a deceision it was. I am betting when Obomacare gets thrown out Thursday they are blood-suckers again. I am wondering does MSNBC ever give you the day off or are you one of the "illegals" that work every day?

I guess as long as they still get to harass Latinos, Brewer & co. are happy.

Bob,

it is not "knowing the Koch brothers" that is the problem. They problem is as most people know is that Thoma's wife works for the very industry that is lobbing to stick this bill down. If this is not a conflict of interest than nothing is. It is that simple and its a shame you teabaggies (see what i did there?) choose to ignore this

Hi crazies!

kr

You bet your rear end I'm against the health care POS. I will take care of myself and my family. I do not want to take care of you and your family. And I am strongly against illegals in this country. We have our laws and they should be upheld. Even though we have a complete failure as President right now who thinks our laws can be treated any way he wants to treat them, we will fix that in November.

It's laughable that the right thinks they won anything, when the most important part of the law to them was, "One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant" - WHICH WAS STRUCK DOWN!!!

So sad too bad righties.

"Obama administration says in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's immigration law that it is suspending a program that allowed local authorities to partner with the federal government onimmigration checks" Since we lost......we are taking our balls (yep the blue ones) and we are going home. Dont call us (Feds) unless its something that affects our "exalted rulers" re-election.

So, does Romney still think this law is a good model for the nation? Romney lies about "self deportation" because Mr. Deregulation and his pro-business GOP gang will NEVER crack down on employers and will never get rid of cheap labor.

People without papers should all leave Arizona and let them fend for themselves. They couldn't/

The righties on this site don't understand the ruling at all.

Bob-1805084 - the loser on this site is you.

JH - That was not the contentious part, Targeting someone because he was Mexican and looked Illegal was the part nobody but T-Hackers wanted. That was struck down.

Got news for you AngelaLD, everyone except Native Indians are illegal. What gives you the right to claim my domain!

Eric-913730

It's laughable that the right thinks they won anything, when the most important part of the law to them was, "One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant" - WHICH WAS STRUCK DOWN!!!

Hey Eric...That part was struck down because the court stated they already have that right. Did you miss that little part in the decision?

Oh and bwt...the key provision was to check immigration status. That was a Big win.

And now, the first time they question an American citizen I hope Arizona is prepared for lawsuits. While SCOTUS may have upheld certain provisions, each time Arizona uses those provisions against someone who is an American citizen or here legally, they can still be sued. It will just depend how the law is enforced. There will have to be considerable case law to support its use and define what is legal and what is illegal. When you write a bad law (one that mutliple scholars pointed out was largely unconstitutional), you shouldn't be surprised with you then have to spend millions defending it.

Lee-1447916

People without papers should all leave Arizona and let them fend for themselves. They couldn't

Are you trying to say the state couldn't survive without the billions of dollars in burdens the illegals cause? Now that's laughable!

differnet

And now, the first time they question an American citizen I hope Arizona is prepared for lawsuits. While SCOTUS may have upheld certain provisions, each time Arizona uses those provisions against someone who is an American citizen or here legally, they can still be sued.

Under what grounds would a person sue for not providing identification? American citizens do have to provide identification when asked by law enforcement.

Angela LD - you're totally off your rocker. You DO know there have been illegals in this country for decades, right? You DO know that President Obama had more of them deported than any other President? You DO know your fruits and vegetables are cheaper because of the labor of illegals, right? You DO know that because of Obama's decision, young illegals who already work will now be paid on the books and pay taxes - helping the economy, right?

You DO know illegals have fought and died for our country, right? You DO know that the GOP is what is tearing this country apart, right? Try to get some common sense because yours is sorely lacking.

No one is PRO-ILLEGALS. But we are about taking a common sense approach to the problem.

Obama/Biden 2012

Woot!!! Now that the Feds will not be checking and the Police will not be arresting - all those good people and great firearms that were apart of fast and furious can come home to Arizona.

I don't see why the part they upheld is a big deal anyways. It's no different than when I police officer stops you for a ticket he checks to see if you have a driver's license. The upheld part is consistent with what police are allowed to do daily across the entire country. A cop still has to have a reason to stop you.

Obama has issued a statement that he's pleased with the Supreme Court ruling on the AZ immigration law, which is a complete lie. If he were truly pleased with the ruling he wouldn't have, only hours after the ruling, announced a decision to rescind a key partnership that allowed local police to enforce federal immigration law.

This further demonstrates that Obama will absolutely not enforce this country's immigration laws and will go to any lengths to insure no one else does either.

Wet Willy,

A complete lie? How so? You've got a drive-by statement there that's void of any facts. Feel better now? And I suppose the Brewer statement that this was a "unanimous" victory (for her!) was completely truthful to you?

and the parts that were shot down are the parts that already exist under the Federal Law...the SCOTUS just stated that individual states can not make their own immigration laws they must abide by the Federal law which we all know is not working...waste of time and energy...next

It’s a very sad in America when Republicans feel they have achieved a “Victory” with such a mean spirited law. I think the Republican Party as a whole has lost its humanity and compassion. To all those defending this type of legislation, you should stop and think about this for a minute; what would it be like if you were the target of this type of fascist campaign of hate. Would you be jumping for joy then?

BTW SillyBilly-3587160: This is NOT like being stopped for a traffic violation. This is more like the beginning of a very slippery slope with the potential of leading to the loss of all of our civil rights. Right wing Republicans love to talk about freedom....... Yeah right. as long as it's not their freedoms being threatened then the hell with everyone else...... Hypocrites.

But Romney didn't address the components of the law that were thrown out or, alternatively, upheld by the court.

Romney, A+ with rhetoric , F- with details.. about pretty much everything. He's so gonna get his azz handed to him in the debates.

As for the Arizona scarecrow, Janet, only she can see victory in a federal smack-down.

DOP, dying old party...

"Thomas the voice of reason"? Where did this idiot get his "reasoning"? Thomas and his wife are nothing more than the money "go between" corporate shysters and our justice system. We used to have a "non-political" Supreme court but we have that no longer. The rulings of this farce is just that, A FARCE, and will be viewed as such by the criminal element. When it is safer to steal your hard earned money by banking fraud through a corporation and NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE THEN there is no future for honest caring people. Churches have become the same as corporations so religion for all realistic purposes is a lie, not one of the people in the teabagrepublicrap persuasion will ever see a day in heaven, JUST ETERNITY IN HELL.

Angela LD

You DO know illegals have fought and died for our country, right? You DO know that the GOP is what is tearing this country apart, right? Try to get some common sense because yours is sorely lacking.

You DO know that some of these liberals are completely full of the brown stinky stuff, right? We all got along just great until these leftie extremists got so freakin' mouthy during the Clinton administration.

This is great day the main portion was upheld 8) and the other portions are already federal responsibility....

Obama = Worst President in Americas History.

Which is more then we can say about Thomas & Alito being BFF's with the Koch Brothers & the upcoming ACA ruling...

I thought it was Thomas and Scalia that were in the Koch Brother's pockets. Fiesty - are you sure it's Alito?

We do know that Thomas's porky white wife has been campaigning against ACA since it passed congress. So will Thomas vote??

Fiesty - are you sure it's Alito?

My bad!

You're right Jim - it is Scalia!

Hard to tell one bought & paid for SCOTUS from another!

We do know that Thomas's porky white wife has been campaigning against ACA since it passed congress

Are you talking about Ginny who was making over $500K per year from lobbying groups against ACA & Clarence conveniently forgetting to disclose her income on the proper forms for over 5 years?

Oh Big Al, get over yourself. We all know BUSH was the worst in history... The part that was upheld is the part that will open the state up to numerous law suits because you and I know some officer in some po-dunk town is going to get illegal hunting happy and stop someone for no good reason, ask for "papers" and then find out they are citizens.

Brewer is SUCH a bag of wind. Unanimous vote... what a joke. What is even MORE of a joke is you people on here who claim Obama is SOOOO bad in the area of illegals, yet he has deported more than Bush did in his 8 years? How does that work fellas? You claim all illegals should be sent back. Do you have any idea at all what that would do to our economy???? I live in a chicken producing state. I don't care how much they pay, the locals absolutely refuse to work in this industry. They would rather sit at home on food stamps. So much of our economy and pricing is based on getting cheaper labor. You guys scream all day long about potential inflation, but you better hope and pray the illegals aren't sent home because the price of many things will go through the roof. One last point is there are TOO MAY ALREADY HERE...... Just think if they all had to leave. These people spend MONEY to live in the US. They pay rent, buy clothes, etc. There has to be a way to get them into the system legally.

Ginny sounds good. Or maybe Birtha, Matilda or Poppy. It's amazing that the SC can get away with a decision like Citizens United and no heads roll. This is a major flaw in the system. Along with the filibuster.

Yep, I just looked it up and it's Ginny. Her middle name is Lamp. I got her mixed up with the side action he was after before he got confirmed. I would take Anita Hill over his wife too.

Bush sucked it when it came to deportations I agree but Obama has nothing to show for in his term as President except he is an excellent Liar he promises one thing then a few years later goes back on his word 8( LIAR

One last point is there are TOO MAY ALREADY HERE...... Just think if they all had to leave. These people spend MONEY to live in the US. They pay rent, buy clothes, etc. There has to be a way to get them into the system legally.

This is a load of Bull@!$%#

I do not care what these lawbreakers do other than they cut in line and cheated the system. We need to round them up and deport all of them back.

I spent 7 years and lot's of time to become an American Citizen, I had to learn how to speak English 8)

These cheating @!$%#s cut in front of Millions who are trying to do this LEGALLY.

The American Dream is to become American and to cut all ties with the original place you came from 8)

They do not want to learn the language or assimilate into our society.

You obviously wives fan never went through the process of Citizenship it's hard and not easy.

What all judges agreed on was:

1. That police officers, when they stop someone on a traffic stop or other criminal offense, have the right to ask for evidence that they are legal.
2. The other three were unconstitutional because they are Federal responsibilities, despite the fact that the Obama Administration refuses to do their responsibilities.

"Both Sides Declare Victory"

How did the Americans do??

Three Comments:

Because of racial profiling challenges in court to this immigration ruling due to some overzealous cops, this law will be challenged often and probably be modified to the point of nullification or just go away.

Love the picture of the fat white guy in the red shirt in front of the Supreme Court protesting against the Health Care Act. Wonder what his cholesterol level is?

Jan Brewer looks like a witch

Jan Brewer looks like a witch

*waves to Kim*

A witch who looks like a reject from the "House of Wax"...

"At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally."

What qualifies as suspicion?

Your girlfriends ex is a cop and you forgot your Id?

Not that I disagree, it is vague.

Anyone can be an illegal immigrant, race has no bearing. So are we all illegal until proven otherwise?

bob-1805084

Yea ... trying to make an unbiased ruling on the lawsuit you helped write is the same as someone knowing who the Koch brothers are ....???

Say Bob...interesting spin you got there. Attending the Koch brothers sponsored political conferences and your wife lobbying for them is the same as simply knowing them? If you mean "knowing" in the biblical sense then I might agree, otherwise not so much.

Bill and how to you suggest the Federal Government round up 11 millions illegals, I guess with all that money we have..

Hey Feisty - Give 'em hell chica!

OBAMA?BIDEN 2012!!

You're doing it WRONG Brewer.

Another FAKE conservative. Immigration needs to be taken care of. But not by failure morons who pretend to be conservative like Brewer.

Unauthorized entry in to the USA is a crime 8)

If you commit a crime, you are a criminal.

If you're a foreigner, who committed this crime you do not belong in my Country.

We have run up around 5 Trillion dollars in new debt since this douche bag has taken office 8( I say we fire his ass come this November.

Big al,
Not that I disagree with you. How do you do it? Round everyone up into a camp and let the legals go after you have rounded up everyone?

Maybe a chip for legals? If you don't have a chip deportation!

If we can do it without Americans losing even more freedoms then I am in.

Pick a party

The majority opinion was weak and fatally flawed, and even contradicts prior SCOTUS decisions that clearly stated the States are within their rights to take such actions. Scalia's dissent in particular uses the Constitution and established precedents to rip the majority opinion apart. This majority opinion will not stand the test of time and the court will be forced to reverse itself.

The flip side of this majority opinion is that the court has placed the burden of enforcement squarely on the federal gov't for the time being. Expect Arizona and several other States to sue the federal gov't forthwith to FORCE them to carry out its legal obligation to enforce the laws enacted by Congress--an obligation that it is currently willfully neglecting.

I'm all for signing up with Arizona to sue the federal government to force them to carry out it's legal obligation to enforce the laws. As far as Obama....anyone know where the nearest sinkhole is?

My daughter and grandsons (American citizens for generations) can't find a job...yet Obama will give illegals (children brought here by illegal parents) jobs.

If Obama says these illegal children or young adults will not be deported...WHAT HAPPENS TO THEIR ILLEGAL PARENTS who are supposed to be taking care of them? That means the illegal parents also won't be deported. Oh, NO.....more anchor babies?

I'm all for impeachment---no need for a November election.

But, how will Romney address the issue of illegals and our broken borders?

If I ran Arizona, I would rescind ALL LE agreements with the Feds. You need back-up, call DC, not the locals. Surrounded, under fire? Tough chit, deal with it! Gang riots in Hispanic neighborhoods? Call the Feds, not the sherrif. Get your feisty red head caught in a zipper? Call Rahm Emmanuel!

"The Supreme Court left in place one of its most controversial provisions: the requirement that authorities check the immigration status of anyone they detain who's reasonably suspected of being in the United States illegally."

Wasn't that the core issue that everyone was concerned about?

Now comes the 'spin' by both sides to try to say 'We won'.

Ron Indiana " BTW, it is not a crime for illegal aliens to work or seek work in Arizona. Guess that ends Romney self-deportation notion."


How so? It's still illegal to HIRE an illegal worker, so if they can't find a job, they will still self-deport.


I think you have a comprehension problem.

Is it not a Federal Crime to rob a Federal BanK???

If we go by what was ruled today, as the Federal Law already covers this, then Local Police have no action in this matter...

Basical It is None of their business if this Federal Law is being broken... That is for the 'Feds' to worry about.

(I know this is not the case, But according to the ruling that is the way is sounds)

People like Pinky are what is wrong with this country. I too have lived here all my life, am serving my country on active duty, and work alongside many of these young latinos down here in Florida just doing the same thing the rest of us (at least the ones that want to work-not the deadbeats who want to blame their ills on someone else). Perhaps Pinky's problem is rooted in hatred??

Bill-2910238

What all judges agreed on was:

1. That police officers, when they stop someone on a traffic stop or other criminal offense, have the right to ask for evidence that they are legal.
2. The other three were unconstitutional because they are Federal responsibilities, despite the fact that the Obama Administration refuses to do their responsibilities.

#1.58 - Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:35 PM EDT

Well, you appear to be correct about point 1 (§2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government), but not point 2, as several of the Justices disagreed on some of the items. Scalia's dissent specifically found all 4 of the contested sections Constitutional, for much stronger reasons than the majority offered in support of its ruling. I suggest you read Scalia's dissent and then compare it to the majority opinion.

Big Al, you are correct. I'm a born citizen. However, your blind thought process is what is wrong here. You say "round em up"... Gee, just how do you do that? What happens to what is left of the housing industry? The poultry industry and many others. You just say that is "bs", but you don't provide any proof that "rounding them up" would ruin our fragile economy. I on the other hand live in a state where this is a very real problem. Our state govt did a study and it provided proof that minus illegals, our residents would NOT WORK in the chicken industry. I agree they broke the law, but the barn door can't be shut now. However, if they came up with a low much like Bush was pushing, where the one's already here have some path to becoming citizens, learn the language, pay taxes, hell even pay a fee to be part of the program, THEN make it clear no new illegals will be allowed into the program and then start shipping them back like Obama has been doing.

@wives fan

The housing industry here in Socal is pathetic 8) the homes these illegals put up are horribly built from the mid 90s all the way to now the houses suck put together like crap and it shows 8(

I believe if you pay an honest wage for all foods Americans will do the work.

We need to do reforms yes but not just a blanket Amnesty..

Rewarding people for being here Illegally is not the answer.

I have family and friends who have no jobs and have not had a job for 2 or more years.

The illegals would leave on there own if nobody would hire them and we need to penalize the employers who are willing to hire them.

jpeg...

I stopped reading as soon as I saw your post. You just defined what is wrong

with "You people."

I DO NOT have to provide ANY identification to ANY law enforcement person.

If some cop wants to arrest me there has to be some reason other than a lack

of identification. The ONLY time I would be REQUIRED to present

identification to maintain my freedom is if there is a sophena requiring me

to present those documents and there has to be an explanation as to why it is

necessary for me to do so.

This is the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, not Nazi Germany, no matter what you

think.

I've read enough of this c**p from people who do not know their Rights and

think the police state that is developing is the way things are supposed to

be.

First of all, SCOTUS didn't uphold the section of SB1070 that will lead to racial profiling by local cops. They left it open. There will be another case before long when there is a history of racial profiling. So all you RWNJs can stop crowing about that.

We already have racial profiling in Maricopa County. I was in the backseat one day, my son was driving. He was going about 5 mph over the speed limit. Cars in the next lane were passing us much faster, but a Sheriff's unit pulled us over.

The deputy mumbled something very quickly about going too fast, then immediately asked my son where he was born. (My son is a dark-skinned hispanic, born in Phoenix and doesn't speak a word of Spanish.) The cop didn't even ask for insurance, only my son's DL and SSN.

We sat in the car for about 20 minutes. Finally, the cop came back, handed my son his DL, and told him to get out of there. Not a word about speeding, or anything else.

Everything in the cop's demeanor screamed "racial profiling." My daughter had a similar experience not long after in the same area.

There is no doubt- this ridiculous law will eventually be struck down completely.

Now, if we could only ratify a constitutional amendment eliminating states' rights completely, the sane, silent majority in states like Arizona could finally hold our heads up high again.

I don't remember who it was, but one of the RWNJs on here stated that undocumented aliens were here illegally because they wanted to violate our laws. I can state unequivocally that this is absolutely untrue.

The overwhelming majority of undocumented aliens would absolutely love to legalize their status. Most of them are actually in the process of becoming legal, but the process takes a minimum of 10 years to complete.

Cubans receive preferential treatment because they are fleeing the oppressive regime of Castro. Can anyone honestly say that living in a country that is basically controlled by hyper-violent drug cartels is any less oppressive?

What our government needs to do is apply 21st century technology to streamline the system. Get that 10 years down to 1 or 2. I know amnesty is a dirty word to the racist right, but it will become necessary, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

jpeg, you conclusion that the authorities have the right to demand your "papers" is so much like what went on in Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union. If you think that there won't be legal challenges, then maybe you weren't listening to the Governor of Arizona today describe how they are prepared to pay to fight those lawsuits.... You obviously failed civics. The law was horribly flawed and one that meant millions of dollars would have to be spent defending it. And this at a time, where Arizona was thinking of selling it's capital buildings to make ends meet. I love watching Arizona shoot itself in the foot, time and time again.

differnet-

You have no idea. Between Governor Bruja and Sheriff Barney Fife, er Arpaio, it's downright embarassing to say I live here.

The state would probably be in the black right now if we weren't spending so much money on idiotic lawsuits.

It's funny that in the 8 years BUSH was in the White House we never heard about this major issue and those were the years most of the illegals came into our country why is that. So blaming the current administration is just BS, it's like the bad economy that also happened during BUSH.

"What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system -– it’s part of the problem," Obama said. "At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally."

No Barry, do your damn JOB! THAT is the problem! Follow the current FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS!!! Oh wait, that will cost you illegal votes…

remain concerned about the practical impact??? WTH?

Quick, everyone run out and get over-tanned and fake moustaches! Let's see the AZ Cops profile if we all look alike!

Bet you all the money I have in the bank that the cops in AZ aren't going to be on the look-out for rouge Canadians who have come down to AZ to get warm and play golf and decided not to go home.

With a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court agreed that Arizona has a right to have Police Officers check the immigration status of people they come into legal contact with. That's the "key part" of SB 1070, the one the liberals have been howling about for two years.

Let's see how Democrats will spin this fact. Yes, the other three portions of the law were overturned, but not the "key part." The other parts overturned are things the Federal Government should be enforcing. I suspect we'll see Obama in the Rose Garden this Friday, announcing how he's directing the Department of Homeland Security to ignore all immigration laws until he's reelected. That should help him get the Hispanic vote!

NOBAMA 2012!

John-2006106 -

Since you responded to my post - and my post was about Mitt Romney's lack of details for his "bipartisan" solution for a "national immigration strategy" - perhaps you could enlighten us on what that is?

Thanks.

John-2006106

No, not at all. The key part was Section 3!! These news casters are either political hacks, morons, or both. Section 3 made it a primary offense to not have papers with you. What they upheld was another section which made it so the local and state police can check the immigration status of someone who the have already detained or arrested. Nobody cared about them checking the status of someone who's already pulled over. It was section 3, which was ruled unconstitutional, that was the huge problem because how the hell can you suspect someone of not carrying their papers? "Oh, yeah, that brown guy over there looks like he doesn't have papers. I'm gonna check." Suck it Brewer fans. You lost. Big.

With a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court agreed that Arizona has a right to have Police Officers check the immigration status of people they come into legal contact with.

Hey nitwit, You left out the part "Due cause".....

Of course they left out "due cause", it's why they don't think they've lost.

perhaps you could enlighten us on what that is?

I see where Johnny-Boy isn't man enough to take your challenge...

He is much more comfortable playing swoop & poop rather then answering a legitimate question.

• Post to get emotional responses from other
posters.

• Always post the same tired responses in response to the same tired topics.

• Never answer questions directed at them.

• Never justify their position.

• Always demanded documentary evidence from others to support their assertions,
while offering none in return.

• Always disappear if their bluff is called.

Section 3 made it a primary offense to not have papers with you.

Brutus, it got shot down because it is already the Federal law and Arizona did not have the right to make their own law that mirrored the fed version. The same reason that the other two were shot down. Conceived encroachment on the federal law already on the books. Just not being enforced. Arizona wanted to enforce it because the feds won't. Plain and simple.

GT (post 2.4)

Hey nitwit, You left out the part "Due cause".....

Tsk tsk, such a typical liberal reaction.

When the facts aren't on your side, resort to name calling. Egads! What would Sally or Tyler say about a liberal spewing hate like this. Hmmm, does the Newsvine "Code of Conduct" apply to people like you?

*pass the popcorn*

NOBAMA 2012!

.

JoAnne PA-

The reason Romney keeps repeating the same inane comments no matter the subject is the Lamestream Media (thanks Sarah Palin) allows him to get away with being vacuous.

A woman candidate would have been savaged by the press using this tactic.

He may have business acumen but he is not ready to be POTUS in these difficult times. Not when he wants to use the Ryan Budget as the centerpiece of his Economic Plan. That is a disaster waiting to happen. Just ask the Europeans!

Shelia, MD - Romney DOES sound more and more like Sarah daily, doesn't he? How far the GOP has sunk! Lower than whale sh*t in the bottom of the ocean!

John-2006106,

You don't think that the ability to effect the warrantless arrest of an individual based on his suspected immigration status, or making that status a state crime when it is not a federal one (if you don't believe me, look it up) would be considered "key part[s]" of SB 1070? Because those are the provisions that scarred the hell out of me.

Second, if you actually read the opinion, you would have seen that the Supreme Court did not even hold that the provisions of SB 1070 allowing police officers to look into a detainee's immigration status were constitutional. Instead, it determined that it did not have enough guidance from the state courts to rule on what the provision meant. So the Court punted. Both of these passages come from page 24 of the slip opinion:

At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law.

And:

This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.

But hey, why would you want to ruin your thoughtless political talking points with, you know, actual thought?

Finally, and this directed specifically at you and those of your ilk who would trample on the law and the good of the nation just to put your candidate in the White House and, in the process, localize wealth in the hands of a few oligarchs:

NOIDIOTS 2012!

The "key part" as you put it wasn't necessarily upheld. In an issue like this the question is whether the law is de jure discriminatory or de facto discriminatory. De jure discrimination is where the law is discriminatory on its face, for example, the statute at issue in Loving v. Virginia. You can almost never win here. It's easy to get around. Worried about profiling? Then just say you can't profile, done.

De facto is when the law is discriminatory in practice. Key word is practice. The document check was not allowed to go into practice therefore the SCOTUS could not rule on that issue (they cannot issue advisory opinions and without evidence it would be advisory). The SCOTUS ruled on the de jure discrimination issue and said that it was not. Again, that is easy to win just say it isn't discriminatory like Arizona did. Now the Court is letting the doc check go into effect expecting law suits to occur. It will then review the law again for de facto discrimination.

tl;dr version: The Court did not say the doc check was constitutional only that it wasn't de jure unconstitutional. Since the law hadn't gone into effect there was no evidence available of de facto discrimination so ruling on that would be advisory which is not allowed. The Court fully expects to revisit this issue in the next few years.

Overall, it's not a victory for anyone. The Court ruled on a legal technicality which was the right thing to do. But the question of whether it's constitutional or not has not been resolved.

The federal government challenged four provisions of the Arizona law that never were enforced, pending the legal ruling.

Obama: Congress should fix immigration

Rubio: Immigration isn't a talking point

They can ask for papers for a person they reasonably suspect may be illegal, if they have already detained them for something else, but they can't ask if they don't have a reasonable suspicion. Just their looks, their language, accent, etc, isn't enough to reasonably suspect they are illegal and ask for their ID. The SC has left it open to see how this part ends up being implemented to determine if it violates the constitution by seeing what situations they ask for papers in practice.

This is from CNN, which broke it down nicely:

Provisions struck down included:

-- Authorizing police to arrest illegal immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.

-- Making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.

-- Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work. That would include illegal immigrants standing in a parking lot who "gesture or nod" their willingness to be employed.

How is Obama different?

Talk to the Hand,

There's a huge difference if Section 3 had been upheld. It would have meant Arizona officers could have used suspicion of not carrying papers as a means of detaining or even arresting someone. It would have been a primary offense at the state level. The Fed's enforce it by busting you if you don't have papers when you need them - like when leaving and reentering the country or applying for an immigration extension or benefit. There's a reason why we have a federalist system and Section 3 is (was!) a perfect example of why we do! Because an individual state is fully capable of electing a crazy, over-tanned, alcoholic which with a rapist son, who just happens to say the right lies to a mostly-bigoted electorate. Viola!

Feisty - Almost forgot - my a-hole Republican Congressman is in the news:

Congressman, Rep. Vern Buchanan, who is in charge of fundraising for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee is facing four congressional and federal investigations for unethical business practices, campaign finances and alleged attempt to stop a witness from breaking silence.

Now, as the witnesses step forward, Buchanan’s former business partner, Sam Kazran claims that the congressman, who was a former car dealership owner, asked him to encourage employees to make straw donations to the lawmaker. Kazran claims that Buchanan not only schemed to launder money from his car dealerships to his campaign but also tried to convince others to cover up his wrongdoings, according to report by CNN.

I am wondering what happens when an illegal does not have papers, at a traffic violation stop. Can the person be arrested and taken to jail, or must the illegal be taken to a federal lockup? If the illegal, (undocumented-for the PC crowd), cannot be arrested, what has been accomplished, other than knowing that he is illegal. Oblama can pass an executive order not to arrest him, he has done it before.

JoAnne in PA "As usual, a bunch of words strung together that basically form a sentence, but say absolutely nothing."

Sort of reminds you of Obama's rhetoric, doesn't it?

I'm amazed at the ignorance of those that are saying the Republicans won in this decision. The part of the Arizona law that required the law enforcement to stop those that looked like illegal aliens is the part that people objected to. Not the part of requiring identification of the one that was stopped. It is and has always be the officer's right to demand identification of those he took in custody for a violation. The protest is or was about the Arizona law requiring the police to stop and demand citizenship or legal papers from anyone that may look like an illegal alien. We have and still argue that that constituted unlawful search and seizure of legal citizens of the U.S. and should not be implemented without cause such as someone that has committed a violation of state or federal law.

Before the Republicans start beating their chest in victory over what is left of the Arizona state law they should be advised that the part that has been spared is only a temporary thing. It will be visited at a later date if the state abuses their right to ask for ID. If American citizens are being harassed I'm sure the court will step in to make a revised ruling.

Actually Roy Wilson, if you think Obama's words say absolutely nothing you should really be dumbfounded by those from Romney. Obama graduated as a Magna Cum Laude where Romney graduated as a laughing stock with his daddy's money backing him.

They only agreed to revisit that section of the law once it is enforced the other parts are blatantly unconstitutional in its face. Big difference. Republicans are beating their feeble chests for nothing. the first time a person files a claim it will be decided. Right now they go back to doing what they always have and that is turn illegals over to the feds. Had this stupid law gone into effect they would have had to arrest them hold them try them and in the end turn them over to the feds for deportation. In effect the Supreme court saved the taxpayers a lot of tax money all so a bunch of polticians could posture. Romney needs to learn ho to read.

It sucks for you if you have an accent and/or a "tan" and happen to be in AZ because it will give the police an excuse to ask for your papers - any time and every time.

.

What do you have on you right now proving you belong in this country?

I carry around a picture of my mother's ultrasound showing me at 24 weeks... I don't suppose that would work... will it? lol

Does the ultrasound picture show longitude and latitude also? Because if not, you're scre@$d!

What do you have on you right now proving you belong in this country?

A baseball and apple pie, oh.... and a Bible!

A baseball and apple pie, oh.... and a Bible!

Don't forget a gun & flag pin...

I noticed yesterday on MTP, Mr. Rubio forgot to wear his... lol

Chilled............you forgot to note that a person might also want to have their NRA membership card with them...........

@Feisty & nomore......

How could I forget all those "I am an American" emblems...flag pin, NRA membership...gun.....afterall, real Americans...blah, blah, blah!

AnaBanana (post 3.0)

What do you have on you right now proving you belong in this country? A license doesn't make you legal.

You’re quite wrong.

To obtain a Driver’s License, you need to provide several forms of ID. One of which includes either a certified copy of a Birth Certificate or a valid passport. This is a Department of Homeland Security requirement to ensure the validity of State Driver's licenses to provide identity.

http://www.mva.maryland.gov/Driver-Services/Apply/proof.htm

Hope you feel “edumicated” now!

Could they start with Jan Brewer first?

Exactly, John. To which I would add that with access to a driver's license, that provides access to other information not included on the drivers licencse but accessable with the number.

The LACK of a driver's license, especiallly while operating a motor vehicle, should be a flag in and of itself.

And stop with the race card. Just stop. Your arguement falls apart when that's all you have.

Mexican is not a race, Canadian is not a race, nor is Russian, Albanian or Korean a race.

ILLEGAL is not a race.

Please, someone in the liberal camp answer this for me:

Why is the United States of America - among all the countries in the world - NOT allowed to have and enforce immigration laws without you people shredding your bodices and screeching racism?

Are Mexicans racist against Americans for requiring them to have their passports on them at all times? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DO, and I'm okay with it. Our Federal law already requires that people in this country on a visa, green card, whatever, have that documentation on them at all times, but that's racist?

Please explain.

Pragmatic...facts are hard to dispute....don't hold your breath waiting for an argument.

An American without I.D. in Mexico would be lucky to keep their life.

John2006106 and pragmatictoafault,

Driver's Licenses are state issued. Each state has its own rules. And a driver's license proves nothing except that you passed a driver's test. In some states it means more but in most it only means you can drive. So before you try to educate someone on these posts try to educate yourself first.

Ana - I had to have a copy of my birth certificate and at least a SS card to get mine. And after that initial one, I don't have to have the Birth Certificate just proof of residence. So if you have a driver license, at one point or another you have to have proof of who you are.

Anna, each state does NOT have it's own rules anymore, not since the DHS made them uniform.

http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/secure-drivers-licenses.shtm

You're still avoiding the the main question, not surprisingly:

WHY CAN'T WE ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION RULES, like every other country in the world, without the left screaming racism?

AnaBanana (post 3.12)

Driver's Licenses are state issued. Each state has its own rules.

Again, you're totally ignorant of the facts. Please read some of the links we're providing for you, instead of just making up things. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts!

NOBAMA 2012!

.

John-20061016 You are aware that Washington, New Mexico and Utah do NOT require proof of citizenship to get a license correct? You also aware that Colorado is debating Initiative 52 which would allow the same thing?

Hopefully, you're feeling more "edumicated" now.

IsrJablonski - my guess is that John is not aware - of much!

WOW IsrJablonski-4309573... You really need to do your homework before replying? New Mexico doesn’t need proof of citizenship... Read:

Documents and Other Requirements for All Residents

Provide two documents to the MVD clerk that proves your identity and your residency. Acceptable documents that prove your identity are:

• Social Security card
• United States military photo identification card
• Birth certificate
• Official United States citizenship or naturalization certificates

Do your homework!!! ALL states require this documentation... (lol)

The High Court is loosing Altitude! Let me be clear. No Bama 2012

My guess is that Fisty DumbFux ultrasound picture had a tiny hand holding a Vodka mini and a tiny hand holding a welfare check...preparing for the life he/she now lives as a mindless liberal.

Superman, Washington State issues driver's licenses to illegals so you do not have to have a green card or proof of your right to be in this country to get one. I guess you can show a Mexican birth certificate and a power company bill. No Social Security card, no passport, no qualifying United states document required there. That's a FACT! It is a law. It is one of two states in this country. I am not sure if other these and states accept these drivers licenses as proof of identification to get welfare and food stamps or not. Since State services do not go by Social Security numbers, they may well get benefits using drivers licenses from these states. To the people who say that taxpayers benefits do not go to illegal aliens, I say, "How do you know this?" Once you have a driver's license, you can get lots of things.

I saw a movie that showed Feisty was a alien lizard in the womb.

Someone smells..FRR

Someone smells..FRR

Will you look at that?

Coming off your week long time out - it's probably best you shut our @!$%#ing mouth! lol

Stinky's mad!!!!!!!" Our " must be a typo.. Because you can't keep yours shut. lol

John, you're coming off as the ignorant one. Drivers license use to be easier to obtain than they are now and they are reissued without question. I got my Florida drivers license based on my Ohio license with no other ID required. My wife on the other hand went to get her's a year later and had to show all her info even though her Ohio license was up to date.

In days of old people could get their license easier if they were able to drive. In fact I got my first drivers license strictly with my Social Security number as my ID. Of course that was over 55 years ago.

Pragmatic you are wrong and I will try to explain it to you. What you've done here is reduce the argument to something black or white; the argument that the laws aren't being enforced because someone is screaming 'racism' is not based in fact; it is an opinion. The fact is that this law opens up the real possibility that U.S. citizens and legal residents will be detained based solely on the fact that they are hispanic. My wife is a latina and also a citizen and I would hate it if she were detained for merely not having a birth certificate or other type of ID on her. Lots of possibilities exist where someone hispanic might not have proper ID on them...

ron, are you listening to yourself ? LOL !!! what do you mean by it is not illegal for an ILLEGAL alien to look for a job in Arizona ? he ( illegal alien ) has broken the law because he came here illegally and he should NOT be working in this country ! it is ( or suppose to be ) illegal all over the United States.

All of you are full of POOP here is what you nedd ion the state of Washington to get a license Look it up before you post ignorant claims...All you need is proof of residency...

#documentation

2. Social Security number

You must provide your Social Security number to get a driver license.

• If you don’t have a Social Security number, you may sign a declaration form and provide proof of Washington residence.
• If you’re applying for a Commercial Driver License (CDL), you must provide your Social Security number. We can’t issue you a CDL if you don’t have one.

Proof of Washington residence

If you don’t have a Social Security number:

1. Bring as many of the following documents as possible to be reviewed as proof of your Washington residence address:
   • Home utility bill (gas, electric, water, garbage, land-line telephone, or ISTA. etc).
     • Not acceptable: Cable, internet or satellite TV bills.
   • A college or university document that has your current residential address on file.
     • Off-campus students: Bring the printout from the SEVIS database which:
       • Is in a sealed envelope with the college return address.
       • Has your address
       • Has proof it was printed by the “Designated School Official” or “Responsible Officer.”

IDIIIOTS!!!

My drivers license should be enough it's A Class CDL with a Haz-Mat endorsement which means I had a Back Groud Check. If it isn't maybe my Military Retired ID will make the point.

We do have illegal Canadians here to. I would emagine it's difficult to spot them from the rest of us white folks and the ones that are legal. Way up in Northern Maine they speak alot of French. Does that make them any less legal, or illegal.

Just using Canada and Maine as a case in point.

Amy (post 4.0)

Clearly, Eric Holder had it right. Good job, Attoney General!

The Supreme Court voted 8-0 that the KEY PART of SB 1070, the ability of police to determine someone’s immigration status is valid.

The other portions of SB 1070 are things the Federal Government should be doing, but aren’t. How is this at all reasonable to state that “Eric Holder had it right?” Clearly it’s a split decision. The Court said the attempt by Arizona to do Federal actions is overturned, but clearly this is a victory for the most significant part of the Arizona law, and a repudiation of the Obama Administration.

.

Just liberal spin is all John....The key part was upheld...that's all that matters. For the spin about holder not addressing that issue, sorry, his time to address it expired when the lower court upheld it and it was not objected to in a timely manner.

Let them think they won something. Impending doom lingers!

You don't have to chase people down to get illegals out of the country. You only need two rules:

- Don't employ anyone who isn't on e-verify. They'll leave when they can't get jobs.

- Don't give govt benefits, including school enrollment, to anyone who can't prove they belong here. My taxes aren't for illegal immigrants.

No one gets detained, no one has to carry papers, but the illegals leave. Problem solved without violence and at no taxpayer expense.

You should run for office AG99! Best ideas I've heard. Although some libs will cry racism...they don't like the word "illegal" they think it should only pertain to a sick bird.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Just another dumb fux

as a resident of Arizona...I was disappointed to say the least that SB1070 was partially found to be unconstitutional...it mirrored Federal law, so I didn't think that that made any sense. I am pleased about the fact that police officers can still stop people when there is probable cause to detain them and then to ck their status. But I also heard that Homeland Security can dictate that these folks can be let go regardless, because it's up to them if they are to be detained. In other words, the Federal Government, Obama and company have decided they can just ignore the law at will. Obama...it must be good to be the King.

Many "Liberals" have been suggesting going after employers of "illegals" for a long time. It's typically the Republicans who don't want to go after businesses. Not to mention their own house keepers and gardeners.

RTypo, that has been my contention ever since this illegal immigrants issue has surfaced again. If I have rats on my property it's best to remove all food sources first before extermination. If they have food they will come. If not they will find other sources for food.

Same with the illegal immigrants. If there is no work here for illegal aliens in the US they will stay home. Now many illegals are like Gypsies...they go from state to state as needed for work. Wherever there's work they travel there for it.

The Supreme Court voted 8-0 that the KEY PART of SB 1070, the ability of police to determine someone's immigration status is valid.

That part of the law will be reviewed after the Arizona law enforcement start implementing the law if they ever do. If legal citizens are being harassed the law will be reviewed and possible stricken.

@AG99, That's what Romney was saying, he would have them to voluntaraly go. Duh! If you want someone to move you need dole out some incentive.

Mark,

The court said that, that part can stand “for now.” They expect to get cases claimingb racial profiling and this part will be back in front of them in a couple years.

IMHO the court cannot rule, determine or assume that racial profiling will be the outcome of that law however they did leave room for that possibility.

Dennis - Yes the only silver lining is that somehow the potential/probable racial profiling that takes place during enforcement will be thrown out later - due to other cases. Sadly the motto in Arizona will change it becomes "To profile and inspect" in lieu of "To serve and protect".

In the meantime, I bet a lot of people will not be going to Arizona anytime soon, a lot will be leaving and taking their money, products and services. Augment that with boycotts that will continue, it can't help their budget shortfalls. Cutting your nose off to spite your face?

Maybe this is how Romeny wants to implement his self deportation plan. Encourage and support threatening, draconian state provisions, utilize racial profiling and harrassment to get them to leave.

Mark, they did not say they will let it stand "for now", the upheld the section. The section also allows the state to decertify any law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce it and makes it a crime for them to racially profile.

Plus, not only might it be revisited, but it allows the police to conduct such a search only after the suspect has been stopped for another violation. The police cannot pull over someone just because they look like they might be illegal.

I had a strong feeling the Court would rule this way- it seemed pretty open and shut that states cannot usurp federal powers.

As to the one section upheld for the time being- since status can only become a question if an individual is question pursuant to an illegal act, I fail to see any aspect of "racial profiling". In the instance of a person who is arrested for robbing a bank, or otherwise breaking the law, checking immigration status would be assisting the federal government- not taking powers from the federal government.

I suppose it will be up to the 9th Circuit to decide when-and if- someone arrested for criminal activity decides to seek redress over a check into his or her immigration status.

I suspect it will then land right back at SCOTUS.

And Jamie....what don't you understand that any illegal pulled over for a suspected crime must show I.D.

That was the whole point of the law...THE KEY PROVISION.

Yellowdog...It is my understanding that the Obama administration did not address that part of the law in their arguments...they specifically said they were not addressing the racial-profiling issue/aspect...the reason being that a federal court overturned the law almost immediately after it was enacted...thus, there is no record of racial profiling to use in a legal argument...now that the law can go forward, we shall see what happens....expect lawsuits...this could take time :)

Bud, the law makes it a criminal offense for an officer to racially profile. I think that pretty much covers the state.

Jpeg...maybe you should revisit Jamie's comment...it seems clear that he understands the police can pull someone over if suspected of a crime...he states that the police can not pull you over simply because of the way you look....read carefully :)

Bud...the comment was edited.

To Bud, good point about why the racial profiling wasn't part of the DOJ protest at this time. To others good, civil discussion. How about we add another point to look at in response to another posters comment...

since status can only become a question if an individual is question pursuant to an illegal act, I fail to see any aspect of "racial profiling".

So if a cop pulls someone over for a suspected crime, for example lets say they fit the description of a person leaving the scene of a crime. Again the cop has no idea if the suspect committed the crime or not. He follow the cars, stop him because he matches the description. During the stop he notices that this guy looks "illegal" whatever that means. Now does he use racial profiling or some other form of clarivoyant perception to determine the suspect's, not criminal mind you, potential immigration status.

Slippery slope and too much power granted to an already over burdened police work force. Must be why a majority of Police chiefs and police officers wanted no part of this "power." I fear the only police officers that welcome this new power are the ones that shouldn't have it.

Yellowdog (post 5.0)

I for one would rather our Police go after criminals then try to determine immigration status.

How interesting. You make it sound like illegal aliens aren’t “criminals.”

.

John,

Marco Rubio writes in his book An American Son: “If my kids went to sleep hungry every night and my country didn’t give me an opportunity to feed them, there isn’t a law, no matter how restrictive, that would prevent me from coming here [USA].”

Yellowdog, it has nothing to do with looking illegal. The law already covers that and specifically prevents racial profiling. It has everything to do about not being able to produce I.D. If not, identity is checked. The only two police chiefs against it were Tucson and Phoenix...both wanna-be sanctuary cities.

Yes Dennis...we have laws that allow immigration. So what's your point?

Dennis:

THERE IS A LAW. Ignorning that fact doesn't make it so.

We have to show ID to buy beer, vodka, cigarettes, prescriptions, change our cell phone plans, cash a check, use a credit card, board a plane, take out a loan, purchase car insurance, etc etc etc etc etc.

And yet, illegal aliens should NOT have to have theirs on them, and to require them to have it on them is racist?

Why?

Because they are undocumented democrat voters.

John & jpeg,

Your response shows how little you understand why people flee their home country. Being part of the “Religious Right” you, more than most, should understand it is about love of God and family that are the primary reasons.

How sad you show so little compassion for people that only want to be allowed to practice their faith and/or provide for their families.

In your screed, Dennis, you obviously did not answer my question and the never-ending liberal whinge fest of "they just want a better life" is going to fail. No one is denying them an opportunity to a better life in this country, they just need to do it LEGALLY. JUST like we would if we tried to seek a better/different life in THEIR country. Why is the US NOT permitted to have and enforce immigration laws?

Why is being required to show valid identification, something LEGAL American citizens are required to do on a regular basis, wrong and racist when it's required of people here as guests or illegally?

Pragmatic To A Fault,

First – You never addressed a question directly for me
Second – There is no obligation for anyone to answer your question
Third – I never said that they should come here illegally I just suggested why they do.
Fourth – Of all the "need to provide an ID" things you listed I haven't been required to show one for any of those things you listed – not one!! So let us just become another "Papers Please" state.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

John & jpeg,

Your response shows how little you understand why people flee their home country. Being part of the “Religious Right” you, more than most, should understand it is about love of God and family that are the primary reasons.

How sad you show so little compassion for people that only want to be allowed to practice their faith and/or provide for their families.

We have an immigration system in effect and also provisions for those being persecuted. What part of upholding the laws do you not understand?

If one of those people killed a member of your family, would you still feel the same? Ask the people who have to face that everyday.....a family member being killed by a person with no right to even be here.

jpeg - stupid comment. Voter fraud has been proved to be less than .03%. It hasn't influenced any decisions and clearly illegals don't vote. They would be terrified to be put in a position where they might be scrutinized. Get real! That argument is as stupid as the damned birther garbage!

And, my guess is illegals are not the major source of criminals in this country.

Seeking Sanity...If ONE vote is determined to be illegal, it's enough. How about you do a little research on how many Americans are KILLED by ILLEGALS every year. It's not hard.....google it. Then how about you explain why to all those peoples relatives.

Funny thing jpeg. When you google "How many US Citizens are killed by illegal immigrants", all you get are a slew of right wing nut jobs sites. However, those sites can't seem to keep a straight story and they swing between 10 a day to 55 a day. Can't even keep their BS consistent among themselves. But this link pretty much shows where the info that you fell for came from. Smell funny? LOL

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/two-years-immigrant-bashers-were-cla

One thing you bigots Brewer supporters don't seem to understand is that this would make it so anybody with brown skin has to carry papers around to prove they are citizens of the U.S.

How many of us can get pulled over tommorow and provide proof we are a U.S. citizen on demand? Driver's liscense? Proves nothing.. SS card? Proves nothing.. Birth certificate? Who carries that around?

This rings of Jews in '40s germany to me. It's just not right.

If a person commits a crime, then are arrested and taken into custody, then they can do a BG check. The police in the field have enough to do already than try to figure out who is illegal and who isn't. And futhermore the police need witnesses to street crime regardless of immigration status.

Yes, Google should be the final arbitor in resolving all arguements. God forbid someone reads a book and actually knows what they are talking about at this website.

Let's see...nothing before the law and the key provision upheld....not sure how it's a victory for the administration...I sure know it is for the American citizens of this country.

Well, it was sort of a split decision! How would you characterize it, other than a partial victory for both sides. The more significant question is, why are there two sides? Why do Democrats want to convey so many "rights" to those who are here illegally?

The IRS in 2011 paid "illegal aliens" $4.2 BILLION in tax refunds. WHY? How much more taxpayer money is used to support illegal aliens with free school lunches, housing subsidies, welfare payments, WIC program, etc.

How many bridges could we repair, like the one connecting Kentucky to Ohio that Obama did a photo op at, if we had an extra $4.2 BILLION to spend, instead of giving taxpayer money to illegal aliens.

.

All very great points John....THANKS!

john read his chain email. LOL

What did they call Bain Capital when Romney worked there? "Pioneers of outsourcing!"

What did they call obama as president? An economic Disaster.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia suggested Monday that the Framers of the Constitution would have “rushed to the exits” if presented with the idea behind President Barack Obama’s recent decision not to enforce certain immigration laws.

The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down most of the key provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law “boggles the mind” in light of the Obama policy shift, Scalia added.

Scalia is a predictable conservative lickspittle. Everyone knows how he is going to vote on every issue. And Thomas is his silent lapdog. At least the other seven Justices appear to give the legal issues some consideration.

Scalia is undeniably intelligent, but sadly political. His histrionics in the dissenting opinion might as well just say "those grapes were sour."

Did you know Clarence Thomas thinks that any disclosure requirement for political donations is an attack on Freedom of Speech? He is so far to the right, he doesn't believe American voters should be informed who is contributing funds to a political campaign.

The majority agree with him Amy. Why should be donations be made public to be used as a tool of persecution. How about we make how everyone paycheck information public also.

jpeg - the majority of Americans want Citizens United overturned - including a number of Republicans. There are too many foreigners contributing to our campaigns and it should be stopped.

69% of Americans believe the Citizens United decision will lead to corruption. Only 15% agree with it.

And Obama allows African with AIDS to immigrate to the U.S......so what is your point? That Romney causes more job losses than 15 MILLION illegals?

How can a true American cheer this decision? Didn't your relatives serve in the military? Haven't your parents been paying taxes for years?

Your forefathers would be ashamed that all that hard work, all that money, all those freedoms are handed to a greedy group of 3rd world illegals that don't deserve it. I will not allow MY child to serve in the military to protect these losers.

You are not United States citizens - you are traitors

Seeking Sanity, what does any of that have to do with keeping donations private. Whether I donate to an R or D is no ones business. Stay on the topic and quit trying to spin it.

You are already required to have identification or face loitering charges in most every jurisdiction. Now it can be enforced without question!

"employer is subject to massive state fines and penalties." Surely you jest. Businesses aren't going to give up their cheap labor just because you don't like illegals.

Yeah...face being closed, criminal charges, and having their business license pulled is not an incentive...what world do you live in. The only reason it hasn't been enforced so far was the wait for a ruling.

You might be required to show ID if you have one. But the police still need probable cause to stop you to ask for it. Don't think the Supreme Court changed that part of the Constitution. . . yet.

grotto, can you tell me where in the constitution it prevents a police officer from asking a person for I.D.?

No, you cannot pull someone over just to harass them, but you must provide I.D. when asked by a law enforcement officer. The only thing that has changed is now the officer can check immigration status.

I think grotto is saying that under the fourth amendment, police can't merely stop a brown person on the street and demand to see ID. That is still an illegal detention and search.

Anyone pulled over while driving, as long is there is legitimate reasonable suspicion, has to provide a driver's license if asked. That remains unchanged.

Asking someone for I.D. is in no way a definition of a search.

And this is where they will get the illegals, and I hope they have plenty of reasons to pull over illegals, they failed to give proper car signals, they were speeding, they have broken tail lights, broken wind shields, no proper tags, I see many many reasons to still pull them over, and when they do and they are illegal they are still GONE.!

and if nothing else, a criminal record!

Did you read the ruling, or are you just posting the proper right wing talking points?

Yes, I did....everything I wrote is correct...would you like to point out a falsehood?

What are you talking about?

"The justices struck down three other parts of the law:

-One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;

-One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;

-And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government."

Unless they are to be arrested for another offense, once police determine they are illegal aliens they will just get a pat on the back and sent on their way.

twogap, they did not strike down making it a crime for an illegal to work in this country. They said it was the federal governments job to enforce it. Workplace raids will still be conducted and those without I.D. or forged documents will be arrested.

Ummm... yes it did. Sorry.

"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."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_IMMIGRATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-25-12-55-04

Yes twogap.....can you read? IT'S A FEDERAL CRIME FOR AN ILLEGAL TO WORK IN THIS COUNTRY!

The illegal can still be arrested for violating federal law, including using false identification and identity theft.! That's exactly what the police have been doing.

jpeg - If it is against federal law to be undocumented and work in this country then why was the state law needed? I know this portion was struck down and understand that the Feds can still act, as they have the authority to do so.

However, if it is the federal responsibility to make laws about immigration and enforcement, then why isn't the entire state law struck down?

Perhaps your response will be "because the feds aren't enforcing the law...." I'm not asking that. Why did the state incorrectly put forward this law. Why wouldn't SCOTUS rule that the state law is unconstitutional as it directs and grants police (state and local officials) federal power and authority? Seems SCOTUS shouldn't be able to pick and choose portions they want to uphold or strike down. Federal law and enforcement either has supremacy over state law regarding immigration or it doesn't.

I doubt even the far right wants fifty different immigration/enforcement state laws.

Yellowdog...it was added because the current occupant of the white house feels he can pick and choose what laws are to be enforced. Senator Pierce even stated when the law was introduced that if was included because of the foreshadow of the federal government not enforcing the ruler of law.

As for doubting the 50 states wanting different laws? I doubt it also, but it would be nice to have THE laws enforced.

Do you have any idea how many illegals are pulled over for traffic offenses and ticketed and released...without having to even produce a valid driver's license?...Not going to happen anymore!

As for failing to carry a registration document...does not apply to ILLEGALS!

jpeg, you can't be serious, I don't care where you live, and I know for a fact in Tennessee, if you are pulled over driving a car without a valid and up to date drivers license you at best get a ticket and sometimes are hauled to jail.

If you really want to tackle illegal immigration then we need to either get rid of the wet foot/dry foot policy or make it the same all across the country. Your foot is just as wet if you climb out of the Rio Grande, the Pacific, or the Gulf of Mexico/Atlantic ocean.

Union Baby..that's what I said was happening. Now immigration status can be checked on those without I.D. and they are gone.

The laws are the same across the country. The federal government just refuses to enforce them.

California has an almost exact law as SB1070 on the books. It has never been protested, but then again, it's never been enforced.

"Do you have any idea how many illegals are pulled over for traffic offenses and ticketed and released...without having to even produce a valid driver's license?"

I have absolutely no idea. How many?

Joe, the police have every right to ask you for identification. It's always been that way. Now, just no more "racial profiling" stupidity.

So, understand this clearly...YOU CANNOT SUE THE STATE FOR A COP FOR ASKING YOU FOR I.D.

Actually - they must have probable cause and the AZ police were stopping people for no reason what-so-ever.

A police officer can ask you for identification at any time for any reason. The law says a person's immigration status can only be checked under suspicion of a crime.

The government will NOT pay your house off if they pull you over, who do you think you are?, are you better than the rest of the people.? ILLEGAL is still ILLEGAL

Feisty, you should recluse yourself from humanity and give us all a break

Oh... simmer down there little Ricky-Roo - I'm not going anywhere...

Get over yourself! ;o)

Your stupid remark about Rubio shows just how ignorant you really are

I realize memory is not a strong suit with you right wing nitwits, however, I vividly remember discussing then Senator Obama not wearing a flag pin in 2008 for weeks on end!

To quote Willard - what's sauce for the gander is good enough for the goose or some crazy @!$%# like that!

Feisty is a European Socialist who pretends to be from Illinois. She hates America and it shows in her rants, there's nothing "feisty" about her.

you can always tell who the teabaggers are when things don't go their way, they always leave their teabaggger stains via rude and crude comments with no supporting facts or figures.

neatsider....you provided a perfect example. Now, the key provision was upheld....how did thing not go their way? Beside, it's NOT teabaggers who supported this law..it's AMERICAN citizens.

Maybe you should read the decision again....this is not a win for the illegals or the administration.

Wille!! Willie !! Willie !! you don't know basic US law Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution adopted in 1868 states as follows

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

You need to repeat kindergarten again.

That section was never intended to include illegal aliens, but to ensure slaves were given citizenship...but for now we are stuck with it.

As long as the Socialist Obama is in office the answer is NEVER, he hates Americans and he shows it, but very soon he will be gone, November is close at hand and he will be voted out in a very FAST & FURIOUS WAY.!

And obama has yet to fulfill one campaign promise.

OBAMA

37% of promises kept

14% of promises broken

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

GOP Congressional Pledges

19% of pledges kept

4% of pledges kept

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/

ZERO promises kept.....

Yes, Romney has kept zero promises. However, he hasn't actually articulated any promises, and he'll probably never be President and have the chance. So let's try to be fair.

It is amazing though, how many words Romney can use, and still say absolutely zero.

Romney does not take office until January...we will then see if he keeps his promises.

Asked about promises made during the campaign...obama responded with promises don't matter...you say whatever is necessary to get elected.

Obama is the great liar and the great giver of Americans money away, he will be voted out in November in a FAST & FURIOUS WAY.

Mitt Romney is a true AMERICAN unlike the socialist Obama. And true Americans will vote him out of office in November in a very FAST & FURIOUS WAY, why because he is pure failure and a liar, now let us down grade him the way he did our AMERICA.!

You better hope that Mitt Romney wins in November, or else Obama will finis destroying the rest of America, Obama has to voted out in a very very FAST & FURIOUS WAY.! Let us down grade Obama they way he has down graded AMERICA.!

But that one was the most important, state rights, the others were Federal rights, or in this case non federal rights since the feds choose to not inforce the laws they are required, and took an oath to inforce. The right of Arizona to do immagration checks was upheld, Now if the Feds would inforce the laws, the reason for the law suit would have never been needed.

What's that Joe? Enforce the laws and Constitution?

We are not talking about enforcing laws or the Constitution. Read the post properly.

His remark had to do with "claiming victory".



Your remark was what my response was to. I don't see you comment in reply to anything...

Nope that would be the Democrats.

You win the commen sense award!

Sounds fair...and all the illegals can be spread between the remaining states...along with all the expense they cause.

An apple a day keeps the doctor away...and was probably picked by the hands of an illegal immigrant!

Not likely Amy....most of our produce is imported. A typical illegal wouldn't be caught dead in a field picking produce....it's easier to drop a baby and collect benefits.

It is the Federal Government that has seceded from it's responsibilites to protect it's citizens. This picking and choosing which laws they want to inforce is a crime in itself. So much for the oath of office he swore to protect.

Immigration reform has nothing to do with enforcing existing immigration laws. The problem is that existing laws are being ignored. With this kind of dereliction, who's to say that any new laws won't be ignored also if it goes against Democrats getting illegal votes?

The only problem is the Fed do not do their duty as they vowed to do when taking the oath of office. The whole issue was bacause the Feds didn't do their job of protecting the borders. I am glad that the police still have the right, (and the duty) to check immigration status. Everyone visiting this, country, or us that visit another country are required to carry passports and visas. Go to Mexico and try to do what the illegals are doing here and see how long it takes you to get thrown into one of their prisons.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

--Isaac Asimov

Not only are these people the life's blood of America, they are, but let me just say to you tonight, on economic terms, the illegal immigrants are also the life's blood of this society. And I'm going to be hard core with you. They produce high quality labor at low cost and they cheat on their taxes. It doesn't get any better.

Arthur Laffer, prominent conservative economist, in a speech to the Heritage Foundation Presidents' Club, a prominent conservative "think" tank.

And what exactly do you think your taxes pay for now?

Yeah, that fat-a$$ in the picture (in the middle) protesting health care reform had better have some good coverage-looks like he's foaming at the mouth, probably needs a rabies shot or at least anger management therapy!

AZ get the right to check immigration status, warrant-less arrests are upheld as already being a right of the state, working as an illegal remains a federal crime, and workplace raids and arrests will continue to be made.....how again is this a win for obama?

Arizona....the only place losing three out of four, makes you a winner, lol.

And whatever quarter you do win...THAT all of a sudden becomes the 'heart' of the policy. Brewer is living in her own little world...where reality has no place.

Both democrats and republicans except the tea party want to legalize illegals so they can take American citizens jobs. Dems because of votes and latin american investments and Repubs because of just latin american investments. They are both selling the American people out. By the way Bush was a liberal in every deffinition. Liberal is generous and bush gave away the store to every intrest group you can think of.