High court appears to lean toward Arizona in immigration law dispute
April 25th, 2012
01:00 PM ET
2 years ago

High court appears to lean toward Arizona in immigration law dispute

Washington (CNN) – Parts of Arizona's sweeping immigration law received a surprising amount of support from a short-handed Supreme Court Wednesday.

States throughout the country considering their own tough immigration laws are closely following the proceedings over what has become a thorny issue.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Arizona • Immigration • Supreme Court
soundoff (22 Responses)
  1. Namejkane fl live from teapublican moon base no taxes, no regulation no health care, free gas.

    These southern states claim they don't want federal government interference in their states and then complain that the feds aren't doing enough, which is it republican clowns???

    April 25, 2012 08:10 am at 8:10 am |
  2. Rudy NYC

    Should local law enforcement have the authority to verify immigration status of persons under arrest? probably so
    Should local law enforcement have the authority to detain persons to verify immigration status? probably so.
    Do state and local governments currently have the jurisdiction to authorize the above actions? most definitely not.

    And that's what the argument is all about. The problem is that issue has been politicized and blown way out of proportion to what is actually occurring. The AZ law is a solution looking for a problem. I say that because the cited reasons for enacting the laws have been demonstrated to be uniformly false and misleading.

    April 25, 2012 08:24 am at 8:24 am |
  3. Gurgyl

    Any contraversy prevails, federal law prevails. It is in law called "supercedin effect" in law. Because ultimate authority is federal government. True in law.

    April 25, 2012 08:47 am at 8:47 am |
  4. cali girl

    to all my Latino friends, we are on your side. Stand up and let your voices be heard.

    April 25, 2012 01:15 pm at 1:15 pm |
  5. Anonymous

    adios amigos............take Barry with you

    April 25, 2012 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
  6. SUBS 4 VOTES/Dutch Bad Newz, VA/GROVER NORQUIST IS A ENEMY OF THE STATE

    – A provision authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.
    ---------------------------------------------
    This provision is unconstitutional. It will lead to racial profiling. End of story.

    April 25, 2012 01:21 pm at 1:21 pm |
  7. once upon a horse

    if they just wait a bit they might not even need this law. Less Mexicans are coming here for work or otherwise and even more are going back home. Besides with the SCOTUS make up we have now did anyone really give this a chance for the feds to win? I know I didn't. Even with the court now it's all partisan politics.

    April 25, 2012 01:27 pm at 1:27 pm |
  8. John, PA

    Oh no, it’s bad for Democrats and Obama, there goes their illegal voters.
    Oh yea, it’s good for the American public.

    April 25, 2012 01:32 pm at 1:32 pm |
  9. Fair is Fair

    "This provision is unconstitutional. It will lead to racial profiling. End of story."
    --------
    No hard feelings, Dutch... but I'll take the SCOTUS opinion over yours. Funny, though... a lot of what the constitutional law professor has been advocating is unconstitutional... oh, the irony.

    April 25, 2012 01:34 pm at 1:34 pm |
  10. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    How could they side with Arizona when it would lead to a fragmented immigration policy and people being legal in some states and not allowed in others.

    April 25, 2012 01:34 pm at 1:34 pm |
  11. Rudy NYC

    Amendment 4: Search and Seizure

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
    ----------------------
    The "papers please" clause has some serious problems with that amendment. The "no warrant" searches don't sound like they are consititutional. But, the Constitution is supposed to define the rights of US citizens. It becomes unclear to me exactly what the rights of illegal imigrants are supposed to be under the Constititution.

    April 25, 2012 01:36 pm at 1:36 pm |
  12. Rudy NYC

    The biggest problem would be having 50 different immigration policies. I cannot find a problem with local enforcement in lieu of the presence of federal agents. But, fifty different policies would be a complete kerfuffle.

    I do see problems with logistics associated with carrying out the "papers please" provisions. Not every illegal is Hispanic. The provision also seems to be at odds with the 4th Amendment, Search and Seizure.

    April 25, 2012 01:46 pm at 1:46 pm |
  13. Dean

    The Arizona law should be the federal model. If you're here illegally and you commit a crime...adios.

    April 25, 2012 01:52 pm at 1:52 pm |
  14. Rudy NYC

    Dean wrote:

    The Arizona law should be the federal model. If you're here illegally and you commit a crime...adios.
    -----------
    But, that is exactly the problem, because just being here is a crime. It allows for profiling while doing nothing to curtail or punish those who would use the law to profile. It completely bypasses the presumption of innocence, and a trial by jury. It allows someone to decide an individual is guilty and act accordingly with no more proof than their own personal judgement. Not good.

    April 25, 2012 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
  15. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    The problem is, this won't be "The State Laws" it will be "The Laws of a Certain Group of People" and that's scary. What will they be allowed to do next, make everyone wear their mark of the beast.

    April 25, 2012 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  16. Bob

    There is no work that Americans will not do if the wage is fair. Employers compare "Legal' s" at minimum wage, plus taxes, against "undocumented" at half the wage...and off the books...(no taxes or benefits) Race has little to do with their choice! I have personally seen the construction industry flooded with this cheap labor source for years.

    April 25, 2012 02:05 pm at 2:05 pm |
  17. Mikey

    @Rudy – "the Constitution is supposed to define the rights of US citizens. It becomes unclear to me exactly what the rights of illegal imigrants are supposed to be under the Constititution."

    The problem becomes, of course, that if the illegals don't have those rights and you can ask them for their "papers", but cannot randomly ask citizens, how do you enforce the law? You would have to know they are illegals before you asked them. I would like to see some jurisdiction decide that illegal Canadians are a problem and start randomly asking all white people for proof of citizenship and haul them off if they can't provide their "papers". That would put an end to this real quick. It is real easy for the majority to pass a law to continuously harrass the minority.

    And, BTW, I for one will be shocked if this right wing activist SCOTUS does something other than approve this law. At least four of them should wear red robes to denote their political affiliation, perhaps with their corporate sponsors' logos prominantly displayed. I'll bet our self appointed protectors of the Constitution on these blogs have no problem with the SCOTUS being totally corrupted, simply because its in their direction.

    April 25, 2012 02:10 pm at 2:10 pm |
  18. drc6212

    Libs lose again , yeah for conservative bench, thank you. Now Healthcare, BYE BYE.

    April 25, 2012 02:11 pm at 2:11 pm |
  19. Fair is Fair

    @ Mikey -

    "I would like to see some jurisdiction decide that illegal Canadians are a problem and start randomly asking all white people for proof of citizenship and haul them off if they can't provide their "papers". That would put an end to this real quick. It is real easy for the majority to pass a law to continuously harrass the minority."
    ---------
    What you ask for is fair, and I don't think anyone would have a problem with it... provided they had nothing to hide.

    April 25, 2012 02:22 pm at 2:22 pm |
  20. Rudy NYC

    drc6212 wrote:

    Libs lose again , yeah for conservative bench, thank you. Now Healthcare, BYE BYE.
    ---------
    The sad part is that you are probably correct. The erosion of freedom and the regression to anarchy continues. The Arizona law lacks check and balances against abuse, or misapplication.

    Combine this law with several others and I forsee a highly charged, controversial incident. Combine the following rights: right to carry a concealed weapon, papers please, stand your ground, and a vigilante who thinks he has the right to make a citizen's arrest. Not good.

    April 25, 2012 02:23 pm at 2:23 pm |
  21. FED up

    I wonder how Mexico will treat American citizens when millions of us defect from the Obamanation after Communism is officialy our new political system here after Obama gets his second term and he is more "flexible". I wonder if the Mexicans will pay for our healthcare, if they will send our children to college and foot the bill. I wonder if they will give us free housing and let us take all their jobs. I seriously doubt it.

    April 25, 2012 02:25 pm at 2:25 pm |
  22. Wake up people

    I'm hoping someone can clear this up for me. I have no problem with Hispanics/Latinos. I think they are really nice people and they should be allowed to have a good life just like everyone else. My problem is this. Why are some ethnic groups welcome and others aren't? Middle Easterners (Arabs, Saudis, Jordanians-I can't tell them apart) are welcomed with open arms. Especially here in the Detroit area. They have taken over here. They get government assistance, food stamps and free medical-none of which I get. Last time I checked it was Middle Easterners that flew planes into the World Trade Center and changed our lives forever. Why are they special, yet Hispanics and Latinos are getting turned away?

    OBAMA 2012!

    April 25, 2012 02:28 pm at 2:28 pm |