Quantcast

Was the Supreme Court's Decision on Arizona's Immigration Law Appropriate or Unjust?

News 2012/06/25 20:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The Supreme Court has finally come to a decision concerning Arizona's controversial immigration laws, put into effect in 2010. They struck down most aspects of the law, chiefly those dealing with how illegal immigrants are punished. However, the Court upheld the most controversial part of law -- the part that requires officers to check immigration status at lawful stops under reasonable suspicion.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The national government has significant power to regulate immigration. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law." Do you think the Supreme Court handled the case appropriately? Or did it use its power unfairly?


Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Lord Emperor of Dune 2012/06/25 21:12:01
    Appropriate
    Lord Emperor of Dune
    +21
    It's appropriate that they check, but unjust that they aren't just dumped back out into the desert. Every dollar we spend mollycoddling illegals is a dollar that could be spent on an American in need. Why don't we treat illegals like they are illegal?

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Lord Em... T A 2012/06/25 23:16:34
  • Bassinman T A 2012/06/26 01:15:01
    Bassinman
    +5
    Man, are you serious? So you're saying that when I pay rent, my landlord is required by law to put back a certain percentage of that rent and pay it in taxes, and I can rest assured that the exact same dollars I gave him are going for his taxes and not for his booze? Wow, then I pay my landlord's taxes, right? When does he pay my taxes? Every 25 years? Illegal aliens have been escaping taxes for many years.

    EVERYONE (unless tax-exempt by Federal statutes) pays sales taxes on purchases, and if they buy a car, etc., they pay excise taxes, even illegal aliens do that, but there is no way to avoid it. The taxes that they don't pay are the ones that they have avoided paying by various means. And just since "There are very few activities where the government does not coerce money from us one way or another", then it's alright to be here 'illegally', right? This justifies breaking the law, right?

    Once again, the Law is the Law and if we are to make special consideration for the violator of one law, we should do the same for all violators. Let's just open the borders for anyone to come in...... Criminals, drug lords, escaped cons, radicals, murderers, terrorists, subversives, and the like. Then just deal with the consequences later, I'm sure that no one would mind a 500% increase in crime in America.
  • T A Bassinman 2012/06/26 02:28:30
    T A
    Your landlord pays property taxes every year. You know he does this because the government hasn't auctioned his property and you haven't gotten a new landlord. If that happens your next landlord will be paying his property tax or the same will happen again.

    The only tax I think they could avoid would be income tax (but I'm no CPA). If they use a fake SS# then they pay income tax. If they work under the table then they are like any other person working under the table and they don't.

    As I am vehemently opposed to all state welfare, I would happily get rid of all of it so no one would be paying for services for those who cross the border or anyone else for whom they did not choose of their own volition.

    The law may be the law, but is that moral? Is it moral for someone who doesn't own property to tell another he may not travel or live on that property? Who in the government owns the property these people live on or work at? If you or I don't own that property, why should either of us say who someone hires or allows to pay him rent?

    Drug lords don't work as farm laborers, janitors, maids, and taco bell clerks. Criminals (I'm assuming you mean murderers, thieves ie. actual criminals) can always be dealt with and you can't know who is one until they commit an actual crime, whic...
    Your landlord pays property taxes every year. You know he does this because the government hasn't auctioned his property and you haven't gotten a new landlord. If that happens your next landlord will be paying his property tax or the same will happen again.

    The only tax I think they could avoid would be income tax (but I'm no CPA). If they use a fake SS# then they pay income tax. If they work under the table then they are like any other person working under the table and they don't.

    As I am vehemently opposed to all state welfare, I would happily get rid of all of it so no one would be paying for services for those who cross the border or anyone else for whom they did not choose of their own volition.

    The law may be the law, but is that moral? Is it moral for someone who doesn't own property to tell another he may not travel or live on that property? Who in the government owns the property these people live on or work at? If you or I don't own that property, why should either of us say who someone hires or allows to pay him rent?

    Drug lords don't work as farm laborers, janitors, maids, and taco bell clerks. Criminals (I'm assuming you mean murderers, thieves ie. actual criminals) can always be dealt with and you can't know who is one until they commit an actual crime, which is pretty much why police are just historians. If you believe the border is as porous as it is then shouldn't your statistic for the increase in crime already bear out (there are millions of illegal immigrants)? Their "crime" is violating an unjust law, like violating a law against free speech...for which we Americans get arrested, unjustly. Any perpetrator of a violent crime is a real criminal and should be dealt with properly, of course. Moving over an imaginary line is not a moral crime, but a false crime that turns innocent people into fake criminals.
    (more)
  • actionjksn T A 2012/06/27 19:26:48
  • warkitten T A 2012/06/26 16:00:08
    warkitten
    +4
    What do you mean....they earned it...oh illegals do pay taxes?.....how would they do that without taking a dead persons name and using as their own? Is that okay? No...so why don't they just get a work permit...a visa instead of going using misleading and illegal ways do work here and get paid under the table....doesn't seem fair before my family could come to the u.s. they had to scrimp and save money so they could register and obtain the papers they needed to work here. They didn't have the convenience of being able to hop a fence and run for the friggin hills and hide themselves. My family had more respect for themselves than that...they sure as hell weren't gonna live in crap when they finally made it here. They were going to hold their heads high work hard and contribute..make a better life for their kids. They didn't come here illegally had their kids and then pass along the same hardship of being here without papers....though its so easy to obtain false identification....here's an idea...instead of paying dangerous people to forge documents and bring you across the border where you and your whole family could be killed and save the money and use towards real documents and real naturalization...its like they just want it easy...I mean ffs they already broke the law and are considered criminals for being here without papers so wtf would we want those people here
  • T A warkitten 2012/06/27 21:58:19 (edited)
    T A
    "What do you mean....they earned it" -

    Reread the first sentence to my post to which you are responding. I'll quote it for you here:
    "Absolutely, you have no right to anything from anyone. "

    I was referring to Lord Emperor of Dune's statement that he has no right to public services in a foreign country simply for moving there. I agreed. No one has a right to public services anywhere. Insisting one has a right to his neighbor's earnings is insisting theft is a right. That's logically impossible. it affirms and denies property rights at the same time.
  • Bassinman T A 2012/06/26 00:51:56
    Bassinman
    +1
    Your link does't work. Try another one to back up your statement?
  • T A Bassinman 2012/06/26 00:58:11
    T A
    My link? ohh....my wikipedia link. Thanks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Page is titled "Incarceration in the United States" in case it won't work again.
  • Bassinman T A 2012/06/26 01:26:20
    Bassinman
    This one works, thanx.
  • seadog6... T A 2012/06/26 07:36:28
  • T A seadog6... 2012/06/26 16:04:09
    T A
    I don't see how changing borders in any way affects my arguments. Could you elaborate please.

    (I think that reply went to the wrong post last time...we'll see)
  • seadog6... T A 2012/06/26 23:45:46
  • T A seadog6... 2012/06/27 04:05:54
    T A
    The same power to do it, yes. I would never have argued that the Canadian government was in any way different.
  • warkitten T A 2012/06/27 18:18:05
    warkitten
    +1
    Well you kinda sorta tried to til seadog schooled you :)
  • T A warkitten 2012/06/27 22:03:29
    T A
    How did I argue against Canada being any different? All national governments pretend to own the land on which they're serfs work and pay rent.
  • Steve Lord Em... 2012/06/25 23:03:11
    Steve
    +1
    "dumped back out into the desert." ... They're economic refugees from a dysfunctional nation. This is a disgraceful way to treat people in need.
  • Lord Em... Steve 2012/06/25 23:25:35
  • seadog6... Steve 2012/06/26 07:38:46
  • warkitten Steve 2012/06/26 16:18:12
  • Steve warkitten 2012/06/26 16:24:35
    Steve
    It's not wrong to want a better life for your family. It is IS wrong to break laws. When the two are in conflict, the desperate refugees deserve compassion, not condemnation.



    Automatic citizenship? Certainly not. Compassion and respect? Always.
  • warkitten Steve 2012/06/26 18:36:58
    warkitten
    I agree with that Steve..no one should suffer but.our goverment is failing us...turning its focus to illegaps when the people who they are supposed to care about and are paid to care about are in trouble too put some compassion towards that as well
  • Korgull Lord Em... 2012/06/26 20:32:33
    Korgull
    "is a dollar that could be spent on an American in need."

    But when people try to do that, IE healthcare, the rest of you morons get upset and cry about how you shouldn't have to help lazy bums who deserve whatever they got because they didn't work hard enough (because that TOTALLY makes 100% sense)
  • alanh Lord Em... 2012/06/27 14:21:22
    alanh
    agreed
  • Dekker451 Lord Em... 2012/06/29 00:00:59
    Dekker451
    Because we're better than that or at least I would like to think so.
  • Lord Em... Dekker451 2012/06/29 04:42:16
  • Dekker451 Lord Em... 2013/03/20 02:49:00
  • Næthan Æterna 2012/06/25 21:10:47
    Unjust
    Næthan Æterna
    +9
    If States shouldn't undermine the Federal Government, then the Federal Government should get off of its ass and remedy the problem! As by the Constitution, one of the ONLY things the Federal Government actually has POWER to do is to protect our soil. They are interested in doing the opposite by giving guns to the drug cartels and not enforcing the Immigration policies!
  • Næthan ... Næthan ... 2012/06/25 21:14:23
    Næthan Æterna
    +2
    My vote should be for "appropriate" I mis-read the article.
  • JAA 2012/06/25 21:01:17
    Appropriate
    JAA
    +6
    It's not the Supreme Court that is the problem in this decision, but the federal government who blatantly refuses to abide by the laws that are already on the book. I'm glad they DID uphold the part that requires officers to check immigration status at lawful stops under reasonable suspicion.
  • BigFig#9 JAA 2012/06/25 21:17:30
    BigFig#9
    +2
    I actually won't argue with you even though I oppose the law... The devil is,as they say, in the details and in the execution. I'm familiar enough with a small but substantial number of the police who already bend reasonable suspicion as it stands in minority communities (and in fact with the young of any race).I predict lots of fishing expeditions on primarily the brown skinned.

    PS - as to the Federal Gov't 'blatantly' not abiding by the law what do you mean? I think the enforcement priorities have changed to those having committed crimes but enforcement priorities is NOT the same as not abiding by the law and EVERY LAW faces executive decisions as to where resources are placed.
  • JAA BigFig#9 2012/06/25 22:02:36 (edited)
    JAA
    +4
    Obama [no PBUH] decided on his first day in office not to defend DOMA, & he has on multiple occasions bypassed the other two branches of government (a bit tyrannical), particularly when it came to declaring war & the latest Dream Act declaration. He's kept from prosecuting the New Black Panthers when they blatantly & on video tape threatened voters at a polling place, & when they put out a bounty on a US citizen. He has sued US citizens for doing his job, preventing them from following the laws. This & other administrations have failed to protect our borders, which is their responsibility given to them by the people in the Constitution.

    We will find out Thursday as to whether he & his partners in crime wrote an Unconstitutional Health Care law (which he did), & bypassed the people by shoving it onto the people even before anyone, including our legislatures, had read it, much less understood it. Then there's the Fast & Furious debacle, & I imagine a lot of other stuff that none of us have yet to be made aware of. I'm quite certain that the POTUS & his cronies are doing all kinds of evil, wicked & illegal behind the scenes stuff.
  • BigFig#9 JAA 2012/06/25 22:20:29
    BigFig#9
    +2
    I'll agree on DOMA being more blatantly ignored and that POS law was such a fringe piece I guess I understand his stance there....None the less good example. There's a high degree of executive latitude always given the executive and the EPA and OSHA sidestepping of the previous administration was very analogous... As to the healthcare law - I'm unsure if it is or isn't unconstitutional and can see both sides of that argument (Commerce Clause has been afforded lots of gravitas in the past) but I'm no huge fan and it was a compromise because we can't get our heads on straight in the US and go with a Single Payer model because the insurance lobby has boght and paid for their political influence.
  • T A JAA 2012/06/25 21:47:52
    T A
    One step closer to Real ID. Don't worry, the Feds will be glad to offer help. It will cost us a fortune, it won't work, it'll increase the police state, make everyone miserable (TSA all over again - everywhere) and it won't ever be repealed.
  • JAA T A 2012/06/25 22:04:52
    JAA
    +1
    What do you mean by "Real ID"? I carry a DL, a CHL, & a passport. I consider those "Real ID". Do you have something else in mind? Maybe computer chips being placed under the skin? What is wrong with people having to have an ID?
  • T A JAA 2012/06/25 22:32:10
    T A
    +1
    Real ID is a national ID program. And for god's sake why should you have to carry all that just to move around? How much permission do you need?
  • JAA T A 2012/06/26 01:16:31 (edited)
    JAA
    Permission? Permission for what?

    First, my daughter is stationed in the UK & some of my family lives in Mexico, so I need a passport in case of an emergency where I need to travel, & it's safer when in my possession. Secondly, it's required by law that I have my driver's license when I drive, & I do that daily. Finally, I carry two guns on my person, & it's required by law that I have my license with me when my guns are in my possession. It has nothing to do with needing permission.

    So, if I can have 3 forms of ID & not have a problem with it, I don't see why other citizens should find it such an inconvenience. If you're not guilty of criminal activity & are in the country LEGALLY, then being asked to present proof should be a privilege of citizenship. Other countries require ID or "papers" when moving about on their continents, so why should the USA be an exception, especially during an age of terrorism & stolen identities?
  • T A JAA 2012/06/26 15:55:48
    T A
    Why should you need permission from a government to travel anywhere? Why should you need permission to carry a gun? Licenses are permission slips. Passports are essentially licenses to cross borders.

    Being asked to provide proof of your identity is a privilege?
  • JAA T A 2012/06/27 00:17:55 (edited)
    JAA
    Your questions are silly, IMO. I don't need "permission" to travel, & being given identification is not asking for permission, it is verifying that I have a right to travel to any given area. Without borders, chaos ensues and laws are unable to be enforced. ID is required to protect the people living within the borders, not as a means of "permission", per se.

    I DO need a license to carry a gun in order to show that I've passed a test & training that is needed to safely discharge & care for a weapon that is designed to kill another person. That's not unreasonable.

    I also carry a nursing license that shows I am qualified by education and experience to care for people at a certain level of expertise. Would you like an unqualified person to care for you at a hospital, home care, or other health care provider facility? I didn't get the license to obtain "permission", but to protect the public.

    Living in a free country is a "privilege", and if it requires that I carry an form of identification in order to have that privilege, then I proudly carry it. Obviously, anyone in this country "illegally" would be frightened by the prospect of being caught without proof of citizenship, because they would not be able to vote, start businesses, obtain social security benefits, and they will ...

    &
    Your questions are silly, IMO. I don't need "permission" to travel, & being given identification is not asking for permission, it is verifying that I have a right to travel to any given area. Without borders, chaos ensues and laws are unable to be enforced. ID is required to protect the people living within the borders, not as a means of "permission", per se.

    I DO need a license to carry a gun in order to show that I've passed a test & training that is needed to safely discharge & care for a weapon that is designed to kill another person. That's not unreasonable.

    I also carry a nursing license that shows I am qualified by education and experience to care for people at a certain level of expertise. Would you like an unqualified person to care for you at a hospital, home care, or other health care provider facility? I didn't get the license to obtain "permission", but to protect the public.

    Living in a free country is a "privilege", and if it requires that I carry an form of identification in order to have that privilege, then I proudly carry it. Obviously, anyone in this country "illegally" would be frightened by the prospect of being caught without proof of citizenship, because they would not be able to vote, start businesses, obtain social security benefits, and they will (hopefully) be deported.

    It used to be that there were few people in a community, so that strangers (or illegals) would be recognized & prevented from being given the privileges that should only be available to the legal citizen. There are so many people in the USA now that we now need ID, because we cannot possibly know the millions of people who show up to vote today.
    (more)
  • T A JAA 2012/06/27 04:31:21 (edited)
    T A
    +1
    If you don't have a license to drive or carry your guns and you do either, then what happens?

    If you don't carry your passport when you cross a border, what happens?

    I actually wouldn't worry about you not having a nursing license. I would worry if the hospital you worked for didn't hire nurses who were verified to have successfully gone through training at some institution with a good reputation for such training. You already had the ability to nurse prior to obtaining the license. The license is no substitute for them calling the institution at which you were trained and arriving for your interview with letters of recommendation.

    Who is granting you this privilege that you are required by them to carry these markers of identification and skills? Why should you be proud to carry them? You should be proud to have acquired those skills. You should be happy to live in a mostly free place when so many are less fortunate. That's not an accomplishment for which one has reason to be proud. It's luck.

    As to welfarism, I am completely opposed to it. Ending it would solve the problem of xenophobia insofar as it is a fear that others will take what is yours when in reality it is not yours, but you taking from others. If you would not call it moral to force your neighbor at gunpo...

    If you don't have a license to drive or carry your guns and you do either, then what happens?

    If you don't carry your passport when you cross a border, what happens?

    I actually wouldn't worry about you not having a nursing license. I would worry if the hospital you worked for didn't hire nurses who were verified to have successfully gone through training at some institution with a good reputation for such training. You already had the ability to nurse prior to obtaining the license. The license is no substitute for them calling the institution at which you were trained and arriving for your interview with letters of recommendation.

    Who is granting you this privilege that you are required by them to carry these markers of identification and skills? Why should you be proud to carry them? You should be proud to have acquired those skills. You should be happy to live in a mostly free place when so many are less fortunate. That's not an accomplishment for which one has reason to be proud. It's luck.

    As to welfarism, I am completely opposed to it. Ending it would solve the problem of xenophobia insofar as it is a fear that others will take what is yours when in reality it is not yours, but you taking from others. If you would not call it moral to force your neighbor at gunpoint to provide for you in your old age, how can it be moral to hire another man to do it in your place?

    It used to be there was no such thing as illegal immigration. People just moved to where they could work and create a life for themselves and their families. Then welfare came along and that had to be protected instead rather than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
    (more)
  • JAA T A 2012/06/27 22:04:24
    JAA
    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/16 19:36:25

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals