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

  • Jeremiah KrSpo 2012/06/28 00:11:51
    Jeremiah
    +1
    OK, if you say so. :>)
  • BoomLover KrSpo 2012/06/27 03:53:36
    BoomLover
    ....and, along with Union and Obama assistance, Chevy Plant workers are now "earning" $56 per hour. So, get wages and prices back to a sane level, and clear the books of Illegal Aliens working/living here, and you would be surprised at how many people are willing to show up and work for those lower paying jobs...
  • KrSpo BoomLover 2012/06/27 04:46:15
    KrSpo
    Obama had nothing to do with the Union getting those wages, that is ALL Chevy and the Union.
  • strawberry Jim 2012/06/27 03:03:50
    strawberry
    +1
    Exactly! While Presidential candidates speak of a bad U.S. economy, they close their eyes to over population by illegals entering. Over population ruins a countries economy.
  • J 2012/06/26 18:41:41
    Unjust
    J
    +1
    I am glad they struck down the worker right. If illegals are going to be here, the should be working - not living off our tax-payer handouts.

    I don't like that local/district/state police can't aide in the fight to keep illegals out. I guess we will have to increase and support the Minutemen more fully.

    As far as cops seeking citizenship. I guarantee you, if I get pulled over, they are going to make darn sure I (a US taxpaying citizen) am who I say and that I have all my legal paperwork on hand.
  • BoomLover J 2012/06/27 03:54:25
    BoomLover
    Correct!
  • Magnus ... J 2012/06/27 22:36:32 (edited)
    Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮
    Not if that means one less opportunity for our OWN to become employed. We have a severe job crisis on our hands here, if you'd not noticed. That was the point of keeping them from being employed in the first place. Way too many of us not being able to work - it is a slap in our faces for them to be able to work and support themselves when we cannot.

    They aren't even supposed to be able to get our social benefits in the first place. PERIOD.
  • J Magnus ... 2012/06/28 20:16:25
    J
    If you can stop "families" coming for the additional benefits, that should help citizens to find jobs more easily. There won't be the same competiton from illegals when you take the perks. But, worse then "them" being able to work and support "themselves" is that it is better that they work than simply use the funds that could be helping our poor and our seniors. I think that if they are here, they should work, but I also believe that for the vast majority, if we took away the additional benefits, just a fraction would still come through. And for those who are coming illegally, (with decreased numbers) we can more easily identify the "terrorists" (drug dealers, slave traders, Islamic extremists, etc.).
  • Magnus ... J 2012/06/29 12:47:43 (edited)
    Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮
    +1
    So would enforcing the laws already on the books, preventing them from collecting those same benefits in the first place, in addition to passing a lot more stringent legislature punishing the aiders and abettors to these Foreign National Alien INVADERS (employers). Two birds, one stone. They will even self-deport.
  • Mike 2012/06/26 17:29:57
    Unjust
    Mike
    +2
    They manipulated federal law
  • SuperTrooper 2012/06/26 17:17:48
    Unjust
    SuperTrooper
    +4
    It wasn't undermining federal law, it was upholding it.
  • DUGGINS SuperTr... 2012/06/26 18:39:42
    DUGGINS
    +2
    Super Trooper, the court wasn't paying any attention to the law, what they did was to take the monkey off their backs on this controversial immigration question and throw it back to the congress. There is no question concerning illegals, it is against the law of the United States to enter this country illegally period.
  • No-to-neocons 2012/06/26 17:02:18
    Appropriate
    No-to-neocons
    +1
    I think is appropriate because they left the door open for the last bit of that law to be brought back to them when the law goes into effect. By this time next year, their will be so many lawsuits over the remaining part of that law, that it too will be deemed unconstitutional.
  • BoomLover No-to-n... 2012/06/27 03:56:53
    BoomLover
    No-to-neocons, yes to ILLEGAL ALIENS? Hummm....something wrong with your equation, Bub...
  • No-to-n... BoomLover 2012/06/27 19:01:21
    No-to-neocons
    Did I say that? No I didn't. The law is flawed and unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that the Federal Government is the only body allowed to pass and implement immigration laws and policy. I think something is wrong with your equation, Bub...
  • Magnus ... No-to-n... 2012/06/27 22:32:07
    Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮
    And in fact, they had. U.S.C. Section 8. It is not being enforced or upheld. Further, only the CONGRESS has the power to create an uniform Rule of NATURALIZATION (not immigration policies of the States, but the way in which Foreign Nationals can attain NATURALIZED Citizenship LEGALLY) - and nobody else, not POTUS, not the SCOTUS, JUST CONGRESS.

    Furthermore, Article 4 Section 4:
    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

    There should not even be a need of legislation from the States concerning Foreign National Aliens (Invaders by all definition) and how to deal with them, to get them OUT of the States in the first place and THAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE. The Federal Government is supposed to station our military at our own borders and DEFEND IT from all invasion (notice there is NO clause for exception of "unless not armed" - it does not matter, they are still an INVASION force).

    However, that is why we have Amendment 10:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively...



    And in fact, they had. U.S.C. Section 8. It is not being enforced or upheld. Further, only the CONGRESS has the power to create an uniform Rule of NATURALIZATION (not immigration policies of the States, but the way in which Foreign Nationals can attain NATURALIZED Citizenship LEGALLY) - and nobody else, not POTUS, not the SCOTUS, JUST CONGRESS.

    Furthermore, Article 4 Section 4:
    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

    There should not even be a need of legislation from the States concerning Foreign National Aliens (Invaders by all definition) and how to deal with them, to get them OUT of the States in the first place and THAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE. The Federal Government is supposed to station our military at our own borders and DEFEND IT from all invasion (notice there is NO clause for exception of "unless not armed" - it does not matter, they are still an INVASION force).

    However, that is why we have Amendment 10:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    NONE of SB 1070 is in violation of the Constitution, nor Federal Law. NONE of it.

    Further, We The People of the United States of AMERICA means exactly that - AMERICAN CITIZENS. Not Foreign National Aliens who have INVADED this Nation. They do not have any protections or Rights under our Constitution in the first place. And I honestly do not believe ANY American Citizen would take issue with furnishing their birth certificate on request of Citizenship proof when asked, at all - I sure as hell would not if it means cracking down big time on these INVADERS and getting this Nation back from the brink of ruin.
    (more)
  • No-to-n... Magnus ... 2012/06/27 23:31:31
    No-to-neocons
    Heil Hitler!
  • lady_c5_loadmaster 2012/06/26 16:50:43 (edited)
    Unjust
    lady_c5_loadmaster
    +2
    Why is everyone saying the court struck down a major portion of the law? There were 11 sections to the law only 4 were taken to court and only 3 denied. That still leaves 8 sections in tack. That looks like a pretty good record for AZ, keep up the good work.
  • Jeremiah lady_c5... 2012/06/26 23:30:53
    Jeremiah
    They will all be struck down after the law goes into effect.
  • lady_c5... Jeremiah 2012/06/26 23:37:39 (edited)
    lady_c5_loadmaster
    AZ law SB1070 is already in effect. The 4 parts that went to the Supreme Court are the only parts that were not being enforced yet. So why do you think the other 8 sections will be struck down especially when the SC already declaired one of the sections constitutional?
  • Jeremiah lady_c5... 2012/06/27 00:11:39
    Jeremiah
    They will be struck down as they are challenged. Which parts are in effect now?
  • KB 2012/06/26 16:45:57
  • DUGGINS 2012/06/26 16:37:44
    Unjust
    DUGGINS
    +1
    I prefer to agree with justice Scalia, his interpretation of the Arizona law is the correct decision. This concerned the sovereignty of the state of Arizona and it was not even considered in this flawed decision.
    I have always been of the opinion that the Supreme court justices should never have been given lifetime appointments. The reason being it makes them too secure in their positions without some kind of checks and balances. They can make decisions that do not reflect what the people want.
    Part of American history is majority rules, the majority rules in both houses of the Congress, and it also rules in the Supreme court. Sometimes the majority rule goes against the will of the people, that's why the Justices should have to be subject to term limits, term limits should also be put on the members of Congress, that would be the remedy for justices that legislate from the bench and elections can weed out the abusers of their positions.
    The biggest problem with the modern day court is their political affiliations, the supreme court should in no way be apolitical, this latest decision on immigration validates that point. This decision was a cowardly one because I fear the judges didn't want to offend illegals, but by doing so they offended the American people.
  • No-to-n... DUGGINS 2012/06/26 16:56:21
    No-to-neocons
    +2
    Oh please, Scalia on one hand is whining about Sovereignty of the State when it comes to immigration law, which, according to the constitution can only be ran by the Federal Government, and then turns around and blasts Montana over their right and 100 year laws that keeps Corporate money out of their states elections. The man is the biggest hypocrite you can find on the bench.
  • Bulanov... No-to-n... 2012/06/26 17:56:26
    Bulanova (Team Hargitay)
    I think he means he agrees with Scalia's reasoning on this particular issue, not with Scalia in general.
  • No-to-n... Bulanov... 2012/06/26 18:12:37
    No-to-neocons
    +1
    It doesn't matter if he agrees with him, Scalia is still wrong. The constitution clearly states that it is the Federal Govenment that is in control of immigration law not States. Like I said, the man is a Hypocrite and only cries about Soverignty of the State when it fits his ideology and not what the constitution implies or out right states.
  • Bulanov... No-to-n... 2012/06/26 18:16:29 (edited)
    Bulanova (Team Hargitay)
    +2
    I understand, but your response didn't have really anything to do with what he said. You went off on Scalia as a person and his past rulings, none of which the OP brought up (unless I missed it). Whether the court ruled it right or not, the big question is now what can a state do to protect itself from a flood of illegal immigration? In my opinion, that is the bigger question. If they are reduced to calling a federal government who publicly announces it won't do anything, but prevents the states from doing anything either, then they are tying states' hands so to speak. Entire areas are pretty much off-limits to Americans because of drug cartels, but the government is basically telling them they don't care, and not only do they not care, but the state isn't allowed to do anything about it. What can a state do to protect itself when the federal government refuses to? That's the heart of the matter. Ideas?
  • lady_c5... Bulanov... 2012/06/27 02:44:18
    lady_c5_loadmaster
    +1
    If I am reading it correctly In Article I Section 10 clause 3 of the Constitution it looks like AZ did have the right to do what it did and the judges got it wrong.
    "No state shall, without the consent of congress.......engage in war, unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
  • Bulanov... lady_c5... 2012/06/27 14:12:12 (edited)
    Bulanova (Team Hargitay)
    +1
    I think it's about how one defines invasion. Unfortunately, there is no definition in the Constitution that I am aware of, but in my opinion, the flood of illegal immigrants states like Arizona are getting constitutes as one. People could also argue imminent danger. I'm disappointed no-to-neocons wouldn't reply. It's a serious issue.
  • lady_c5... Bulanov... 2012/06/27 16:18:04
    lady_c5_loadmaster
    +1
    Good I am glad I am not the only one who read it that way.
  • No-to-n... Bulanov... 2012/06/27 19:39:27 (edited)
    No-to-neocons
    OMG, He said he agreed with Scalia, that is what I disagreed with. Did you read Scalia's dissent in this case? If not read it. As for the rest of your comment. Please name one area in our country that is, as you say "pretty much off-limits to Americans because of drug cartels". And please tell us when did the Federal Government publicly announce it won't do anything about undocumented immigrants? I know 1,100,000 undocumented immigrants that have been deported since Pres. Obama came into office who will disagree with you. And by the way Pres. Obama has deported more undocumented immigrants than any other President since the 1950's. He has doubled the border agents and money spent on our borders. But that's not good enough. What's amazing to me is AZ had no problem with Bush and his policies on undocumented immigrants, but just has soon as Obama came into office, AZ is screaming from the roof tops about it? And this notion that States can't do anything is crap, they can do what they always have done. Turn over anyone they pick up that is undocumented to I.C.E. and let them take it from there. Which is what our Constitution allows them to do. Nothing more and nothing less. Its a Federal issue and it needs to remain a Federal issue.
  • Bulanov... No-to-n... 2012/06/27 19:51:46 (edited)
    Bulanova (Team Hargitay)
    +1
    I will be happy to provide sources to back myself up. You can google these things too for more.

    Re: Please name one area in our country that is off-limits to Americans because of drug cartels: "About 3,500 acres of southern Arizona along the Mexican border is closed to U.S. citizens due to increased violence in the region." - http://www.liveleak.com/view?... Certainly you've seen pictures of the signs posted on American soil warning people to stay away? I can't get it to show in this comment for some reason, so I posted it in a reply below.

    Re: when did the federal government announce it won't do anything about illegal immigrants: "The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police." - http://www.washingtontimes.co...

    "And this notion that States can't do anything is crap, they can do what they always have done. Turn over anyone they pick up that is undocumented to I.C.E. and let them take it from there. Which is what our Constitution allows them to do. Nothing more and nothing less. " Right, but when th...
    I will be happy to provide sources to back myself up. You can google these things too for more.

    Re: Please name one area in our country that is off-limits to Americans because of drug cartels: "About 3,500 acres of southern Arizona along the Mexican border is closed to U.S. citizens due to increased violence in the region." - http://www.liveleak.com/view?... Certainly you've seen pictures of the signs posted on American soil warning people to stay away? I can't get it to show in this comment for some reason, so I posted it in a reply below.

    Re: when did the federal government announce it won't do anything about illegal immigrants: "The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police." - http://www.washingtontimes.co...

    "And this notion that States can't do anything is crap, they can do what they always have done. Turn over anyone they pick up that is undocumented to I.C.E. and let them take it from there. Which is what our Constitution allows them to do. Nothing more and nothing less. " Right, but when the government doesn't do its job and help them deport the illegals? What then?
    (more)
  • Bulanov... Bulanov... 2012/06/27 19:56:21
  • DUGGINS No-to-n... 2012/06/26 18:53:12
    DUGGINS
    +1
    These are only a few other countries on illegals, so tell me why is the United States so lax in their immigration policies, the answer crooked politicians.

    If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get twelve years hard labour.

    If you cross the Iranian border illegally, you are detained indefinitely. Crossing the Afgan border illegally, you get shot and buried.

    Saudi Arabia yes, is a rich country to do business but if you cross the border illegally you will be jailed. If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.

    Go through the normal procedure to get visa to travel to Venezuela and you will walk chest out but if you cross the border illegally you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed. But if you cross the Cuban border illegally, you will be thrown into political prison to rot whiles if you cross the British border illegally, you will always be asked to identify yourself where if you do not have authorization will be deported.

    If you cross the United States of America border illegally, then you are lucky, you could pursue your education and do whatever business you want and for more than 15 years could not obtain your green paper to authorize your stay in the country which means you could be deported anytime when caught.

    But whe...

    These are only a few other countries on illegals, so tell me why is the United States so lax in their immigration policies, the answer crooked politicians.

    If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get twelve years hard labour.

    If you cross the Iranian border illegally, you are detained indefinitely. Crossing the Afgan border illegally, you get shot and buried.

    Saudi Arabia yes, is a rich country to do business but if you cross the border illegally you will be jailed. If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.

    Go through the normal procedure to get visa to travel to Venezuela and you will walk chest out but if you cross the border illegally you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed. But if you cross the Cuban border illegally, you will be thrown into political prison to rot whiles if you cross the British border illegally, you will always be asked to identify yourself where if you do not have authorization will be deported.

    If you cross the United States of America border illegally, then you are lucky, you could pursue your education and do whatever business you want and for more than 15 years could not obtain your green paper to authorize your stay in the country which means you could be deported anytime when caught.

    But when you enter Canada border illegally, expect the Canada Border Services Agency as well as the Immigration and Citizenship Canada, to serve you with a removal letter followed by an arrest if you do not leave the country peaceful where they will throw you out quietly.

    Here in the United States the political establishment allows illegals to get their votes in complete disregard for our laws. Immigration is fine if it's done legally, but not at the whim of some politician to be re-elected.
    (more)
  • DUGGINS No-to-n... 2012/06/26 18:22:16 (edited)
    DUGGINS
    +2
    BALONEY! what are you an illegal?
  • DUGGINS No-to-n... 2012/06/26 19:01:30
    DUGGINS
    +1
    Hey No-to-n here's what happens if you cross the Mexican border illegally;
    Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment.
  • Jeremiah No-to-n... 2012/06/26 23:34:46
    Jeremiah
    He also voted to nullify the order of the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v Gore in 2000.
  • DUGGINS Jeremiah 2012/06/27 04:28:33
    DUGGINS
    No he didn't that decision was made by the Florida chief justice, who is presently deciding if Obama is eligible to be on the Florida ballot. Gores attorney didn't allow Gore to concede the election, so they tried to steal it. Every media outlet went to Florida and investigated who won the election, and everyone of them came back and
    said that Bush won, even after the democrats pulled the hanging chad fiasco.
  • Jeremiah DUGGINS 2012/06/27 18:18:13
    Jeremiah
    After the Florida ruling, the case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court by Theodore Olson for Bush, and David Boies represented Gore. In the matter of Bush v Gore, the vote was 5-4 in favor of reversing the Florida ruling, in effect appointing Bush president.

    Those who voted in the majority were Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. Voting with the minority were John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer.
  • DUGGINS Jeremiah 2012/06/27 19:51:19
    DUGGINS
    +1
    The court ruling wouldn't have mattered because after 4 or 5 recounts by outside news agencies Bush still got the most votes, something you conveniently forgot to mention.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/16 19:34:52

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals