View Single Post
Old 06-25-2012, 11:09 AM   #2545
*Anya*
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Lesbian non-stone femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She, her
Relationship Status:
Committed to being good to myself
 

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Coast
Posts: 8,258
Thanks: 39,306
Thanked 40,455 Times in 7,284 Posts
Rep Power: 21474858
*Anya* Has the BEST Reputation*Anya* Has the BEST Reputation*Anya* Has the BEST Reputation*Anya* Has the BEST Reputation*Anya* Has the BEST Reputation*Anya* Has the BEST Reputation*Anya* Has the BEST Reputation*Anya* Has the BEST Reputation*Anya* Has the BEST Reputation*Anya* Has the BEST Reputation*Anya* Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobi View Post


Did I misunderstand the ruling? Allergies are messing with my brain cells today.

Seems to me the only part of the radical Arizona law that was let stand is a police officer can ask about immigration status and report such to federal immigration. They cant arrest them for their status, they cant detain them, they can only report them. It is up to the feds to decide what to do.

For the rest, the court upheld that Arizona cannot impose its own immigration policy. That federal immigration law cannot be subverted by the states.

So, how does essentially maintaining the status quo make for a conservative decision?

Hi Kobi,

I may be wrong but based on the portion they upheld, they are still allowing police officers to ask for "papers please" to what, prove if they are not legal immigrants? Then they get to check with the Feds?

How about probable cause to stop them in the first place? Asking for papers, to me, smacks of a police state.

I could be wrong but that's what I read when I read your link. If I am incorrect in how I read "papers please" (and of course the police will say please); then mea culpa.

"WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split decision in the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's aggressive immigration law, striking multiple provisions but upholding the "papers please" provision.

Civil rights groups argue the latter measure, a centerpiece of S.B. 1070, invites racial profiling.
Monday's decision on "papers please" -- Section 2(B) in S.B. 1070 -- rested on the more technical issue of whether the law unconstitutionally invaded the federal government's exclusive prerogative to set immigration policy. The justices found that it was not clear whether Arizona was supplanting or supporting federal policy by requiring state law enforcement to demand immigration papers from anyone stopped, detained or arrested in the state who officers reasonably suspect is in the country without authorization.

The provision that was upheld -- at least for now -- also commands police to check all arrestees' immigration status with the federal government before they are released."
__________________
~Anya~




Democracy Dies in Darkness

~Washington Post


"...I'm deeply concerned by recently adopted policies which punish children for their parents’ actions ... The thought that any State would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable."

UN Human Rights commissioner
*Anya* is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to *Anya* For This Useful Post: