[dreadgeek]

Anya:

Actually, that part of the law wasn't upheld. It simply hasn't been implemented yet and so they couldn't rule it un-Constitutional because there's nothing to base the decision on. Regardless of what we might think of that provision (and I think it is both stupid and wrong-headed) it is not on its face un-Constitutional. So once there's a test case then that, too, will go up to the SCOTUS and they'll likely strike it down as well.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by *Anya*

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."