Parts of AZ Immigration law struck down

According to the CNN Court reporter “All they said was it’s too early to tell before it’s actually implemented whether it’s inconsistent with federal law,’ Cole said."

So it sounds like it could be entirely struck down later.

That's my understanding too. 

They more or less punted on the 4th provision on procedural grounds. They'll take it back up either later or never, depending...

Yep, I later read this too.  So essentially the highest court in the land, spent months of time and who knows how much $ to come back with a decision of "...yes, maybe, we'll see..."

Thank's for clearing up that Constitution thing guys... 

What really bothers me about this ruling is that effectively SCOTUS has ruled that the federal government can overrule states.  In other words if the feds have a law and do not enforce it, the states cannot step in and enforce that law.

The Constitution gives the fed clearly defined and rather limited powers.  All other powers belong to the states.

Makes you wonder what would happen in the reverse.  Say a state wants to legalize and regulate drugs.  As long as the fed's laws trump state's this can never happen.

This is scary folks on a lot of levels.

I fail to see why this is scary.  Especially since the federal government is made up of state representatives. 

Then, with all due respect, I do not believe you understand the Constitution.  But that's OK, neither does our government.

The Constitution intended for the states to have most of the power.  States could decide how they wanted to be governed.  They would all be joined for the common good of the country with some basic overreaching laws that bound them all.

The 10th amendment states:

"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"

And these powers are rather limited and defined in Article I section 8 (too long to quote here).

So any power NOT listed in Article I section 8 belongs to the states.  And this is not what the ruling today IMO says. No where does it give the Federal government power to control immigration.  Therefore, again IMO, that's a state issue.

At the VERY least, if the feds have alaw on the books and are NOT enforcing it, a state should be allowed to enforce the law.

At this point I don;t care of this is about immigration or importation of gummy bears.  It's another case of the fed overstepping it's bounds.

I'm really not shocked that a conservative SCOTUS went this way.  Both Ds and Rs at this point are about growing the power of the federal government.

Problem is, you are not immigrating to a state, you are immigrating to a country.  How is that a state law to uphold, even if you take into account the constitution.   So IMO the state overstepped its bounds this time.

The interesting thing about SB1070 was that it was written by the privatized prison companies.  What a terrific way to increase revenue for your company.  Incarcerate more people.

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/09/131191523/how-corporate-interests-got-sb-1070-passed

AZ already spends more money on incarceration than it does on schools.  We couldn't afford to implement this anyway.  The number of mexicans who are here just to do landscaping work would be clogging up our judicial system and we'd have to build new prisons just to hold them all.

the negative social ramifications of this law go well beyond the anti-immigrant bumper stickers.

The difference is that in Germany, Jews were already residents of the country.  During the same time if a Frenchman (or any other non-German) were to enter into Germany no one would blink twice about asking him for ID.

Go to (insert almost any country here) get pulled over and then provide no ID and see how long before you end up in a jail cell.

There is some disagreement if "naturalization" (the process to become a citizen) is the same as "immigration" (residing in a country).

Regardless, if the feds are not upholding a law, why is the state prohibited from upholding the law?

Isn't that why our country is so great though? I'm not sure I want to be following other countries laws about going to jail. See the thread about the Pro triathlete who wound up in jail in Abu Dhabi for example.

So we should just open the gates?  Basic production of ID and proof of citizenship is not a hard burden to bear.  So no, I don't think it makes us worse by requiring this.  The Federal gov't has basically the same laws as AZ on the books.  They just chose to not enforce them.

The case about the triathlete in Dubai has nothing to do with citizenship and is a different point all together.  Apples and watermelons.

There is a HUGE difference between proof of citizenship and the Nazi/police state examples you and Aces are trying to use as comparisons.

If they feel the feds aren't upholding a law the states recourse is to sue to force them to uphold the law, not to enforce it themselves.

AZ is doing just that.  I feel your analogy is a bit off but having trouble articulating the right way why... gimme a few mins..   

That's sort of a silly statement. If the Framers never intended for blacks or women to never have rights, then they would not have installed a mechanisim to amend the Constitution.

And the difference to Nazi Germany is that the Nazi party had the right to demand papers for anything... Arizona can't demand papers from anyone... they can ask for verification of status if the person has been detained for probable cause, and the officer believes the person to be here illegally.

I can't exactly say I agree, but the immigration policy this country has is a complete joke... the Federal government has the problem it has because it want it. The states have the problem because they want it. The laws on the books don't support the fact every buisness is trying to gain market share from them, every employer is trying to profit from them, and every politician is trying to buy their vote. The whole thing makes me sick.

Producing ID and proof of citizenship are not the same thing. Do you carry proof of citizenship in your wallet? 

What worries me more is that you are asking the local police to also be able to tell the difference between someone who is undocumented, and someone who is a tourist or even here on a short term work permit. I am curious on a practical level on how this works, it is not like the DHS actually stamps the passport for everyone who enters the country.

I think that is the main issue from my point of view.  I get stopped for something and they want my id I have no problem with that.  However, I do not want to carry my green card with me.  Losing that is kind of a big deal and I prefer to only use it when I travel.  Just like I am sure you do not want to walk around with your passport all the time.  And I sure don't want to be put in jail cause I do not have my green card on me.

Tourists have passports, that at least shows their county of citizenship.  Stamps on passports mean nothing now days.  The law allows for the ability to produce citizenship documentation within a reasonable period of time.

The the whole "what ID proves citizenship" thing is something is I will admit is a mess.

I recently got my DL renewed and had to prove citizenship.  Therefore the DL should prove citizenship.  However proof of citizenship was not always the case so older DLs don't prove this.

This brings up the argument of national ID cards which I'm sure will be another touchy subject.

The other big problem that with this law, and perhaps it was mentioned before, is racial profiling.  Who will get asked to prove citizenship?  Those that look foreign or have an accent.  If you look anglo the odds are you wont get asked to prove this, me on the other hand if i get pulled over by any given reason and the officer hears my accent he will most likely ask for that proof even if i'm as american as anyone else.  I just dont think our police officers should become immigration enforcers.