I'm really not well versed on this at all. What are some other federal crimes?

 

There are a lot. For one, a crime occurring on federal land such as an Indian Reservation or in Washington DC. There's also the laws under Title 18 of the US Code as well as tax evasion or possession of certain firearms under a national ban.

Looks like the law was mostly struck down. The major surviving provision is the requirement for officers with a "reasonable suspicion" that a person is undocumented to check their papers. But, this component is being challenged separately and I hope it will fail to survive as well.

Looks like the law was mostly struck down. The major surviving provision is the requirement for officers with a "reasonable suspicion" that a person is undocumented to check their papers. But, this component is being challenged separately and I hope it will fail to survive as well.

 

I must have misheard it. I thought they said the provision of, "If you were stopped or arrested for a violation (criminal or vehicle)" that you would be required to present proof. Is the "reasonable suspicion" part in that same section?

 

Personally I think if you get stopped for a crime, you should have to identify yourself.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/25/politics/scotus-arizona-law/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

 

The federal government challenged four provisions of the Arizona law that never were enforced, pending the legal ruling.

Provisions struck down included:

-- Authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.

-- Making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.

-- Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work. That would include immigrants standing in a parking lot who "gesture or nod" their willingness to be employed.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the minority, argued the court's ruling encroached on Arizona's sovereign powers.

"If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state," Scalia wrote in a dissent backed by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

The majority included Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Steven Breyer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Elena Kagan did not hear the case. Before taking the bench last year, she had been involved in the administration's initial legal opposition to the law as solicitor general.

The Obama administration had argued immigration matters were strictly a federal function.

The ruling is likely to have widespread implications for other states that have or are considering similar laws.

 

 

I must have misheard it. I thought they said the provision of, "If you were stopped or arrested for a violation (criminal or vehicle)" that you would be required to present proof. Is the "reasonable suspicion" part in that same section?

 

Personally I think if you get stopped for a crime, you should have to identify yourself.

 

This is the text of the section I was referring to:

 

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

 

My concerns are that 1.) it's easy to make "lawful contact" with someone and thus I expect persons who appear "suspicious" to be easily and justifiably stopped to have their immigration status checked and 2.) I expect that "reasonable suspicion" will be overwhelmingly reliant upon race and ethnicity. So, I fear Hispanics will be more intensely targeted by law enforcement and I don't think that is a good thing.

 

The Court left this provision alone today as they said it was not unconstitutional on its face, but they also made note that its constitutionality is also contingent on the way Arizona implements it, which it hasn't been able to do yet. I think either the law will have to be narrowly implemented or it will quickly spark another suit that makes its way to federal court.

Edited June 25, 201214 yr by Habib

This is the text of the section I was referring to:

 

 

 

My concerns are that 1.) it's easy to make "lawful contact" with someone and thus I expect persons who appear "suspicious" to be easily and justifiably stopped to have their immigration status checked and 2.) I expect that "reasonable suspicion" will be overwhelmingly reliant upon race and ethnicity. So, I fear Hispanics will be more intensely targeted by law enforcement and I don't think that is a good thing.

 

The Court left this provision alone today as they said it was not unconstitutional on its face, but they also made note that its constitutionality is also contingent on the way Arizona implements it, which it hasn't been able to do yet. I think either the law will have to be narrowly implemented or it will quickly spark another suit that makes its way to federal court.

 

Right because we have such a huge population of illegal Scandinavians.

 

Question for you. Since this administration has chosen not to enforce immigration statutes that are already on the books I assume you will be OK if a future administration chooses not to enforce other existing statutes such as Title IX, or the fair housing act for example?

If it were not so serious of situation you would almost have laugh at the logic of the administration. They sue to stop states from taking steps to protect their citizens from the effects of illegal aliens. They use the logic that that is the job of the federal government only. But by acknowledging that there is enough of a problem that states are having to take these actions it is all but an admission that the federal government is not, can not or will not do its legal responsibility. The feds have gone after Arizona (here), Florida (voting rolls), Alabama (school reporting). They have not apparently challenged Texas - who has put a well armed patrol boat in the lake were Mexican drug traffickers killed residents. So the saying of 'don't mess with Texas' seems to be in effect.

 

Texas unveils armed patrol boat | Homeland Security News Wire

Right because we have such a huge population of illegal Scandinavians.

 

Question for you. Since this administration has chosen not to enforce immigration statutes that are already on the books I assume you will be OK if a future administration chooses not to enforce other existing statutes such as Title IX, or the fair housing act for example?

 

This administration, like the ones before it, has a limited capacity to deport. They have decided, quite properly, to use their enforcement discretion to target those that commit other crimes for their limited enforcement capacity. To me that makes perfect sense. It is an inconvenient truth for the Obama haters that this administration has deported more illegals, stepped up border enforcement and reduced the rate of illegal immigration.

Nice non-legal-ese summary.

 

S.B. 1070: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog

Right because we have such a huge population of illegal Scandinavians.

 

Question for you. Since this administration has chosen not to enforce immigration statutes that are already on the books I assume you will be OK if a future administration chooses not to enforce other existing statutes such as Title IX, or the fair housing act for example?

 

 

We could very well be overrun with illegal white Canadians...no one would say a word, because no one blinks when a white person applies for social aid, takes a job flipping burgers, or anywhere. No one looks at them askance and makes assumptions of their "right" to be here. No one in Minnesota is clammoring to patrol the border.

 

My point is, you have no idea how many whites are here illegal...from any country. People from Russia...Hungary, Bosnia, Serbia...all among whites who, unless you actually converse with them, you'd never know they were immigrants...and you'd never know if they were illegal or legal.

 

Asian people? No one asks them if they're illegally here from China, Cambodia, Thailand.... Why is that?

We could very well be overrun with illegal white Canadians...no one would say a word, because no one blinks when a white person applies for social aid, takes a job flipping burgers, or anywhere. No one looks at them askance and makes assumptions of their "right" to be here. No one in Minnesota is clammoring to patrol the border.

 

My point is, you have no idea how many whites are here illegal...from any country. People from Russia...Hungary, Bosnia, Serbia...all among whites who, unless you actually converse with them, you'd never know they were immigrants...and you'd never know if they were illegal or legal.

 

Asian people? No one asks them if they're illegally here from China, Cambodia, Thailand.... Why is that?

 

Are we?

I have no clue? Do you?

No I don't but I do know that there is an epidemic of illegals from south of the border.

 

I can also say that as a white man if asked by law enforcement I would have no problem with proving my citizenship,

No I don't but I do know that there is an epidemic of illegals from south of the border.

 

I can also say that as a white man if asked by law enforcement I would have no problem with proving my citizenship,

 

Why don't you know? Does it ever cross your mind when you're walking past a white person?

Why don't you know? Does it ever cross your mind when you're walking past a white person?

 

Never.