Supreme Court issues split decision on Arizona immigration law

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Split this off from the thread it was originally posted which was about a different Arizona law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The opinion is in:

Arizona v. United States

It largely upheld the lower courts here but said that for now section 2(B) of SB 1070 can go forward, regarding the checks on ID that the police were to make in certain circumstances, but left open it being overturned later based on how it is implemented.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As long as they get rid of the provision forcing people to carry immigration documents with them, I will be happy. That part of the law is ridiculous and makes immigrants targets of criminals who would like to steal their documents to sell it. And then later on it can be challenged for racial profiling, which will inevitably happen. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either extremely naive, or doesn't really care whether it happens.

So, you want Title 8, Section 1304, subsection (e) of the United States Code, to be struck down?  On what basis?

I'm pretty sure Sbane articulated his basis in his post, but I already knew that you have the reading comprehension of a small child off his Ritalin, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Nathan, while Sbane articulated why he thought it was a bad law, he gave no basis for why he wanted it to be found unconstitutional.  While it would have been nice if CARL had been a little less cryptic, 8 USC 1304 (e) is the provision of Federal law that requires resident aliens to carry their green card.  That said, depending on how SB 1070 2(B) is implemented it could effectively require U.S. citizens to carry an ID card with them at all times in order to minimize the harassment law enforcement could subject them to.  So CARL, make certain you carry your driver's license with you when you go jogging in case you get stopped by the cops while you get your exercise.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I suggest that you might want to check on Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).  If that official cite is too "cryptic" for you, I'll provide a link to a brief on the case.

Yes, giving a bare cite without explaining why you think it is relevant is indeed cryptic.  Ideally, links should be for providing corroborating information for those who chose to peruse it, not something that must be examined in order to understand what a person means.  Simply mentioning you believe that Hibel establishes that simply giving a name is sufficient identification during a police stop-and-identify would have been far less cryptic, but denied you a chance for some snark.  At least from what you wrote that is what I think you believe.  If that is your belief, you are wrong.

In Hibel, the Court interpreted the Nevada statue as being satisfied by the interviewee giving a name to the policeman who stopped him, and found that there were Constitutional problems raised by requiring that a name be given, but it did not set that as the absolute limit as to what could be asked.  As cited in Hibel, in Kolender v. Lawson,  461 U.S. 352 (1983), the Court found that California's requirement that a person subjected to a stop and identify interview provide "credible and reliable" identification was too vague.  However, SB 1070 2(B) is not at all vague as to what identification it wants to end potential police harassment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I stand by my previous advice to you that you make certain you carry your "Get Out Of Jail Free" card at all times while in Arizona.  Depending on how 2(B) gets implemented, you may need to.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have no problem dealing with citations, CARL; it's just irritating to have to open another webpage just because you couldn't be bothered to write a simple sentence.

CARL, if you don't think some of Arizona's finest won't use SB 1070 2(B) as an excuse to demand to see the identification of US citizens whose appearance they don't like, you are either naive or stupid.  However, I don't think you are either of those, but rather that you don't care if those people get hassled.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Verify workers before they are hired. Increase enforcement to ensure proper verification is happening and of course make e verify available to help businesses and employers comply.

So, if alien s illegally present in this country are employed off the books as drug smugglers, prostitutes, etc, its ok since those lines of business don't use eVerity?

I do wonder why you keep acting as if the majority of illegals come here to commit other crimes.

Then catch the drug smugglers as you would regularly ( prostitution shouldn't be a crime) and then deport them. The US already departs criminals at high rates and that should continue. Of course the magnitude of the crime should be taken into account as well.

Agreed, and not just prostitution.  We should legalize, regulate, and tax the prostitution and recreational drug industries.  (Not all drugs, but the detrimental side effects from the international drug trade in marijuana, cocaine, and opiods combined with it being more cost effective to treat the use of those drugs as a medical problem rather than a criminal problem mean that I favor legalizing those.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Verify workers before they are hired. Increase enforcement to ensure proper verification is happening and of course make e verify available to help businesses and employers comply.

So, if alien s illegally present in this country are employed off the books as drug smugglers, prostitutes, etc, its ok since those lines of business don't use eVerity?

I do wonder why you keep acting as if the majority of illegals come here to commit other crimes.

Then catch the drug smugglers as you would regularly ( prostitution shouldn't be a crime) and then deport them. The US already departs criminals at high rates and that should continue. Of course the magnitude of the crime should be taken into account as well.

Agreed, and not just prostitution.  We should legalize, regulate, and tax the prostitution and recreational drug industries.  (Not all drugs, but the detrimental side effects from the international drug trade in marijuana, cocaine, and opiods combined with it being more cost effective to treat the use of those drugs as a medical problem rather than a criminal problem mean that I favor legalizing those.)

I never said anhtni ng about a majorityh.

However, a substantial number do commit crimes while illegally in the United States. 

You seem to want to cover up those crimes.

No, I want to law enforcement to focus on serious crimes rather than being a pack of Javerts.