First Hispanic Supreme Court justice takes

[conspiracybeliever]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court was deep into arguments over Arizona's new immigration law on Wednesday when the high court's first Hispanic justice focused on how difficult it could be for police officers to determine whether someone they stop is in the United States legally.

Read more...

[+and-then]

I hope the State of Arizona has their choice protected in this matter. But I doubt it will happen.

[msmike1]

Obama and his people are so scared of a state actually doing something about the immigration policy they will come up with any argument to counter it. No matter how ridiculous it is. It is not that hard to determine if someone is a legal citizen or not. Do they have a social security number, a valid DL, does the social match the name on the DL and the birth date? It would be no more of a problem than determining if someone was lying about their name or identity. Common sense will have to come into play here. Could some people be detained and end up being legal citizens? I am sure that could happen, while I imagine it would be rare. People are detained for no reason now for crimes they didn't commit, while rare, it still happens. Does this mean we should abolish all laws?

This country has an enormous illegal alien problem. Anyone who disputes this is blowing hot air. How do we solve it? I don't know, but I do know the federal government is not going to do it. This is why I have no problem with states standing up for the legal citizens living there.

Mike

[ohio traveler]

I hope the State of Arizona has their choice protected in this matter. But I doubt it will happen.

Especially in an election year. Hispanics are a BIG democrat voting block and Obama desperately needs their votes.

( Yes. Sadly it's all about the votes )

[arenee]

Obama and his people are so scared of a state actually doing something about the immigration policy they will come up with any argument to counter it. No matter how ridiculous it is. It is not that hard to determine if someone is a legal citizen or not. Do they have a social security number, a valid DL, does the social match the name on the DL and the birth date? It would be no more of a problem than determining if someone was lying about their name or identity. Common sense will have to come into play here. Could some people be detained and end up being legal citizens? I am sure that could happen, while I imagine it would be rare. People are detained for no reason now for crimes they didn't commit, while rare, it still happens. Does this mean we should abolish all laws?

This country has an enormous illegal alien problem. Anyone who disputes this is blowing hot air. How do we solve it? I don't know, but I do know the federal government is not going to do it. This is why I have no problem with states standing up for the legal citizens living there.

Mike

Agreed!

We've got so many kids in the school I'm working at who are illegal. We pay for their education. We are not allowed to ask if they are legal or not. We just have to teach them as we do anyone else, but we can tell who they are. It's not difficult to determine these things. It's not at though we're going to stop random people in the street and arrest them but if states don't fight for their rights in matters like this, nothing gets done because as you stated, the fed. gov. isn't wasting their time on it.

[conspiracybeliever]

Obama and his people are so scared of a state actually doing something about the immigration policy they will come up with any argument to counter it. No matter how ridiculous it is. It is not that hard to determine if someone is a legal citizen or not. Do they have a social security number, a valid DL, does the social match the name on the DL and the birth date? It would be no more of a problem than determining if someone was lying about their name or identity. Common sense will have to come into play here. Could some people be detained and end up being legal citizens? I am sure that could happen, while I imagine it would be rare. People are detained for no reason now for crimes they didn't commit, while rare, it still happens. Does this mean we should abolish all laws?

This country has an enormous illegal alien problem. Anyone who disputes this is blowing hot air. How do we solve it? I don't know, but I do know the federal government is not going to do it. This is why I have no problem with states standing up for the legal citizens living there.

Mike

Her arguments were not ridiculous. It may not be hard to determine if they are legal citizens if you have a valid reason to stop them and check which is the problem. Yes it is a problem if legal citizens are detained and left in jail not knowing if they are legal citizens or if they have committed a crime. I don't imagine it would be rare which is already the problem with our legal system. It is corrupt enough. We don't need to add to it.

[tapirmusic]

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life..."

She is racist to the core. Google the above phrase if you don't agree. VIVA LA RAZA!!!!!

[ohio traveler]

Supreme Court justices are not suppose to base their decisions on their personal experiences due to their race or ethnicity. They are suppose to base it simply on the Constitutionality of the argument.

It really shouldn't be that difficult.

[Drayno]

Especially in an election year. Hispanics are a BIG democrat voting block and Obama desperately needs their votes.

( Yes. Sadly it's all about the votes )

And that's why those who are illegal are not outright kicked out.

Their children, once born here, will be assets when they are old enough to vote.

[ninjadude]

And that's why those who are illegal are not outright kicked out.

first of all, they are kicked right out.

Their children, once born here, will be assets when they are old enough to vote.

Second, considering someone born today would be voting in 18 years, that must be a really long con. But then with the racist beliefs of many Republicans, I'm not surprised they think this.

[Dredimus]

first of all, they are kicked right out.

False Statement... This administration has done more to STOP the deportation of illegals than any other. Though the liberal media will tell you they have deported more in the last year than any other administration. The Obama administration announced in April of 2011 that it would be ceasing all immediate deportation of illegal immigrants and give them a time option to apply for work visa's. Last year, I was hit by an illegal alien. He ran a redlight and slammed into me at an intersection doing about 50 miles an hour... my car was totalled and his was dead in the water. The police arrived and took our statements. The driver of the other car had no license, no insurance, no registration... no nothing... However, the officer let him walk off the scene. I asked the officer why he had done that and he was bluntly honest with me.

"If I arrest him, im going to spend 2 days doing paperwork to have him deported, he will be bussed across country at the tax payers expense and if we hold him for crimal trial, he will spend 6 weeks in jail while we wait on a judge. Either way, when he gets back south of the border, he will just walk across again and find his way back here. Meanwhile, we have paid thousands and thousands of dollars shifting him in the system and the chances are he will never be deported for it."

After being told that, I actually talked to a few cops about it, and even a few agents, and they all had the same mentality. Whats the point in fighting for it if the Fed isnt going to back you up?

Second, considering someone born today would be voting in 18 years, that must be a really long con. But then with the racist beliefs of many Republicans, I'm not surprised they think this.

Its funny how those that are trying "Stop" Racism are the ones that bring it up the most. This whole thread is an inflamitory one... there shouldnt even be an article about this. A Supreme Court Justice isnt supposed to rule based on their race... or their personal experience... its supposed to be about the constitution... I consider the bolded remark above to be a flame bait, lumping a large portion of people together like that is a wee bit rediculous and petty.

[ninjadude]

Though the liberal media will tell you they have deported more in the last year than any other administration.

a true statement. nothing "liberal" about it.

The Obama administration announced in April of 2011 that it would be ceasing all immediate deportation of illegal immigrants and give them a time option to apply for work visa's.

the operative word being "immediate" not never. a little reading comprehension is needed.

I asked the officer why he had done that and he was bluntly honest with me.

I would suspect his "honesty". They will tell you what you want to hear.

"If I arrest him, im going to spend 2 days doing paperwork to have him deported, he will be bussed across country at the tax payers expense and if we hold him for crimal trial, he will spend 6 weeks in jail while we wait on a judge. Either way, when he gets back south of the border, he will just walk across again and find his way back here. Meanwhile, we have paid thousands and thousands of dollars shifting him in the system and the chances are he will never be deported for it."

what do you want done? shot on sight?! We are a nation of laws and people are accorded their day in court. It is extremely difficult to police the border. More agents are on the way. That's why the military was helping out temporarily.

After being told that, I actually talked to a few cops about it, and even a few agents, and they all had the same mentality. Whats the point in fighting for it if the Fed isnt going to back you up?

How is the "fed" (assuming you mean federal government) not backing you (I'm assuming you mean them) up? Illegal immigrants are given their day in civil immigration court (even though some very legal ones have been deported), they do have to be transported. Maybe we could spend a little of that 100 BILLION dollars the republicans are spending in Afghanistan on border security! But no, they refuse to cut defense and in fact, vote consistently to increase it's funding. In fact, are trying to renege on the budget deal.

Edited May 1, 2012 by ninjadude

[Dredimus]

what do you want done? shot on sight?! We are a nation of laws and people are accorded their day in court. It is extremely difficult to police the border. More agents are on the way. That's why the military was helping out temporarily.

It kinda cracked me up that you took this stance... you say we are a nation of laws but want those who are here illegally to be given preferential treatment? lol

How is the "fed" (assuming you mean federal government) not backing you (I'm assuming you mean them) up? Illegal immigrants are given their day in civil immigration court (even though some very legal ones have been deported), they do have to be transported. Maybe we could spend a little of that 100 BILLION dollars the republicans are spending in Afghanistan on border security! But no, they refuse to cut defense and in fact, vote consistently to increase it's funding. In fact, are trying to renege on the budget deal.

The fed isnt backing anyone on this situation. There are LAWS to be enforced that are not being enforced and the federal government is going after those that do. The AZ Anti-illegal immigration law is a great example of this. At its core it does nothing more than federal law says it should do. However, the government wants to shut that down.

As for the bolded comment... you are forgetting Iraq, Libya, Pakistan and Yemen... the government can classify them as "short term, limited scope, tactical, peace keeping, humanitarian, human rights, omni-lateral incursions" all they want... but they are what they are... death and bloodshed... war.

*Edit for spelling*

Edited May 1, 2012 by Dredimus

[ninjadude]

you say we are a nation of laws but want those who are here illegally to be given preferential treatment?

exactly who is getting "preferential" treatment? and where did I say that? a quote would do. Going before a civil immigration court judge is not preferential treatment. Being transported back to their home country is not preferential treatment. It's the law.

The fed isnt backing anyone on this situation. There are LAWS to be enforced that are not being enforced and the federal government is going after those that do.

exactly how? What laws are not being enforced? Please give examples. Immigration law is being enforced. The borders are being patrolled. Both could stand an increase but no one will pay for it.

The AZ Anti-illegal immigration law is a great example of this. At its core it does nothing more than federal law says it should do. However, the government wants to shut that down.

no. you misunderstand. The federal government is in charge of immigration by law. The states are not. It's as simple as that. Federal law and constitution trumps state law. The AZ law is unconstitutional. The racial profiling was also disturbing.

As for the bolded comment... you are forgetting Iraq, Libya, Pakistan and Yemen... the government can classify them as "short term, limited scope, tactical, peace keeping, humanitarian, human rights, omni-lateral incursions" all they want... but they are what they are... death and bloodshed... war.

I agree but the point was the money being spent for the pentagon is obscene. The republicans adamantly refused to cut. Any of it. Ever. No matter how much death and bloodshed exists. No matter how many domestic issues exist. The choice is as simple as that. Being concerned about "short term, limited scope, tactical," etc. etc. doesn't change that position.

[Bama13]

exactly who is getting "preferential" treatment? and where did I say that? a quote would do. Going before a civil immigration court judge is not preferential treatment. Being transported back to their home country is not preferential treatment. It's the law.

exactly how? What laws are not being enforced? Please give examples. Immigration law is being enforced. The borders are being patrolled. Both could stand an increase but no one will pay for it.

no. you misunderstand. The federal government is in charge of immigration by law. The states are not. It's as simple as that. Federal law and constitution trumps state law. The AZ law is unconstitutional. The racial profiling was also disturbing.

I agree but the point was the money being spent for the pentagon is obscene. The republicans adamantly refused to cut. Any of it. Ever. No matter how much death and bloodshed exists. No matter how many domestic issues exist. The choice is as simple as that. Being concerned about "short term, limited scope, tactical," etc. etc. doesn't change that position.

I think we need to cut back on our military spending, but I can see why we are reluctant to do so. We had a small military at the beginning of the last century. Then WWI broke out. We increased our military and helped to win the war. Then we gutted our military. Lo and behold a few years later another huge war broke out. We increased out military again and helped to win another war. So the thinking of many folks is that if we had not gutted our military after WWI there may not have been a WWII. Hence the reluctance to drastically decrease our military again.

[Dredimus]

exactly who is getting "preferential" treatment? and where did I say that? a quote would do. Going before a civil immigration court judge is not preferential treatment. Being transported back to their home country is not preferential treatment. It's the law.

exactly how? What laws are not being enforced? Please give examples. Immigration law is being enforced. The borders are being patrolled. Both could stand an increase but no one will pay for it.

The fact that they are able to get here and be in country, working under the table, even some on welfare, all illegally, is a crime... thus the laws are not being enforced.

no. you misunderstand. The federal government is in charge of immigration by law. The states are not. It's as simple as that. Federal law and constitution trumps state law. The AZ law is unconstitutional. The racial profiling was also disturbing.

No, You misunderstand. The federal government is in charge of immigration regulation by law, not enforcement. This is Why Arizona's SB1070 has been upheld by the courts and its working.

" Since implementation of most of SB 1070, over 200,000 illegal aliens have left Arizona (self-deported). According to the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, 'Since SB 1070, Phoenix has experienced a 30-year low crime rate ... Old policing strategies didn't bring about these falling crime rates. SB 1070 did ... the deterrence factor this legislation brought about was clearly instrumental in our unprecedented drop in crime. And all of this without a single civil rights, racial profiling, or biased policing complaint.'

Today, Phoenix and surrounding cities are enjoying 30 year low crime rates. Arizona's overall crime rate is three times lower than the national average, and the state prison population is declining for the first time. State and local governments are saving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in education, healthcare and other expenses thanks to dramatically lower numbers of illegal aliens enrolling in schools, visiting hospitals, and using other taxpayer-funded services."

I agree but the point was the money being spent for the pentagon is obscene. The republicans adamantly refused to cut. Any of it. Ever. No matter how much death and bloodshed exists. No matter how many domestic issues exist. The choice is as simple as that. Being concerned about "short term, limited scope, tactical," etc. etc. doesn't change that position.

Another falsehood. The military's budget for 2013 is being downgraded considerably. The United States military is currently scaling back on troops , this number should be over 100,000 within the next 10 years. The base budget alone is down to 525b from 531b last year, the overseas combat operations is going to be at 88.4b down from 115b last year, and:

"The budget plan does not take into account an additional $600 billion in defense cuts that could be required after Congress failed to pass a compromise agreement to cut government spending by $1.2 trillion. The Pentagon could face cuts of another $50 billion a year, starting in 2013, unless Congress changes the law."

[ninjadude]

The fact that they are able to get here and be in country, working under the table, even some on welfare, all illegally, is a crime... thus the laws are not being enforced.

wow. So murder, theft, etc happen as well and are not being enforced? Your argument is leaking....

No, You misunderstand. The federal government is in charge of immigration regulation by law, not enforcement. This is Why Arizona's SB1070 has been upheld by the courts and its working.

wrong again. See the wiki entry below. Their law is still pending before courts. Parts of it were thrown out already. Millions of LEGAL citizens and immigrants left AZ and your state, leaving it in a learch financially. Whole neighborhoods have disappeared. And millions and millions of dollars did not go there out of protest. I could find the numbers if you want.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law enforcement agency under the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), responsible for identifying, investigating, and dismantling vulnerabilities regarding the nation's border, economic, transportation, and infrastructure security. The largest components within ICE are Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Enforcement & Removal Operations (ERO). Headquartered in Washington, D.C., ICE is charged with the investigation and enforcement of over 400 federal statutes within the United States, and maintains attachés at major U.S. embassies overseas.

ICE is led by a director, who is appointed at the sub-Cabinet level by the president of the United States, confirmed by the Senate, and reports directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security.^[3] The mission of ICE is to protect the United States and uphold public safety by enforcing immigration and customs laws.

Another falsehood. The military's budget for 2013 is being downgraded considerably. The United States military is currently scaling back on troops , this number should be over 100,000 within the next 10 years. The base budget alone is down to 525b from 531b last year, the overseas combat operations is going to be at 88.4b down from 115b last year, and:

"The budget plan does not take into account an additional $600 billion in defense cuts that could be required after Congress failed to pass a compromise agreement to cut government spending by $1.2 trillion. The Pentagon could face cuts of another $50 billion a year, starting in 2013, unless Congress changes the law."

oooh ahhh. 531 to 525. Seriously? The next largest, China, is 143b. We spend more than most of the world COMBINED. And your Repub buddies have threatened to NO go thru with the automatic cuts. Or get around it somehow.

[Dredimus]

wow. So murder, theft, etc happen as well and are not being enforced? Your argument is leaking....

When murder, theft, etc happen, the cases are investigated and the law is enforced.... your LOGIC is leaking...

wrong again. See the wiki entry below. Their law is still pending before courts. Parts of it were thrown out already. Millions of LEGAL citizens and immigrants left AZ and your state, leaving it in a learch financially. Whole neighborhoods have disappeared. And millions and millions of dollars did not go there out of protest. I could find the numbers if you want.

You are pinpointing your side of the arguement based on twisted wording... not only that but twisted wording from a Wiki article... nice... Here is the fact... based on LAW.

"The preliminary question is whether the states have inherent power (subject to federal preemption) to make arrests for violation of federal law. That is, may state police, exercising state law authority only, make arrests for violations of federal law, or do they have power to make such arrests only insofar as they are exercising delegated federal executive power? The answer to this question is plainly the former.

The source of this authority flows from the states’ status as sovereign entities. They are sovereign governments possessing all residual powers not abridged or superceded by the U.S. Constitution. The source of the state governments’ power is entirely independent of the U.S. Constitution. See Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 193 (1819). Moreover, the enumerated powers doctrine that constrains the powers of the federal government does not so constrain the powers of the states. Rather, the states possess what are known as "police powers," which need not be specifically enumerated. Police powers are "an exercise of the sovereign right of the government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the people…" Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905). Essentially, states may take any action (consistent with their own constitutions and laws) unless there exists a prohibition in the U.S. Constitution or such action has been preempted by federal law."

oooh ahhh. 531 to 525. Seriously? The next largest, China, is 143b. We spend more than most of the world COMBINED. And your Repub buddies have threatened to NO go thru with the automatic cuts. Or get around it somehow.

Yes.. I'm sure my "Repub Buddies" have all the power to do what they need to do... never mind the senate... the pres... your lack of logic baffles me.. you are stuck to one mind set and you are unwilling to listen to anything else.

Here's another hot fact for you... China only pays their soldiers roughly 13k annually before taxes... roughly 10k after taxes... US Soldiers are actually given a decent wage. Not to mention that China isn't involved in multiple wars/peacekeeping/humanitarian efforts... and china isn't called upon every time a threat arises around the world... Our military is also used in cases of environmental incidents... tsunami... hurricanes... earthquakes... around the world..