Correction: the Court did not finally uphold the "stop and check" portion, it just said it didn't find it unconstitutional, and it can be enforced for now. It did not rule out finding it unconstitutional, at least as applied, in future cases.

I am a libertarian so i am actually for this. In a free country you should be able to walk anywhere without getting asked where your papers are. This is very important ruling to me because i feel that next step if this was upheld is a national id card. This i feel is a great ruling now we just need Obamacare to be overturned next.

Well, liam, you won't like this...

1. Police Checks. Section 2(B) of the law requires the police to check the immigration status of persons whom they detain before releasing them.

***It also allows the police to stop and detain anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant.***

The Court held that the lower courts were wrong to prevent this provision from going into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated. It was not sufficiently clear that the provision would be held preempted, the Court held. The Court took pains to point out that the law, on its face, prohibits stops based on race or national origin and provides that the stops must be conducted consistent with federal immigration and civil rights laws. However, it held open that the provision could eventually be invalidated after trial.



Better carry your papers cause they can still stop you and ask for them if they suspect you are in the coutnry illegally.

I don't know what the big deal is. Most people I know carry ID with them at all times. I think that instead of carrying ID, you should just have a predetermined amount of time (say, 48 hours) to provide documentation if you are arrested.

gunfighter, that wont work. If you are here illegally, you going to come back to show papers you dont have?

I personally, carry my ID with me always, so it is not a big deal, but any police officer who pulls me over will probably know I am not illegal as soon as he hears my native English.

Now, THAT being said, a heavy accented English (like my father has) is not a reason to assume a person is illegal, but unable to speak English at all, is a big red flag i would think.

Discuss.

Question: What actions could one do that would unequivocally indicate illegal presence in the country without requiring police to make a lot of spotty logic leaps (at least some of which are racial in nature) to conclude such?

Unless you're using a car-mounted loudspeaker for some reason, your ability/inability to speak English won't have any bearing on whether they pull you over to check your papers. And there's plenty of people who are legally in America who can't speak English well or even at all. There's at least one country that we automatically grant everyone who comes here from there asylum regardless of how they got here or what forms they fill out, etc.

First, not all illegals are of one race. Quite a few Russians and Irish now in the country that have crossed that SAME border,

I just said for me, if someone can not speak English, I am going to at least consider it possible they do not belong, and check.

heavily accented English, different story, but still, worth a check,

Someone who has native English, I doubt I will check.

Does not the law say "someone they suspect..."

Speaking, Native and Fluent English is not going to make me think they are illegal, regardless of race.

Sacred, then all will be okay when they get checked, right?

What country is that btw?

@ Stressedlines

That's the point. You give them a reasonable chance (a day or two) to prove that they are here legally. If they cannot provide paperwork, they get arrested and deported.

I am glad that they upheld the most important part of the law. Now maybe Arizona can lead the charge against illegal aliens.

Cuba

Cuba. If you're from Cuba, you don't need papers to be here legally. So...it won't be okay.

@Gunfighter - Why should I have to prove anything to the police? It's their job to prove other people HAVE committed crimes, not citizens jobs to prove that we HAVEN'T.

If the police have probably cause to believe that I've committed a crime (including the the crime of being in the country illegally), they can arrest me. If not, they can jump in a lake.

Citizens should not be required to carry documentation with them that proves they are here legally, and they should not be required to cooperate with some cop who stops them because they look like they're here illegally.

I almost never carry ID with me. But then I live in the UK and I can't remember ever having been challenged for ID other than in a situation in which I could plan for it - ie going through airport customs (when obviously I *would* have my passport on me).

The only widely-accepted forms of ID that I have are (a) my passport, and (b) my driving licence. Both of them would cost me money to replace, if I lost them or had them stolen, so I never carry either when I'm just going about my day-to-day business.

(Der. "probable cause". sry.)

@SacredDigits - You made one assumption I'm not fond of. You assume the person is being "pulled over". Not all stops are vehicular in nautre. If you are loitering in a no-loitering zone and police man asks to see your ID, it is called a "stop". He has temporarily detained you to validate why you are doing something that may be illegal.

@Dys - Police cooperation is a requirement of *everyone* no matter the circumstances. You don't have to answer questions with regards to what you are doing or where you have been. Those are all protected under your Miranda rights, but you do have to provide your name and identification if requested.

@Gunfighter - you give them a day or two and, if they are illegal, they are gone. You ain't finding them. So it doesn't work.

@Draugnar-

I am unaware of any federal code provision which mandates that a person give their name and address or provide identification to the police at a Terry stop. The majority of states do not have "Stop and Identify" laws on their books, either.

Fair enough, Draug. But the law allows them to pull vehicles over if they suspect the people in them to maybe be illegal, so the "how good is your English" doesn't work (and is a faulty assumption anyway, as that's not a requirement for citizenship).

As for "round 'em up and deport 'em"...deport them where? Illegals come through Mexico (and through Canada for that matter) from a wide variety of places. And they obviously left wherever they're from for a reason so would be generally disinclined to reveal their country of origin. Mexico is unlikely to accept a deportation involving individuals that you can't prove are from Mexico (and can't really prove decidedly came through Mexico to get here...you can only prove they avoided US customs, in most cases). So where are you deporting them to? We don't, as yet, force people to get their countries of origins tatooed onto their bodies.

The Supreme Court allowed Arizona to attempt to enforce a portion of the law. The first time an Arizona law enforcement official enforces that portion the ACLU will claim the enforcement action was not done properly, a federal judge will issue and injunction, and a new case will head back up the system. This was not a particularly effective judgement today.

Don't forget I'm an open borders supporter myself. Let anyone in who want to come in, but that isn't the law.

gUNFIGHTER, that was my point. If 24 hours, you wont ever see them again...lol

@Gunfighter - Reopen alcatraz and dump them there. No guards, just drops of food from helicopters once in a while when we have spare funds and think about it. They are criminally trespassing. So put them behind bars, the cheapest and worst bars possible. Suddenly the US won't seem like such a friendly place to run to illegally.

@BGK - In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop-and-identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

I'm opposed to anything in the class of state-sponsored cruel and unusual punishment, which dumping someone in a place with no guards and only intermittent food supplies would qualify as.

Plus, we make some decent tourism revenue off Alcatraz as it is.

Glad they struck down key parts of it, disappointed that the stop-and-check aspect remains...

This sums up my feelings:

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

"I know they will not be using that kind of tactic on people with the last name Roberts, Romney, or Brewer, but if your name is something like Gutierrez or Chung or Obama, watch out," said Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

In Arizona:

If You're White, You're All Right, If You're Brown, Get Outta Town.

Sickening.

@Draugnar - That's not exactly true. If I'm walking down the street, the police are free to say "Hey buddy, can we talk to you for a second." I, however, am free to say "no" and keep walking. I am not required to stop and talk to them. If they do not have some independent articulable suspicion that I have done something illegal, they cannot constitutionally detain me at that point. It is in no way illegal to decline the police officer's polite request to talk to you.

Likewise, the police have to have some justifiable reason to ask for your identification. They cannot simply walk down main-street asking people to show their ID. Not constitutional.

Now if they do have some reasonable suspicion that I've committed some crime or infraction, they can stop and detain me long enough to investigate that. As a part of that process, they can ask for ID if so asking in some way reasonably furthers their investigation. And of course because you have to have a license to drive a car, they can always ask a driver for their license. If after all that they have probable cause, they can arrest me.

I like the plus!

Actually, I'm more of a reform guy that says "bust 'em after we have a system in place to make them legal when we pull them in". My idea is that we are a nation founded on imigration. Only the native American tribes, Hawaiians, and Inuits are tuly native to the lands we occupy. So lets keep it open to those who only wish to do well. And we can set up an easy transition. As we "bust" an illegal, wehold them while we do a background check to make certain they aren't a wanted fugitive in another country. If they come back clean, then we give them the papers to make them legal. If they refuse to cooperate or come back dirty, *then* we take more drastic measures.

@Dys - The point of the law is that it is only during a detainment for suspicion of another crime. At that point, they can ask for ID. The key is "Am I free to go". If they say know, then they must have reasonable suspicion or justification and you are then obligated to identify yourself. Nothing more. But ignoring their command and walking away has been foudn as justification to detain.Your best option is to stop. Hear their first question and ask "Am I free to go?" until they say yes or no. If they ignore it, just keep asking. If they say no, clam up and ask for a lawyer, but give them the ID or they then have grounds for a search of your person.

I think Bob will back me on this one. Admitedly, it comes form my brother, the cop, as well as numerous websites, but once we are formally detained, half our rights go out the window. If we then refuse to obey the simple "identify yourself", the rest go out the window.

@ Draug

How can they be gone if they are in jail? Keep them under arrest for that time.