Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Perdogg
Man, talk about spin........

Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS KEY PART OF TOUGH ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW, IN DEFEAT FOR OBAMA
262 posted on 06/25/2012 7:43:34 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Cheerio
given that Reuters is part of the well established DBM, this headline must be designed to create sympathy for the poor little beleaguered Barry the clown.
297 posted on 06/25/2012 7:56:52 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies ]

To: Cheerio
From Standing with AZ prior to the decision:

•Section 2(B) – Check Immigration Status Based Upon “Reasonable Suspicion” This section requires state and local police officers to attempt to determine the immigration status of any person stopped under state or local law if “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. (Note: “reasonable suspicion” means having a valid reason to suspect unlawful activity, but not enough evidence to make an arrest.) This section also requires state and local authorities to determine the immigration status of any person placed under arrest, regardless of whether the person is suspected of being in the country unlawfully.

NOTES: This is the most critical provision. Despite numerous lower court arguments and endless news and blog disputes, “reasonable suspicion” has long been settled law. In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court clearly stated that it does not violate the 4th Amendment.Also, the U.S. Solictor General Donald Verilli himself had to concede that law enforcement officers in Arizona could ask about people’s legal immigration status even before this law passed. Once you concede that, the fight becomes simply whether the state can direct its officers how to exercise their discretion. And that is clearly permissible.

SWA expects the Court to uphold this Section. And it was.

309 posted on 06/25/2012 8:07:11 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson