Politics & Government

Support Supreme Court's Arizona Immigration Ruling?

Did the Supreme Court do a good job or did they blow it?

Patch is all about local, local, local, and sometimes that can include providing a platform for locals to discuss wider-spread issues. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Arizona SB 1070, the state's controversial immigration law, delivering a split decision, and we thought it might be something residents here have some opinions about.

According to the Huffington Post (which, like Patch, is owned by AOL), the Supreme Court struck some provisions of the law, but upheld parts that let law enforcement officials check people's immigration status while enforcing laws.

The courts let stand Section 2(B) of the law, which is referred to by some as the "papers please" provision, which requires "state law enforcement to demand immigration papers from anyone stopped, detained or arrested in the state who offers reasonably suspect is in the country without authorization," the Huffington Post reported.

Find out what's happening in Fair Oaks-Carmichaelwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

But, according to a report by CNN, the court struck down other key parts of the law including the following: allowing police to arrest undocumented immigrants without warrant where probable cause exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country; making it a crime for undocumented immigrants to fail to carry government identification and forbidding those who don't have authorization to work in this country to solicit employment.

Writing in the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained, "The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."

Find out what's happening in Fair Oaks-Carmichaelwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

That's what the Supreme Court thinks. Now we want to know what YOU think. Do you agree with the court's ruuling? Are there elements you would have liked to seen upheld? Should the "papers please" section have been struck down? Should California try to adopt some of the policies? Weigh in, Fair Oaks.

Like on Facebook | Follow on Twitter | Get Free Newsletter


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

More from Fair Oaks-Carmichael