Supreme Court upholds key part of sta...

Supreme Court upholds key part of state immigration law

Posted in the Stroudsburg Forum

cabin

East Stroudsburg, PA

#1 Jun 25, 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-upholds-k...

'WASHINGTON (Reuters)- The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants on Monday, rejecting the Obama administration's stance that only the U.S. government should enforce immigration laws in the United States.'
lotta

Clarks Summit, PA

#2 Jun 25, 2012
That's encouraging though I'm glad that they struck down the requirement to carry documentation. I don't like where upholding that could have been taken.
rambler

East Stroudsburg, PA

#3 Jun 26, 2012
I agree with bambam on this one! THe feds SHOULD enforce it. Since they don't, I am for Arizona by default. Let's hope this is the first of a long line of SCOTUS decisions that push back this sorry man's incursions against the constitution.

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#4 Jun 26, 2012
rambler wrote:
I agree with bambam on this one! THe feds SHOULD enforce it. Since they don't, I am for Arizona by default. Let's hope this is the first of a long line of SCOTUS decisions that push back this sorry man's incursions against the constitution.
At least its not on the sly anymore.Its out there for everyone to see.
cabin

East Stroudsburg, PA

#5 Jun 26, 2012
lotta wrote:
That's encouraging though I'm glad that they struck down the requirement to carry documentation. I don't like where upholding that could have been taken.
Well just a small point.

How does one PROVE their status without documentation???
lotta

Clarks Summit, PA

#6 Jun 26, 2012
cabin wrote:
<quoted text>
Well just a small point.
How does one PROVE their status without documentation???
a smaller point :)- there's a difference between proving one's status with documentation (say within a reasonable amount of time) and being required to carry it.

I don't have a problem asking someone to prove their status. Requiring documentation be carried upon one's person at all times is a little too close to Nazi Germany for my taste. It could also be broadened to include the the same for all citizens, not just illegals, and that's nothing but opening a can of worms imho.

Requiring proof without requiring actual carrying of ID would be along the lines of being stopped by police while driving and finding you left your license and registration at home, I *think* you still have 24 hours to produce it/them, though I could be wrong.

And out of curiosity on a similar note, what's the deal with concealed weapons permits in PA? Must the permit be in your possession when carrying? I know it looks like a driver's license and could be easily carried but is there an actual law saying it must be on your person? I did a quick check of our PA LTCF process but can't see where actually carrying the license is required, only that to carry you have to apply for and be issued one.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Stroudsburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
best icecream and thick chocolate milk. 20 hr chuck 1
FeetPeace Scam ALERT (Jun '17) Feb 16 crisis 76
News Suspected serial robber reaches plea deal Feb 15 pajamas people facts 1
groundhog verses talking parrot Feb 8 Jim 1
News Working in the Elements in the Poconos Feb 8 More Fking Snow 1
Veteran who served two tours in Afghanistan cou... Feb 4 USMCVet 1
News Social Security disability approvals decline (Dec '13) Feb 4 Where my Gubmint ... 118

Stroudsburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Stroudsburg Mortgages