May I see your papers, citizen?

We currently do a poor job regulating who is in America because we dont try very hard.

I am just curious, who do you think we should be keeping out now?

The goal of immigration law is to keep people out

But then I wanted to talk about the drug question

the goal of immigration law is to only let in the numbers and the types of people who are good for America

in that case perhaps you are lost....the title of this thread indicates that this is an immigration thread.

Quote:

And get rid of the damned war on drugs... prohibition didn't work in the 20's and it's not working now.

This is a rather funny link to make. Why would you want to legalize drugs without legalizing immigrants?

Do you agree that making a human behavior illegal doesn't stop it from happening, or don't you.

I get you are suggesting that targeting the users of illegal immigrants might be a tactic to stop illegal immigrants from entering the country. But how is different than targeting the users of illegal drugs to stop illegal drugs from coming?

It doesn't stop it, but it can reduce it.

"We must be mad, literally mad ..... It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre."

Enoch Powell (1912-1998), British Conservative Member of Parliament, 1968.

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has backed an Arizona law that punishes businesses hiring illegal immigrants, a law that opponents, including the Obama administration, say steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters.
The 5-3 ruling Thursday is a victory for supporters of immigration reform on the state level.
It was the first high court challenge to a variety of recent state laws cracking down on illegal immigrants, an issue that has become a political lightning rod.
The outcome could serve as a judicial warm-up for a separate high-profile challenge to a more controversial Arizona immigration reform law working its way through lower courts. That statute would, among other things, give local police a greater role in arresting suspected illegal immigrants.
The hiring case turned on whether state law tramples on federal authority.
"Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. "It relies solely on the federal government's own determination of who is an unauthorized alien, and it requires Arizona employers to use the federal government's own system for checking employee status."
Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007, allowing the state to suspend the licenses of businesses that "intentionally or knowingly" violate work-eligibility verification requirements. Companies would be required under that law to use E-Verify, a federal database to check the documentation of current and prospective employees. That database had been created by Congress as a voluntary, discretionary resource.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing federal law prohibits Arizona and other states from making E-Verify use mandatory. The group was supported by a variety of civil rights and immigration rights groups. The state countered that its broad licensing authority gives it the right to monitor businesses within its jurisdiction.
The Obama administration recommended a judicial review, and sided with businesses and civil rights groups.
A 1986 federal act significantly limited state power to separately regulate the hiring and employment of "unauthorized" workers. An exception was made for local "licensing and similar laws." Under the law, employees are required to review documentation to confirm someone's right to work in the United States, including checking the familiar I-9 immigration form. Civil and criminal penalties were strengthened, but businesses making a "good faith" effort to comply with I-9 procedures were generally immune from prosecution.
Roberts, backed by his four conservative colleagues, said "Arizona went the extra mile in ensuring that its law tracks (the federal law's) provisions in all material aspects."
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted E-Verify is a voluntary program, and said criticism that the federal government is not doing enough to enforce the law is irrelevant.
"Permitting states to make use of E-Verify mandatory improperly puts states in the position of making decisions ... that directly affect expenditure and depletion of federal resources," she wrote. Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case, since she had been the administration's solicitor general last year when the case was being appealed to the high court.
Gov. Jan Brewer had backed the law, telling CNN in December when the case was argued, "The bottom line is that we believe that if the (federal) government isn't going to do the job then Arizona is going to do the job. We are faced with a crisis."
This case could serve as a bellwether to how the court will view a larger, more controversial state immigration law from Arizona. Much of that statute was tossed out by a federal judge in August and is currently pending at a federal appeals court. It would, among other things, give police authority to check a person's immigration status if officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is in the country illegally.
The hiring case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (09-115)

he Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that penalizes businesses for knowingly hiring legal immigrants.

The decision applies only to businesses, and does not directly impact a more high-profile Arizona immigration law that requires police to check immigration status of individuals in certain circumstances.

Nevertheless, the 5-3 decision rejects arguments that states have no role in immigration matters, offering a possible preview of how the court may come down if it were to rule on the second, more controversial state immigration law. Arizona is currently appealing a ruling that blocked key components of that law, and the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
Under the less controversial Arizona law upheld Thursday, employers could lose their business licenses if they are found to have hired illegal immigrants. The law, McClatchy notes, also requires Arizona employers to use a federal program called E-Verify to check the immigration status of would-be workers.

Those voting to uphold the law: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Those voting against: Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayro. Justice Elana Kagan did not participate because of her prior role as President Obama’s solicitor general.

The decision is seen as a blow to both the Obama administration and the politically powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce, both of which had opposed the law.

Well we will see. If they keep electing conseratives they will keep getting the same kind of government

Alabama has passed a sweeping bill to crack down on illegal immigrants that both supporters and opponents call the toughest of its kind in the country, going well beyond a law Arizona passed last year that caused a furor there.

The measure was passed by large margins in the Alabama Senate and the House, both Republican-controlled, in votes on Thursday. Governor Robert Bentley, a Republican, is expected to sign the bill into law.

“Alabama is now the new No. 1 state for immigration enforcement,” said Kris Kobach, a constitutional lawyer who is secretary of state in Kansas. He has helped write many state bills to curtail illegal immigration, including Alabama’s.

“This bill invites discrimination into every aspect of the lives of people in Alabama,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the immigrants’ rights project of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has brought legal challenges against several state immigration-control laws. Calling Alabama’s bill “outrageous and blatantly unconstitutional,” Ms. Wang said, “We will take action if the governor signs it.”

The Alabama bill includes a provision similar to one that stirred controversy in Arizona, authorizing state and local police officers to ask about the immigration status of anyone they stop based on a “reasonable suspicion” the person is an illegal immigrant. Federal courts have suspended most of that Arizona law.

Alabama’s bill goes beyond Arizona’s. It bars illegal immigrants from enrolling in any public college after high school. It obliges public schools to determine the immigration status of all students, requiring parents of foreign-born students to report the immigration status of their children.