.
Should states have more to say about their own border security?
April 24th, 2012
03:32 PM ET

Should states have more to say about their own border security?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The immigration wars will heat up once again tomorrow.

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the constitutionality of Arizona's controversial law.

It requires Arizona officials to check the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested who they suspect is an illegal alien. But the Obama Administration sued to prevent it from going into effect.

Supporters say it's necessary because of the federal government's failure to secure the nation's borders. States like Arizona have had to deal with serious security issues along with the steep cost of education and health care for illegal aliens.

Critics say the law encourages racial profiling and forces state law enforcement to interfere with federal immigration policy.

The Supreme Court ruling is expected in June, which means like health care, it's sure to be a political hot potato headed into the election.

If the Supreme Court upholds the law, Senate Democrats are reportedly planning to force a vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona's law.

Of course this has little chance of passing a divided Congress, but it's a way for Democrats to appeal to Hispanic voters before November.

Senate Democrats might be interested to learn most Americans agree with Arizona's approach. A new Quinnipiac Poll shows 68% approve of the Arizona law. Only 27% don't. And 62% say the Supreme Court should uphold the law.

Here’s my question to you: Should states have more to say about their own border security?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

Posted by
Filed under: On Jack's radar • United States
soundoff (99 Responses)
  1. Eric - Houston

    No, the federal government should enforce the laws on the books thereby eliminating both the room for and need for the states' involvement. The states should however be able to step in anytime the federal government commits nonfeasance which I certainly believe has been the case so far.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
  2. Dave - Phx

    Yes, it's the one thing Republicans have right and Democrats have wrong. Immigration is fine, illegal immigration is a huge burden to the citizens impacted by it. Ever have one crash into your car? The get no ticket, no fine, no insurance, and we pay. Try going to the emergency room on a weekend in Arizona, filled with free health care illegals.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
  3. jk in MN

    No – border security needs to have one standard applied to it.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
  4. Mel - Houston

    When state start making treaties with their border countries then they can have a greater role in the control of their border. There is this little thing call the "U. S. Constitution" that states in Article II Section 10: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal..... If a state wants to volunteer its services to protect their border and it's approved by the State Department I guess that's fine.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
  5. Loren

    If it means keeping people from Indiana out of Illinois, then I'm all for it, but then I suppose you mean border states like Arizona and Texas having a say in who can cross the Rio Grande. The U.S. Constitution leaves that to the Federal Government, and while the current administration seems to pay only lip service to secure borders, recent reports show that the global economy has rendered the question less of an issue than it was five years ago. Unfortunately, politicians do what wins them votes rather than what's right, so as long as there are Hispanic voters, the Federal government will oppose allowing more say in border security to the states.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
  6. Karl from Flint, MI

    It depends on who is talking. The citizens of border states should have a lot to say but the politicians and their financial benefactors in the private prison business should not. Arizona is a classic example. The border counties just take the illegals back to the border patrol who returns them to Mexico. Yes they come back, but this system isn't clogging up the judicial system and jails at an enormous cost to the taxpayers while making the private prison owners and the politicians they support wealthier and not actually stopping or even slowing the flow into the state. The republicans are selling this "security blanket" to the public out of one of their faces while continuing to hire illegals with their other face. They have two, you know.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
  7. Jim, Denver CO

    Jack,
    The borders and immigration are a Federal level concern. States like Arizona need to stop fighting against the Federal government and work with it. Enough is enough.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
  8. marcia in west virginia

    States sould have control when the feds aren't doing their job which is to secure the borders!!! Bring all the guys home esp. the National Guard(hense the name) and let them do their job here!

    April 24, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
  9. John From Alabama

    Jack: States have always had more say so over their borders than the federal government. The federal government has oversite who enters and leaves this country. The problem who has legal rights over immigrants. It is the federal governmemt with the mustard.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
  10. Steve, Clifton, Virginia

    Jack this question is on a Slippery slope as it could potential feed the unpatriotic notions like those held once by Texas that it wanted to succeed from the United States. Having States have more say in their borders than they already have could prove disastrous should States that are surrounded by other States decide that they wanted to renegotiate and/or expand their State borders. States who share borders with other countries are clearly the responsibility of the Federal Government and like many other national interest issues, the Federal Government should closely consult with those States who have a greater vested interest.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
  11. Carl

    Jack,
    Yes we should, but not according to Obama! Obama doesn't want to do anything that might lose him the illegal alien vote, and he doesn't want states to do anything about it either, sad.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
  12. Bill of New Mexico

    The answer is obvious if you are a border state.

    A large budget for illegal aliens' school kids is required.

    A large budget is required for the illegal aliens when they finally go to the emergency room; or else, allow your hospitals to go bankrupted.

    Many other costs are required for them as well.

    It is most cost effective to hire more police to detect them and to escort them over to the border patrol.

    Who ever thinks the feds should be in charge, should come up with revenue to reimburse the border states as well as other states.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
  13. Andre R. Newcomb

    No. The 10th ammendment ONLY encompasses jurisdiction within the border (State). Making noise is OK, though.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
  14. Bert in Los Angeles

    Hi Jack, the problem with States being involved in immigration issues is that the involvement is more of a two-way street than even the Federal involvement. During good economic times all are welcomed to the party but when the party is over, local prejudice festers. That’s what happened in Arizona and the rights of good people of color, which are the rights of us all, get infringed.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
  15. tom Bulger, Canandaigua, NY

    We've been down that road already. State borders were manned and tariffs and tolls were collected. It was an impediment to commerce that necessitated a federal government. Why learn History if we are only going to repeat its mistakes?

    April 24, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
  16. Noel Sivertson New Mexico

    They should have some say, but only when tempered by the federal government. I live in a border state, New Mexico, that does not have the Draconian laws that intimidate not only undocumented but also those who are native born or here legally like Arizona has.

    The only way to make sure states don't fall into jingoism and xenophobia is to make sure federal guidelines and restrictions temper state laws that become overly severe and wide reaching.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
  17. Greg in Arkansas

    Absolutely, states should control their borders....I mean.....I don't want someone sneaking across the Arkansas state line from Texas or Tennessee to "steal" my job.....and...why not set up border crossing check-points like they did in eastern European Soviet countries, armed with AK-47's and demand papers for everyone that wants to cross?.....but....

    Let's get real, people WANT to come to this country because of our freedom.....but, IF we become like a "police" state and give up more of our freedom to gain some security........what will we achieve????

    April 24, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
  18. Tom in Desoto, TX

    States should not be empowered to be a rouge state using force or methods not allowable by the federal government. If that's allowed, when will counties, then towns, decide the state isn't protecting their territory. Order would soon turn to chaos.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
  19. Dave, Orlando, FL

    Since the federal government isn’t doing anything to stem the invasion of who knows who entering our country, certainly the states should have more say – a lot more say.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
  20. barbara in nc

    Sure - and they can use the profits from their private prisons to pay for it. I have a friend in AZ that says Arpaio's prison is making him and Brewer a bunch in kick-backs. $$$$$$ for every one they lock up - incentive? You bet.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
  21. jim in nc

    Absolutely. The Federal government is not interested in border security so why not let the people on the ground have a say. If the states start tackling border security maybe the Federal government will send some help. Of course the help will probably be in the form of ladders for the illegals to cross the fence.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
  22. Doug Ericson

    There is no short answer for this question. Ideally, the State and the Federal government should be on the same page, regarding the imigration laws and the enforcement of them. If I were a Supreme Court Justice deciding the Arizona case, I would side with Arizona. The Federal government needs to get off the steroids. Doug, Pepperell, MA.

    April 24, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
  23. John Lake Charles, LA

    Absolutely Jack. It's obvious that the Federal Government can not or will not deal with the immigration problems or with border security. Individual states are trying to do what the Feds won't and all they get for their efforts are lawsuits filed against them by the Feds. Claiming that a federal law that is not being enforced automatically prevents a state from passing and enforcing the same law is ridiculous. This beaurocratic nonsense has to stop.

    April 24, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
  24. Kevin SD CA

    If the federal government isn’t going to seal the border then the States need to do it themselves and any state that doesn’t seal the border should be annexed over to Mexico and cut off from all federal aid! Between Corporate welfare and government welfare and entitlements we are reverting back to before the Revolutionary War from England!

    April 24, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
  25. Bizz, Quarryville Pennsylvania

    Sure leave them have it. I guess sometimes the only way you can learn is the hard way. There are many states like Georgia going after illegal aliens. Now they are hurting and losing their crops because they have no workers. You know the old saying be careful what you wish for it might come true. I would expect some states like Texas and Arizona to have laws allowing them to shoot first and ask questions later. The Republicans love going back in time so we might as well go back to the old Western days.

    April 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
  26. Ed from California

    As long as those states, have their own funding to do it.....then yes. The constitution protects states rights. And part of those rights is protecting the land and it's citizens. With more and more job loss and the Teaplicans giving money away to the top 1%. I don't see how we can fight wars and border wars too, w/no income tax being put into the treasury. We need workers to pay tax, and that tax pays for our life, liberty and justice. Mr. Boehner, "Where are the jobs"?

    April 24, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
  27. Richard Texas

    You would think so but that isn't how it works. States get money fro border security from the government. For every Tax dollar that Texas sends in to the government in taxes it gets .94 cents back in Federal Aid. That means that The United States government gets to keep 6 cents from every dollar that Texas residents sends in. New Mexico gets $2.03 cents for every dollar it sends in each year in Taxes. Believe it or not The District of Columbia, Washington DC gets back $5.55 for every dollar it sends in. I have a question though? What foreign border is surrounding Washington DC. These numbers are provided by the Tax foundation

    April 24, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
  28. Brad, Portland, OR

    If states CAN'T enforce border laws, that opens a whole can of worms.

    If the Supreme Court rules that only federal law enforcement can enforce federal laws, and that it's illegal for states to pass their own laws about federal matters, does that mean that only the DEA will be able to enforce drug laws?

    Local and state police wouldn't be able to arrest people for drug possession anymore, since that's a federal law.

    April 24, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
  29. James - Alexandria, VA

    If that is what it is going to take then yes. Seeing the Federal Government wants open borders with Mexico and Canada so their North American Union can be established then states will have to fight for their own sovereignty. It will be the only way to keep what independence we have left. Fight NAU and fight NAFTA!

    April 24, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
  30. Sharon

    Since Ga was founded as a penial colony-–probably. It can not do annthing right.
    Take the port of Sav. .....in 1960's a H-bomb was dropped around Tybee Isl. now all abord to dregg the port depper....
    gotta macke those $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Wonder when they will hit it?
    Of course, there is the first impression that every thing is just "peachy" here is Ga, unitl you live here for awhile.....then, well............let's just say it is a state that is "sorta" nice just to drive through....but be very carefull of all the traffic "pits"......you will know you are in one, if you see cars lining the I-95 in a group.
    So....take care of the state? manage security? OH ,Jack could you ask much easier ??????????????????????

    April 24, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
  31. Michael Bindner, Alexandria VA

    No. Sadly, empowering southern law enforcement to deal with immigration issues may just result more in southern sherrifs returning runaway workers to bondage than steering trafficked workers to the INS so that they can receive the appropriate visa available to the victims of trafficking. If local law enforcement took on rescuing labor and sex trafficking victims, rather than border enforcement, no one would complain about their involvement in immigration policy.

    April 24, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
  32. Riley ODay

    States should have total control of their borders. Of course I believe a state should be allowed to leave the union.
    Thats freedom.

    April 24, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
  33. Chris from Florida

    States' border rights have been tested in the Supreme Court but they are getting more and more murky. When all we had was dirt roads and split-rail fences it was much more clear. Immigration is a new States' border issue because some States made it a "border issue" through conroversial legislation. The Federal Government has done nothing to help the states enforce their laws because of its pandering to the Latino vote (BOTH Republicans and Democrats). If my job had been lost to an illegal immigrant I'd care a lot about my state's rights and its borders. Lets be clear: Latinos want non-enforcement of states' border rights and immigration laws so they can encroach on the economic opportunity of US Citizens, and get free taxpayer-funded services with impunity. Why else a desire to stir-up the border conversation Jack?

    April 24, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
  34. METALWORKER

    Which borders? The borders with other countrys or with other states. Can they put checkpoints at borders and if they do not like tou send you back. Check your papers from the states you live in.
    It seems like its giving a lot of power to the lower 48
    Jack, we have been there, do we need to go back? I hope not. This is a country issue not a state issue. Maybe we can meke it a county issue or a city issue, neighborhood? Where does it stop.
    Ort we can all arm ourselves and just shoot anyone for any reason or no reason METALWORKER in IL

    April 24, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
  35. Thom Richer

    No. Not on this issue. It has nation wide consequences and should be a constant throughout the land. We are made up of 50 states and to attempt to enforce each differently would be futile. This is one instance when being a "United" country we must regulate as one. "United we stand...divided we fall." This applies to border safety and regulation.

    Thom Rjicher
    Negaunee, MI

    April 24, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
  36. Ken in California

    We are the United States that functions on joint actions. Of late there are those who strive to separate our Union. For instance, Red States versus Blue States, where there are those who would care to put up a border and separate from their own fellow citizens.

    April 24, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
  37. MARK, OKLAHOMA CITY

    Yes! The states that border a foreign country should have the right not to be 'invaded' by foreign nationals who decide they want to go to that state for medical care, jobs or anything else for that matter. They are here ILLEGALLY. If Mexico bordered Washington D.C. you can bet your last buck there would be a fence that would make the Berlin Wall look like a speed bump!

    April 24, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
  38. Sandstone.

    But of course they should, as it seems to me, it is the state that has to police the area to protect the business who pays the bills."

    April 24, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
  39. kim smith, Dodge City, Ks.

    I think just the states with borders shared directly with a foreign country, not including oceans, should have expanded protocols that reflect their particular circumstances. I doubt if Idaho suffers from the same level of border instability that Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas experience, therefor it would make sense to tailor those security programs to be the most effective. Federal responsibility would still exist and should overide state procedures in emergency situations or special conditions.

    April 24, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
  40. Andrew- Regina,Saskatchewan, Canada

    No. National borders are National security issues and should not be left up to the states as we have seen they have the tendancy to screw up when it comes to identifying who are illegals and who are legally immigrated United States citizens.

    April 24, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
  41. Joe Fattal

    Unless they all become independent countries, security between states will remain open.

    April 24, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
  42. Paul From Round Rock, Texas

    What the states should do is petition the federal governorment to do their job and enforce boarder laws strickly and to dotting all I's and crossing all T's. Also we should use our troops on the boaders like many other countries do. At least to back up and aid the Boader Patrol with heavy fire power that they no do not have enough of. Bring out troops home and use them at home. The time has come for such action now.

    April 24, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
  43. ken, atlantic city, nj

    Yes states should have more to say since they are the ones who have to pay for the education of illegals,the emergency room bills for illegals, and unemployment benefits for legal residents who can't find work because some illegal is doing their work at a cheaper rate.

    April 24, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
  44. Gary H. Boyd

    Jack, my boy, that's a GREAT question. As a 35 year resident of Arizona I totally support our state Senate bill 1070 on our right to enforce federal laws on immigration that Obama, Holder, and Napolitano refuse to, Hopefully, the Supreme Court will agree with Arizona.. The Obama crowd is completely out of touch with the reality.of this very thorny issue.

    Gary Boyd in Scottsdale, Arizona

    April 24, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
  45. John

    The states should be responsible for their own borders, not the Fed. Govt. because the Feds aren't doing their job. They just ignore the States request for help.

    April 24, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
  46. Emmett M. Smith

    Dear Jack,
    we need a constitutional amendment that shifts the responsibility- and the resources- for securing our borders to the states (except in time of war with another nation). The federal govt. can't do anything right any more.
    Yours truly,
    Emmett Smith'
    Mobile, AL

    April 24, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
  47. Gary in San Jose, California

    No the states shouldn't have more say in boarder security because it doesn't address the real issue. We don't enforce our current immigration laws. If we're not going to enforce existing immigration laws then we need to write the laws we are willing to enforce. We incent them to come here and then claim we need better border security to keep them out. It's like leaving your keys in the car and claiming we need better car security. It's really kind of silly Jack.

    April 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
  48. Kyle S Irvine, CA

    Absolutely Jack,
    illegal immigration is a serious threat to national security, and the states budget. Our immigration laws are a JOKE in this country. First, immigrants come here illegally, use our heath care clinics at our expense, they are granted amnesty, given drivers licenses and it goes on and on. I applaud Arizona for taking a stand on this problem and Arizona should tell the federal government to take their liberalism and shove it!

    April 24, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
  49. BILL, WI

    The Democrats are already lining up votes on legislation to invalidate an anticipated Supreme Court ruling on the AZ immigration law. If, as the Democrats say, a state can not enforce any Federal law does that also include kidnapping, bank robbery, counterfeiting of US currency, crossing statelines to avoid prosecution or intercepting weapons to be smuggled into Mexico.

    April 24, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
  50. Joseph W. Pearson

    Jack: To hear most folks on the Left tell it, no. Immigration is the sole purview of the federal government and if the feds are not or will not do their jobs.... oh well, I guess.

    April 24, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
  51. MNResident

    The preamble to the US Constitution declares some of the reasons the states established a federal government were to "provide for the common defense", "secure the blessings of liberty",and to "ensure domestic tranquility". More and more states are realizing that the Federal government is NOT doing these tasks when they don't defend the borders against drug lords and other disturbances. The states established the federal government, NOT the other way around. The federal government had better start doing its' job or the states are going to take the power away from it.......

    April 24, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
  52. Paul in NC

    No, no, no, no, no and no. Those lines to our north and south are not state lines; they are international borders. The federal government, and only the fderal government, should have the authority to make and enforce immigration laws. The Arizona law was passed in the usual right wing manner; through misinformation and fear mongering. It should be struck down but the Roberts court hasn't gotten one right yet so don't expect that to happen. When are the states rights people ever going to figure out that this country functions best when we confront problems with unity of purpose, not a hodge podge of half baked ideas.

    April 24, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
  53. Wilene Rushing

    Yes, states must have the right to protect themselves, then appeal to the Federal Govenment for additional assistance, if needed.

    April 24, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
  54. Pete in Georgia

    More to say ??
    How about TOTAL say !!! The States.............and only the States know what needs to be done.
    The federal gov't. is nothing but inept, corrupt, and ridden with hidden agendas, mainly to secure the ALMIGHTY vote. It's become beyond despicable, especially with this current so called administration.

    April 24, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
  55. Gigi Oregon

    It doesn't matter what most people think to me. History is the best teacher and example. United we stand divided we fall.

    April 24, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
  56. Cliff Glass - Rego Park, New York

    Jack,
    In 2010, Arizona received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid. If they want to pass legislation that supercede the national security laws of the United States, let them first end the hypocrisy of feeding at the trough of the U.S. Treasury.

    April 24, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
  57. Max Brooks from Florida

    What is the point of having multiple states if the states don't have any differences? If a state wants to legalize marijuana or take additional steps towards border security, that state should be allowed to do so, as long as they aren't doing anything unconstitutional.

    April 24, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
  58. Al, Lawrence KS

    We are one country...The United States of America. We cannot have 50 different immigration laws. 150 years ago we had different state laws concerning who was a citizen, who could vote, who could marry, who was free. It didn't work then, it won't work today. The border, whether it's in Arizona or Maine, is the U.S. border, and it should be secured by the Federal Government. Individual states do not have, and should not have, any role in securing the U.S. border...period.

    April 24, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
  59. RickFromDetroit

    YES !! We should follow the same policy for cities, counties, states, and by ethnic and religious groups, too.

    April 24, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
  60. Jack - Lancaster, Ohio

    Mr. Cafferty:

    Hey ! I thought predator aircraft and the national guard were taking care of the border situation. You mean we only have one predator aircraft and a foreign nation is now in possession of it? If we cannot control our borders...we cannot control immigration (invasion).

    April 24, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  61. Michael, from Smiths, Alabama

    The Federal government should be the ones to worry about border security between us and our neighboring countries. If states like Arizona and Texas start taking matters into their own hands, then the quote 'united we stand, divided we fall' will be very likely as states will start looking after themselves.

    April 24, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
  62. wayne, va beach, va

    Yes, Jack, they should. Since the Feds have done little and what little they have done ended up getting a border agent killed. Lead, follow, or get back on the porch.

    April 24, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
  63. A,J, Boyle Pembroke Pines, FL)

    This is a federal not a state matter. The Arizona law under judicial review is a thinly veiled attack on anyone who is hispanic in origin, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not. The same sort of nonsense is going on in Alabama and Texas, two states with long histories of persecuting minorities.

    April 24, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
  64. Joe in Missouri

    Sure, if you want one state shutting out everyone not matter how qualified they are to come in and another state letting anyone who can struggle across the border enter the U.S. That way the non-restrictive states can flood the restrictive states with immigrants. There's only one way to do this. Through the national government. Immigrants are entering the nation, not any particular state.

    April 24, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
  65. rex in portland, oregon

    States like Arizona and Texas should be able to control who gets into and out of states like Colorado and Utah. It is only fair. I, for one, am anxious to obtain my Oregon passport and start traveling just to see which states I can visit and which ones have different laws. It'll be a grand new world when the Arizonans have the say, what with them being so understanding and fair and all that.

    April 24, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
  66. Virginia - Atlanta

    Because we are a big country and states border each other with no restrictions, it would not work for every state to choose its own way.It must be done by theFederal Government. note to Carl: If you are in the county illegally, you cannot vote, hence President Obama's reasons have nothing to do with trying to get their vote. There are so many misconceptions and outright lies, mostly coming from the far right, that everyone seems to be confused.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
  67. Greg Cox of Bremerton, WA

    Of course border states should have more say regarding illegal immigrants. It's obvious to anyone and everyone that our federal government has its proverbial head in the sand. It is one big sad mess and it's been one big sad mess for a long, long time. And when it comes to those critics who holler 'racial profiling', they are exactly on point but for the wron reason. There is really only one 'race' crossing those borders illegally. If our federal govenment would spend a fraction of what it now spends on our overseas Armed Forces and our aid to other countries, they could solve the mess they've allowed to grow and fester in a matter of months.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
  68. Ed in CA

    Yes, as it pertains to International borders. People have a right to protect themselves from from drug smugglers and gangs.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
  69. Jim D

    "Show me your paperz"....this is where the GOP would take us.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
  70. Lee almondarch

    Until the federal government upholds the laws on the books, the states have a right to step in and enforce them. Why should hard-working American citizens have to pay for all the educational and medical expenses of people who are here illegally.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
  71. deborah ballweg Seibert, co

    In light of the apathy to this issue shown by the federal government in their attempt to get re-elected, what choice do the states have? They have to protect their people and their interests

    April 24, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
  72. Bo

    Of course states should have their say in border security. It is not fair for those states bordering Mexico to take criticism or be told how to handle their issues from a do nothing Government worried only about the Latino vote. It makes total sense to check for immigration papers for someone who doesn't have any type of identification. Heck do it to white, black, middle eastern, european, asian, and any other race as well. It will keep us safer.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
  73. Jen seattle wa

    Only if its up to a standard above and beyond Federal Efforts..you see fools in Italy blindly allowing criminals from north africa then they get Credentials to travel into innocent areas of Europe only to undermine.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
  74. barbara

    Unfortunately, the reality is that so many illegals cross the Arizona border. We must know who they are for everyone's safety. Any innocent person has nothing to fear.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
  75. Judy in Strasburg CO

    Actually I am tired of hearing about this issue. People like Tom Tancredo have been fighting this issue for some time now. Certainly states should have this right, but the damage is already done with all the illegal immigrants already here.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
  76. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    No, borders are patrolled by federal agents, and current laws need some enforcement.

    Each time we give up a little liberty for the excuse of self protection we give up on ourselves. We can call it homeland security and deny rights and invade privacy, we can call it border protection and do likewise. In the end we keep chipping away at our own liberty until one day we become what we fear most.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
  77. barbara in nc

    This was never a big problem before 2009. Geee - think it JUST STARTED????

    April 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
  78. Dale N.M.

    I live in Albuquerque New Mexico a while back there was an Amber alert, the police were checking everybody in that area, they even came across some illegal people and they started to scream profiling discrimination and had to let them go, ""states should have the right to protect their own borders and enforce federal law"".

    April 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
  79. Ralph Westermann

    Ok, let's say that the supreme court upholds the Az law. How many of us legals carry proof of citizenship with us. Why I'll bet that most legal, born in the USA AZ citizens can't prove it, most don't even have a passport. I say check everyone and throw out everyone who can't prove they belong here. We might just get rid of most of the righting crazies once and for all!

    April 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
  80. jesuissb

    The federal governments' duty to defend the country is supplemented by state enforcement, not thwarted. State sovereignty is one of the things our government should also be protecting.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
  81. Mike H.

    These people gripe about immigrants..illegal and legal coming over to the US and taking American jobs.......yet these same people don't say a frickin thing when companies send thousands of US jobs to foriegn countries and Communist China.....They complain about are government becoming to socialist/communist........but have no problem on sending our jobs there......hypocrits.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
  82. B. O'Neil

    Absolutely states should have more control over their borders. Our forefathers intended states to have more powers than they do today. The federal government has gradually assumed a bigger role than intended. Each state has different needs, and often opposite problems. States have more passion for their own needs and requirements than the federal government. I will vote for the person who understands the need to let states make more decisions for themselves, and certainly they should be able to enforce existing laws when the federal government refuses to do so. I admire the Arizona governor for doing her best to protect her state.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  83. Greg Concho AZ

    you-bet-ya

    April 24, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  84. Renee, Illinois

    Forget popularity, the simple fact is profiling isn't going to solve the problem. Not as long as there are people in this country willing to hire illegals. They need to enforce very severe fines to anyone 'enabling' the illegal immigrant problem. No jobs means no reason to come here. And while I do sympathize with the problem being worse for border states, it's the federal govt. that needs to get it's act together. The last thing we need is to take the United out of United States. We're divided enough as it is.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  85. Mary Anne

    Absolutly Yes .... I am fully behide the Arizona law inacted. It's not just the south of the boarder illigals coming in, but any and all other illigals coming in from other countries too who try to come in from the South also. My husband in an legal imigrant who came into this country legally in 1964 and he too says why should I have to come in legally and they don't !! It's just not Right, Fair or Equal Justice !

    April 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  86. RickFromDetroit

    Lets build a fence along the Mason-Dixon line !!

    April 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  87. Tanner - Dayton, OH

    Of course not. This isnt a state by state issue. It's a national issue and the Federal Government needs to step up and implement a unified law for all border states.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  88. jesuissb

    The fed's duty to defend the country is supplemented by state border enforcement, not thwarted. Another role of government is to protecting state sovereignty....where are the feds on that one?

    April 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  89. Carmen Pacheco

    As a native Arizonan of 58 years, I have seen our state go from understated biased to outright racism. I love Arizona as it is my home but a bill like SB1070 has brought out the bigot in many otherwise level-headed souls. Being told that 'ALL OF US SHOULD GO BACK TO MEXICO' while our son is in AFGHANISTAN IS JUST WRONG.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  90. J.R.

    YES.....I agree with this new Immagration Law that the state of Arizona past. This law has absolutely nothing to do with racial profiling what so ever. The reality is we have people that are in our country illegally that are bringing in illegal drugs into our country and are shooting and trying to kill our U.S. Border Patrol officers. This is unacceptable behavior on our own federal government. I believe the Obama admistration is appealing this for the simple reason so that they can get more democratic votes from Latinos as long as our government grants them citizenship. This current administration has not accomplished the "hope and change" from what they based their campaign on over 3 1/2 years ago. The truth is now both white and black people are still discouraged that this economy is still poor and people are still loosing their own homes and jobs as well. This is all a such a shame for this country that I love so much. As for myself, I think many other Americans would also agree that you Four Fathers didnt fight as hard as they did for things like this to happen in this country now. God Bless America and Protect our Borders!!!!!!!

    J.R.
    Westerville, Ohio

    April 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  91. Carmen Pacheco

    No without the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT enforcing laws, each state will do whatever it wants

    April 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  92. Terry in Virginia

    If the states are paying for it, then they should have a say in how to control their own borders. However, a minimum universal standard should be set by the Feds with the Federal Government supplying a minimum amount of money to cover those requirements. Anything over and above those minimum standards should be paid by the individual states themselves.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
  93. Desert Pam

    As a teacher in Arizona, like policemen, we too would be reporting "illegals" in our classrooms. There has always been, throughout history, a Spanish influence since conquistadors centuries ago!

    I would hope that you would pierce the surface of controversial racist ranting going on out here. SB 1070 is written by a corporation. The private prison corporation,CCA. This issue is also about PRIVATIZATION. west desert for vast prisons with never ending "illegals" who've lived and worked in this fronteir state for centuries. This vile legislation is about making money from human suffering and dividing people along racial boundries. PLEASE CNN. Research the birth of this idiotic Arizona legislation. If Americans had all the facts, I believe the current polls of favorability would diminish. This is a very un-American bill.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
  94. Stephanie - Moreno Valley

    Yes, states should definitely have a say since our federal government refuses to enforce the law. I applaud Arizona and hope the Supreme Court upholds their decision. I wish our government would listen to the will of the people, (that is the American people) and secure our borders from criminals who would circumvent legal avenues of entering the U.S. to take advantage of the social programs that Americans are entitled to. While these programs and our country is going broke, our government officials are tiptoeing around the issue for fear of being labeled a racist when race has nothing to do with the fact that it is illegal!

    April 24, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
  95. Paul from Rockaway NJ

    Jack,
    You probably won't read this since I'm not going to load it up with anti-Obama rhetoric that you seem to love as of late. None the less, I'm torn on the Arizona immigration law. As a liberal leaning American citizen, I feel that perhaps I should oppose the law. However, given the host of problems I see from both legal and illegal immigration, I have to *sigh* concede that the other side is actually making sense here too.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
  96. Fernando from dallas tx

    No. I thought America was "liberty and justice for all".

    April 24, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
  97. Marianne in New Jersey

    There should be no problem with state officials asking to see photo ID that shows your visa status. What? No visa? Turn them over to the feds who could grant a 6-month visitor visa and deport them if they overstay.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
  98. Tommy - Austin

    Seems like a strange question... Re-worded it sounds like..."Should states be protected from foreign envasion?" ...But that sounds too insensitive. Maybe it should be, "Should states have the right to do something when the federal government is hamstrung?" ...or should the entire United States pay to help Arizona keep their public welfare system afloat while millions of non-US Citizens are getting free school and free health benefits? CNN, please stop protecting the politians. Stop candy-coating the real problems so that you can protect Obama. Try being objective for once. You might like it.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
  99. jgsf1987

    This is sheer nonsense to think that the States have the right to nullify Federal law. This question was answered back in the 1830s. Now as for the problem of illegal immigration, this is a Federal responsibility, but Congress being split between a Republican-led House and Democratic-led Senate won't get anywhere. It's also up to the states to keep the pressure up on Congress to get something passed. However, saying that all illegals should go is not particularly effective, because think of the agri-business, that's approximately 90% of their workforce. The same holds true for custodial and some professional sports. Lastly, I would call those who are tiptoeing around the issue as more along the lines of trying to explain the complexity of the issue. Those racists are those referring to all Spanish-speaking Americans of Latin descent as illegals.

    April 24, 2012 at 5:48 pm |