Do You Support the U.S. Supreme Court's Arizona Immigration Ruling?

Patch is all about local, local, local, and sometimes that can include providing a platform for locals to discuss wider-spread issues.

Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Arizona SB 1070, Arizona's controversial immigration law, delivering a split decision, and we thought it might be something residents here had 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 the Huffington Post referred to 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.

But, according to a report by CNN,  the court struck down other key parts of the law including the following: allowing police to arrest illegal immigrants without warrant where probable cause exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country; making it a crime for illegal 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."

"Today's ruling marks a dark day for justice in the history of the United States of America. In one sweep, the Supreme Court has sided with Arizona and allowed racial profiling as an acceptable law enforcement tool," said Angelica Salas, executive director for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

CHIRLA called the Arizona law, one of the "ugliest anti-immigrant laws in the country."

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called the ruling a "partial victory."

"The Supreme Court rightly upheld the bedrock constitutional principle that the federal government alone has the power to regulate immigration. It is clear that the Obama Administration and the Department of Justice were right to challenge this law," the mayor said.

He added, however, "By requiring police officers to demand documents of anyone they suspect of being in the country without authorization, Arizona risks creating a culture of fear and suspicion. Implementation of the law will undermine the trust between the police and the public, driving a wedge between police officers and the community they serve."

President Barack Obama issued a statement saying the decision makes it clear that Congress "must act on comprehensive immigration reform."

"A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system -- it's part of the problem," Obama said.

Obama said he was concerned about the court's upholding of the provision on checking people's immigration status, saying "No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like."

Now we want to know what YOU think. Do you agree with the court's ruling? 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, West Hollywood.

City News Service contributed to this article.