How is Arizona's Immigration Enforcement Law different than Missouri's or Rhode Island's law?

Because the Arizona law passed while B. Hussein Obama was in office and Arizona has a helluva lot more illegals crossing its' border than any Northern State.

But you are missing a couple of things. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (http://supreme.justia.com/us/422/873/case.html ), the court held that officers COULD NOT stop a vehicle and question its occupants about their immigration status when the only reason they have to be suspicious is that the occupants appear to have Mexican ancestry. In Muehler v. Mena, Mena was already detained lawfully, thus they didn't need to have INDEPENDENT reasonable suspicion to question her.

In Brignoni-Ponce, court held not to allow a roving patrol of the Border Patrol to stop a vehicle near the Mexican border and question its occupants about their citizenship and immigration status, when the only ground for suspicion is that the occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry. "Except at the border and its functional equivalents, patrolling officers may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences therefrom, reasonably warranting suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country."

So no, Mena doesn't say that police can stop a car and question the occupants about immigration status. It DOES say that if police have ALREADY lawfully detained someone, they can ask without separate reasonable suspicion.

Preeminence doesn't come from the 10th, it comes from the Supremacy clause and the 14th amendment. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Plus Congress is given specific power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.

SCOTUS will rule against AZ on the same grounds as it did against Hazelton, where there was a REAL problem. You ARE informed about Hazelton, aren't you?

Muehler reinforces probable cause by defining it more explicitly. It does NOT support your premise. LOL.

The only thing relevant to the 10th Amendment in this day and age is the Commerce Clause. LMAO! If anyone'd try to use the 10th in this issue, the judge would laugh him out of court.

Where did you get all of your your legal knowledge, "Law and Order"? LMAO!

Most police chiefs stopped being police officers and started being unelected politicians the minute they became chiefs particularly, those in the big cities. Do you honestly think if they came out in support of this law, they would still keep their cushy desk jobs? Their opinion means little to me especially those outside of Arizona. Their role is not to question what law may put a burden on law enforcement. Their role is to figure out a way to make it work. If they cannot do this, they should resign and let someone who can do the job.

The difference is, Obama is making Arizona his sacrificial lamb, or trying to. He'll try to blame Bush for this as soon as his failing numbers dwindle even further.

As far as I'm concerned, the state of Arizona should counter-sue the Dept. of Justice for being in dereliction of duty.

This is a strawman argument.

AZ law states that it can legally stop anyone based on their suspicion as oppose to concrete evidences like the other states

So nice try but you fail

Do they REQUIRE officers to ask such questions and authorize citizens to turn them in if they do not?

And do they allow that suspicion to be the sole cause for the stop? It looks like the one u linked allows them to ascertain citizenship secondarily

Obama needs 500,000 more voters in AZ. RI is a lock.

It's a way for Obama to pander for votes, the other's weren't. That's what makes it different.

Location of application?