Thread: SCOTUS Decision On Arizona Immigration Law Questionable...

I am glad that the SCOTUS has upheld the cornerstone of Arizona's immigration law, but also disappointed that they struck down some other components. Arizona should be able to protect itself since the federal government will not.

Here is the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-182b5e1.pdf

An analysis by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...-analysis.html

Now, the Obama Administration is acting even further against the State of Arizona:

(1)They rescinded an agreement between local law enforcement agencies and federal law enforcement agencies that enabled the local authorities to act on behalf of federal authorities in illegal immigration cases.

(2) They enacted a hotline for illegals to report Arizona law enforcement officials to the federal government.

(3) They vowed more action (lawsuits) against Arizona.

The Obama Administration just recently announced that they will ignore certain immigration laws. Essentially they are nullifying laws at will that were passed by Congress.

If Obama wants to mess with immigration so much, then why didn't he pursue his Comprehensive Immigration Reform while he had control of both houses of Congress?

Who the hell does the Obama Administration think they are? Why do they hate the States so much? Why are they so anti-Constitution and anti-American?

I cannot wait until Obama, Holder, Pelosi and Reid are gone.

Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion, cited Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 64 (1941) as a prior opinion in deciding his opinion on Arizona's SB 1070. That 1941 case has nothing to do with what Arizona was trying to do. SB 1070 just emulates federal law, and adds nothing additional.

The last part of Justice Scalia's minority dissenting opinion...

But leave that aside. It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate “scarce enforcement resources”—is not the problem here. After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of HomelandSecurity announced a program exempting from immi- gration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30. If an individual unlawfully present in the United States

“• came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
“• has continuously resided in the United States for
at least five years . . . ,
“• is currently in school, has graduated from high
school, has obtained a general education development
certificate, or is an honorably discharged
veteran . . . ,
“• has not been convicted of a [serious crime]; and
“• is not above the age of thirty,”

then U. S. immigration officials have been directed to “defer action” against such individual “for a period of two years, subject to renewal.” The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and rulingon the biennial requests for dispensation that the nonenforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror—“if §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute fed- eral registration violations,” ante, at 10—seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration lawsas written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at themercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?

A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if theConstitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’sjudgment surely fails that test. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates contended with “the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.” Records of the Federal Convention 19 (M. Farrand ed.1911) (statement of Edmund Randolph). Through ratification of the fundamental charter that the Convention produced, the States ceded much of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. But much of it remained jealously guarded—as reflected in the innumerable proposals thatnever left Independence Hall. Now, imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.

As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the veryhuman realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment.

Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not incontradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.

Obama has successfully taken away state sovereignty.

Source

Granny says tell `em to scoot their butts back across the border an' dey won't have nothin' to worry `bout...

Ala. is lab for Ariz.-style immigration provision
27 June`12 — Moments after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the "show me your papers" provision of Arizona's immigration law, the switchboard lit up at one of Alabama's largest Spanish-language radio stations as worried listeners called in.

"They're wanting to know if they're going to get stopped or arrested," said Orlando Rosa, the operations manager for La Jefa. Alabama offers a glimpse of what may lay ahead for immigrants in several states that passed their own strict immigration laws modeled at least in part on Arizona's. Of those five states, only Alabama had been allowed by federal courts to enforce the "lawful stop" or "show me your papers" provision until this week. That could change now that the Supreme Court upheld the section of Arizona's law that requires police to check the status of people who might appear to be in the U.S. illegally. The court overturned three other parts of the Arizona law.

Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Utah also approved laws based on Arizona's. All or parts of the laws were blocked in each state, and legal challenges can move forward now that the Supreme Court has ruled on the Arizona law. Already in Alabama, even a chance encounter with police scares many immigrants. But they fear the Supreme Court decision could make things worse. "Alabama is the lab for this part of the law," said Mary Bauer, legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a Montgomery-based advocacy group that is opposing the Alabama law.

Javier Hernandez, who has been living in Alabama without documents for 12 years, spends time before he drives checking things like headlights and blinkers to make sure police don't have a reason to pull him over. "You have to always be alert, make sure the cops don't stop you," he said through a translator, adding that he entered the country illegally to support his wife and two sons back in Mexico. In northeast Alabama, where a large number of Hispanic immigrants work in poultry plants, Pastor Fernando Rodriguez moaned when he learned of the Supreme Court's ruling. With a congregation of about 300 people, he fears the decision will mean Alabama police become more aggressive. "It's terrible," Rodriguez, of Lus a las Naciones in Albertville, said Tuesday. "Right now there is a lot of concern about the cops."

So far, the worry isn't translating into a new exodus from Alabama — at least yet. Management at two Birmingham-area mobile home communities with large Hispanic populations said they don't know of anyone moving out because of the ruling. Still, some immigrants — both legal and illegal residents — say they are terrified of the requirement. They fear detentions will split families apart. Many Illegal immigrants in Alabama say they are afraid to leave home, so they often travel at night. Some use cellphones and text messages to avoid police roadblocks. After parts of the law took effect last year, many parents signed legal documents allowing others to care for their children in case they are deported. Rosa, the radio station worker, said listeners panicked reflexively when they heard something on the news about "Supreme Court," ''police," and "immigration," prompting the flood of calls. "They're worried, frustrated, wanting to know how it's affecting Alabama," said Rosa.

MORE

See also:

Court ruling leaves Ariz. to rely on feds
Mon, Jun 25, 2012 — For all the declarations of victory, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to preserve the "show me your papers" provision in Arizona's immigration law means the state can enforce the statute only with the help of its chief critic: the federal government.

The court's decision Monday struck down parts of the law, but preserved one that requires local police to check the immigration status of people stopped for various reasons and whom officers believe are in the country illegally. There was a catch, however. The court decided that officers cannot detain anyone on an immigration violation. That is, unless federal immigration officials say so. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the controversial lawman known for his anti-immigration raids, said he was concerned whether federal agents will decline to pick up some illegal immigrants who are stopped by his deputies. "I have my suspicions," he said.

Hours after the ruling, the Department of Homeland Security canceled agreements with seven Arizona police departments that deputized officers to arrest people on immigration violations while on street patrol. Federal immigration officers will help, but only if doing so conforms to the department's priorities, including catching repeat violators and identifying and removing those who threaten public safety and national security, the department said. If federal agents decline to pick up immigrants, the state doesn't have any way to force federal authorities to pick them up and will likely have to let them go unless they're suspected of committing a crime that would require them to be brought to jail, said Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor who specializes in immigration law.

In that sense, the law is symbolic, Spiro said. "(The questioning requirement) is useful to the extent that it allows states to give notice of hostilities to undocumented immigrants," Spiro said. "It allows for a formal expression of the state's hostilities toward undocumented immigrants." Meanwhile, if local police get the chance to enforce the law and are not blocked by a federal injunction, they will be closely watched not just by immigrant rights advocates who are on the lookout for racial profiling. They will also face scrutiny from residents who have been frustrated by and blamed the federal government for a porous border and can under the immigration law sue police departments that don't follow the "show me your papers" provision. A federal hotline was set up for the public to report potential civil rights concerns.

Immigrant rights advocates plan to launch a public relations campaign in hopes of quelling fears about the law and hold public meetings across the state to explain the law. A hotline run by a civil rights group will take questions about the law and document reports of abuses by police. About 50 immigrant rights supporters rallied peacefully outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office near downtown Phoenix. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called the decision a victory for all Americans, but said she expected lawsuits to challenge the implementation of the law. "It's certainly not the end of our journey," she said.

More http://news.yahoo.com/court-ruling-l...233034778.html

Supreme Court immigration decision has chilling effect on states immigration legislation...

States passing fewer immigration laws, report shows
August 06, 2012 WASHINGTON – State legislatures passed 20 percent fewer immigration laws in the first half of this year than at the same time last year, according to a new report by the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Lawmakers in 41 states enacted 114 bills and 92 resolutions that dealt with immigration between Jan. 1 and June 30 this year, compared with 257 such laws enacted during the same time period last year, according to the report released on Monday. States delayed immigration legislation in part as they waited for the Supreme Court to rule on the states' authority to enforce immigration laws, said John Watkins, a Republican state senator in Virginia who co-chairs the conference's Task Force on Immigration and the States.

Last June, the Supreme Court upheld a provision from Arizona's immigration law that allows police to check the immigration status of those they stop for other reasons. Yet, the justices struck down provisions that created state crimes allowing local police to arrest people for federal immigration violations. Watkins said that the Supreme Court ruling provided "a yellow light, in that states can move forward in some areas, but not in others." States' legislative agendas also had other priorities, including finding solutions to budget gaps.

Washington State representative Sharon Tomiko Santos, a Democrat, said it is now imperative for Congress or the next president to act on the issue. "The can has been kicked down the road for too long, and states have suffered as a result," said Tomiko Santos, who co-chairs the task force with Watkins. "Come January, action at the federal level needs to happen."

Of all the laws enacted on immigration, 18 percent focused on law enforcement and 11 percent on identification and driver's licenses. Six states -- Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire and West Virginia -- enacted laws that dealt with the E-Verify program, which requires businesses to check the legal status of their employees, according to the report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz22v4tlGuq

Granny says, "Dat's right - check `em out...

Judge: Ariz. can ask suspects to prove immigration status
Sep 05, 2012 - Arizona authorities can begin checking the immigration status of criminal suspects, but for now they cannot arrest people for harboring people suspected of being in the United States illegally, a federal judge ruled today.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton today denied a request to issue a new injunction against the so-called show-me-your-papers provision of the state's tough 2010 immigration law, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in June. Opponents argued the provision, known as Section 2B, would lead to unconstitutional racial profiling of Latinos.

Bolton wrote that the lower court would not disobey the Supreme Court's ruling that the provision "cannot be challenged further on its face before the law takes effect," and restated the part of the court's opinion that said the law might be open to other constitutional challenges, the Associated Press says. Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law in spring 2010, and it was challenged immediately by the U.S. Justice Department.

Separately, Bolton granted a preliminary injunction against a provision that made it a crime for people to harbor someone suspected of being in the country illegally. The Arizona Republic explains earlier decisions regarding that statute and others: Before the law took effect, Bolton enjoined Section 2B and three others in response to a motion in the Department of Justice case: one that required immigrants to carry "alien-registration papers;" one that allows for warrantless arrest if an officer thinks there is probable cause to believe the individual committed a public offense that makes him or her removable from the U.S.; and one that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work.

The injunction was upheld in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and in June the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the injunction except for Section 2B. "The governor is pleased with the decision," gubernatorial spokesman Matthew Benson told the Republic. "This paves the way for full implementation of SB 1070 as quickly as the district court lifts the injunction." "What the court has said is that the heart of SB 1070 needs to take effect," he said. "And then the courts can later judge whether there are instances that can be proven of civil rights violations or racial profiling."

Source