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/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf An analysis by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/26/us/scotus-immigrationlaw-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Now, the Obama Administration is acting even further against the State of Arizona: (1)They rescinded an agreement between local law enforcement agencies and federal law enforcement agencies that enabled the local authorities to act on behalf of federal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 prioritiesin the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate scarce enforcement resourcesis 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 Congresss failure to pass the Administrations 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 opinions looming specter of inutterable horrorif §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute fed- eral registration violations, ante, at 10seems 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 Executives refusal to enforce the Nations 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 Courts holding? Todaysjudgment 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 guardedas reflected in the innumerable proposals thatnever left Independence Hall. Now, imagine a provisionperhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clausewhich 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 countrys 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 Arizonas estimated 400,000 illegal immigrantsincluding not just children but men and women under 30are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment. Arizona has moved to protect its sovereigntynot 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. 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.
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.
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.
