Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona immigration law

[notorious]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...141927514.html

Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona immigration law, strikes down rest



The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law in a 5-3 decision on Monday that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops. That part of the law, which never went into effect because of court challenges, will now immediately be enforced in Arizona. Other parts of the law, including a provision that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, will remain blocked, as the justices affirmed the federal government's supremacy over immigration policy.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, wrote the opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas partially dissented, saying the entire law should have been upheld.

In the opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that the federal government's "power to determine immigration policy is well settled." But he also showed concern for what he described as Arizona's outsize burden in dealing with illegal immigration, seeming to sympathize with their decision to butt in on immigration enforcement. "Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful im*migration," he wrote. "Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in Arizona each year." But, ultimately, the justices found that Arizona can not mete out their own state punishments for federal immigration crimes.

"Arizona may have under*standable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," Kennedy writes in the opinion's conclusion.

The police immigration checks are allowed, however, because state police would simply flag federal authorities if they find an illegal immigrant.

Nevertheless, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is casting the decision as a "victory" for the state. "I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable," she said in a statement, adding that officers have been trained not to racially profile in their stops. Meanwhile Erika Andiola, an activist and undocumented immigrant in Arizona, says that the Latino community will not be happy with the decision, as the immigration checks portion of the law was most unpopular with them. "It's another message to the Latino community that if you look brown you're a perfect target for the police," she said.

The Obama administration sued to block Arizona's law, called SB1070, shortly after it passed two years ago, saying it interfered with federal authority over immigration. The law made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work or fail to carry proper immigration papers. It also requires police officers to check immigration status and make warrantless arrests for immigration crimes in some cases. A federal judge prevented those aspects of the law from going into effect, but the law became a lightning rod around the country, sparking boycotts and counter-boycotts and opening up a debate about the nation's illegal immigrant population.

In oral arguments in April, many of the justices seemed deeply skeptical of the government's argument that local police officers would interfere with federal authority over immigration law they began asking people about their immigration status during stops. Though much of the debate around the law has focused on "racial profiling"--whether Hispanic people would be stopped and questioned by police based on their ethnicity--the government did not even mention those words in their case against the law, instead focusing on the federal government's supremacy in immigration matters. Justices repeatedly criticized the government's argument against immigration checks. Even Sonia Sotomayor, part of the court's liberal wing, said she was "terribly confused" by the government's argument against the checks.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Do you find this a politically advantageous option for federally elected officials to pursue?

With what I know about Arizona law enforcement, more than likely. Arpaio will screw this up more than he already screws up everything else.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by KC native

With what I know about Arizona law enforcement, more than likely. Arpaio will screw this up more than he already screws up everything else.

Joe is very old and not long for the office.
My question was directed at the federal officials who decline to accept any illegal alien prisoners from Arizona as mentioned in your hypothetical.

I ask because it seems that a federal government that abandons it's constitutional duty and ignores a State's legal needs is a government that can't remain unchanged.

[Iz Zat Chew]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Joe is very old and not long for the office.
My question was directed at the federal officials who decline to accept any illegal alien prisoners from Arizona as mentioned in your hypothetical.

I ask because it seems that a federal government that abandons it's constitutional duty and ignores a State's legal needs is a government that can't remain unchanged.

You are 100% correct.

I think the government would throw Joe out for bait if they could get away with it. We've had some slick presidents before and we've had some crooks before but I don't believe the country has ever had a president before that puts himself before the country as well as himself above everyone else.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Joe is very old and not long for the office.
My question was directed at the federal officials who decline to accept any illegal alien prisoners from Arizona as mentioned in your hypothetical.

I ask because it seems that a federal government that abandons it's constitutional duty and ignores a State's legal needs is a government that can't remain unchanged.

He is 80 years old, and will be out of the picture very soon. His headline grabbing and thirst for the limelight minimized even the things he is right about~

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

He is 80 years old, and will be out of the picture very soon. His headline grabbing and thirst for the limelight minimized even the things he is right about~

True, though we've never been too bothered by his headline schemes so long as the trains ran on time, the illegals were scared to flaunt their status, and the tents were a place that criminals didn't want to be.

Now though Joe is costing us way too much $. Millions of $. We still demand a hard-line sheriff here but we need one that knows how to accomplish the objectives while minimizing exposure.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Thanks. The way I am reading this is that is already part of the federal law so nothing really changes on that end. They pretty much gutted the Arizona law.

No, not really. Previously, the courts have told the states they literally could do nothing about immigration UNLESS they formed some kind of partnership with the feds where the feds specifically authorized them to check immigration.

The Feds argued that Arizona should not even be allowed to check on immigration status and let ICE know about it (their argument is that the Feds would be overwhelmed with calls and it would be a bad use of resources).

The supreme court disagreed and said that Arizona can detain someone they stopped for any other legit reason long enough to determine immigration status and then inform the feds they had an illegal alien.

The left isn't really happy about this ruling, not many people thought sections 3 and 5 would survive, but they wanted section 2B ("papers please") to be gone as well. They fully intend to fight it on discrimination grounds.

[alnorth]

Overall, I think Arizona pretty much got what they wanted. They cant make immigration violations a state crime, but with whats left of SB1070, they can cause Arizona to be seen as a hostile state for illegals. Every time they detain an illegal and find out they are illegal, even if the Feds ultimately dont want them they can detain them a while until they are told by the Feds that they aren't interested.

That should be enough for illegals to not want that kind of hassle and move on to different states (California), which would probably suit Arizona just fine.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Overall, I think Arizona pretty much got what they wanted. They cant make immigration violations a state crime, but with whats left of SB1070, they can cause Arizona to be seen as a hostile state for illegals. Every time they detain an illegal and find out they are illegal, even if the Feds ultimately dont want them they can detain them a while until they are told by the Feds that they aren't interested.

That should be enough for illegals to not want that kind of hassle and move on to different states (California), which would probably suit Arizona just fine.

Well said. This echoes the sentiment I'm hearing here today.

[Brock]

Can they detain them on a bus to the border?

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Well said. This echoes the sentiment I'm hearing here today.

I think its hilarious how the media is terming this as mostly an Obama victory and are calling Governor Brewer's statement, "spin".

Wait, what? Before the oral argument, the left raised holy hell about the "papers please" provision, and we've seen all kinds of Arizona boycotts about that. People weren't freaked out about Arizona trying to make immigration violations a state crime (partly because most people doubted that would stand), it was always about section 2B. The left and some in the media kept making these stupid comparisons to Nazi Germany and how its un-american to have to produce identification without being accused of a crime.

They lose on that issue which they screamed about for months, and now they declare victory because everything else that people presumed would get struck down anyway, got struck down?

[mlyonsd]

Feds suspend immigration enforcement program after Arizona court ruling


Published June 25, 2012| FoxNews.com


In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's immigration law, Obama administration officials announced Monday they are suspending a key program that allowed state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.

The move further weakens efforts by Arizona and other states to take the reins on immigration enforcement.

The high court decision Monday struck down three provisions in Arizona's law but left in place a central plank that required local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.

Obama administration officials and congressional Democrats immediately raised concerns this could lead to "racial profiling," though Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer adamantly denies it. To address those concerns, Obama administration officials moved Monday to pull back on enforcement cooperation with local jurisdictions -- meaning that even if local police step up immigration checks, they'll have to rely on federal officials to make the arrests.

Federal officials said the program known as 287(g) would be immediately suspended. That program was a partnership between federal and local governments, and allowed local authorities to make immigration-based arrests.

Officials also said Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be selective in responding to the expected increase in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status of people they pull over. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria -- such as being wanted for a felony.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-court-ruling/

[headsnap]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Feds suspend immigration enforcement program after Arizona court ruling


Published June 25, 2012| FoxNews.com


In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's immigration law, Obama administration officials announced Monday they are suspending a key program that allowed state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.

The move further weakens efforts by Arizona and other states to take the reins on immigration enforcement.

The high court decision Monday struck down three provisions in Arizona's law but left in place a central plank that required local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.

Obama administration officials and congressional Democrats immediately raised concerns this could lead to "racial profiling," though Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer adamantly denies it. To address those concerns, Obama administration officials moved Monday to pull back on enforcement cooperation with local jurisdictions -- meaning that even if local police step up immigration checks, they'll have to rely on federal officials to make the arrests.

Federal officials said the program known as 287(g) would be immediately suspended. That program was a partnership between federal and local governments, and allowed local authorities to make immigration-based arrests.

Officials also said Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be selective in responding to the expected increase in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status of people they pull over. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria -- such as being wanted for a felony.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-court-ruling/

it's good to know that they are keeping us safe...

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Feds suspend immigration enforcement program after Arizona court ruling

So, I forget... is this an election year?

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by alnorth

So, I forget... is this an election year?

Heh. I think this might bite Obama in the arse.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Heh. I think this might bite Obama in the arse.

Actually, I think this was a carefully calculated move that will probably pay off.

Most white Americans disagree with him, but not all of them vote on the issue or care about it that deeply. Most people who have immigration as a top voting issue weren't voting for Obama anyway, and he needs a wildly enthusiastic Latino vote.

If he gets a little over 2/5 of white voters and cleans up everywhere else, he's in another 4 years.