PDA

View Full Version : Legal Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona immigration law


notorious
06-25-2012, 09:24 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-upholds-key-part-arizona-immigration-law-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.

mikey23545
06-25-2012, 09:34 AM
The only reason the parts that were "struck down" were struck down is that they already exist as federal law....In other words, every bit of the Arizona law is constitutional, but Obama will simply refuse to enforce the law, once again acting as a de facto dictator.

qabbaan
06-25-2012, 09:41 AM
The only reason the parts that were "struck down" were struck down is that they already exist as federal law....In other words, every bit of the Arizona law is constitutional, but Obama will simply refuse to enforce the law, once again acting as a de facto dictator.

True, but this is still a major victory. As you said, every bit of it is constitutional. It will just be a two step process. Now there needs to be some kind of challenge directed towards the executive branch effectively usurping the legislative by refusing to enforce the law.

HonestChieffan
06-25-2012, 09:43 AM
I would expect a re write that will more adequately address the courts comments. Then Arizona will be able to protect itself

alnorth
06-25-2012, 09:57 AM
I would expect a re write that will more adequately address the courts comments. Then Arizona will be able to protect itself

I don't see how AZ can re-write the law in any way to make immigration violations a state crime like they wanted. The Supreme Court pretty much foreclosed any possibility of that.

alnorth
06-25-2012, 09:58 AM
One thing that may surprise the left, is that the decision upholding that portion of the Arizona law which allowed police to check on immigration status when they detain someone for another reason, was unanimous. They voted 8-zip on that.

However, the court specifically noted that they were only looking at pre-emption, and they were not considering whether the law was unconstitutionally discriminatory, that question will probably go up to them in a year or two. I think section 2B will ultimately survive all challenges, but the liberal wing may break off for that.

dirk digler
06-25-2012, 10:10 AM
One thing that may surprise the left, is that the decision upholding that portion of the Arizona law which allowed police to check on immigration status when they detain someone for another reason, was unanimous. They voted 8-zip on that.

However, the court specifically noted that they were only looking at pre-emption, and they were not considering whether the law was unconstitutionally discriminatory, that question will probably go up to them in a year or two. I think section 2B will ultimately survive all challenges, but the liberal wing may break off for that.

Just so am I clear they threw everything out of the law except the right for them to ask about status but they can't really do anything about it?

patteeu
06-25-2012, 10:24 AM
One thing this will allow Arizona to do is build statistics on how many illegals are handed over to the Feds and how many of those aren't dealt with effectively.

AndChiefs
06-25-2012, 10:30 AM
Just so am I clear they threw everything out of the law except the right for them to ask about status but they can't really do anything about it?

They can arrest them under federal law and turn them over to the feds. Just can't prosecute them under Arizona law.

mikey23545
06-25-2012, 10:35 AM
They can arrest them under federal law and turn them over to the feds. Just can't prosecute them under Arizona law.

And the feds (Obama and henchman Holder) have already said they will simply turn them loose.

HonestChieffan
06-25-2012, 10:38 AM
One thing this will allow Arizona to do is build statistics on how many illegals are handed over to the Feds and how many of those aren't dealt with effectively.


Bingo. Winner winner

dirk digler
06-25-2012, 10:52 AM
They can arrest them under federal law and turn them over to the feds. Just can't prosecute them under Arizona law.

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.

KC native
06-25-2012, 11:04 AM
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.

Yes, and if the Feds have qualms about how Arizona is performing their jobs then they can just refuse to accept any prisoners from the state of AZ (IIRC they already have said this is an option).

vailpass
06-25-2012, 11:14 AM
Speculation here is that this will result in states filing suit against fed moving them to provide sufficient protection as mandated by the court's ruling. Suits have been filed before in a gray area, this will lend clarity and definition.

Time for the voter to expect the federal government to uphold federal law and to vote accordingly against those who will not.

vailpass
06-25-2012, 11:15 AM
Yes, and if the Feds have qualms about how Arizona is performing their jobs then they can just refuse to accept any prisoners from the state of AZ (IIRC they already have said this is an option).

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

KC native
06-25-2012, 11:24 AM
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
06-25-2012, 11:33 AM
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
06-25-2012, 11:39 AM
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
06-25-2012, 11:39 AM
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
06-25-2012, 11:58 AM
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
06-25-2012, 12:09 PM
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
06-25-2012, 12:14 PM
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
06-25-2012, 12:32 PM
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
06-25-2012, 12:40 PM
Can they detain them on a bus to the border?

alnorth
06-25-2012, 12:41 PM
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
06-25-2012, 12:51 PM
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/2012/06/25/feds-suspend-immigration-enforcement-program-after-arizona-court-ruling/

headsnap
06-25-2012, 12:54 PM
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/2012/06/25/feds-suspend-immigration-enforcement-program-after-arizona-court-ruling/

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

alnorth
06-25-2012, 01:00 PM
Feds suspend immigration enforcement program after Arizona court ruling

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

mlyonsd
06-25-2012, 01:02 PM
So, I forget... is this an election year?Heh. I think this might bite Obama in the arse.

alnorth
06-25-2012, 01:05 PM
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.

vailpass
06-25-2012, 01:12 PM
obama pandering to the Latino vote by advocating for illegals is sickening.

alnorth
06-25-2012, 01:12 PM
In other SCOTUS news, there actually was another decision that was sort of important. The Supreme court declared that LWOP for minors is unconstitutional. Also, they summarily overturned the MT campaign finance case which pretty much signals that they wont reconsider Citizens United anytime soon.

mlyonsd
06-25-2012, 01:42 PM
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.Obama already has the Latino vote. This will do nothing but help independents make up their minds. I mean if the ads are done right.

alnorth
06-25-2012, 02:13 PM
Obama already has the Latino vote. This will do nothing but help independents make up their minds. I mean if the ads are done right.

McCain had the conservative vote, as did the first Bush.

The risk is not that Latinos would vote for Romney, but that they would stay home. If that happened, Obama is toast. He needs Latino voters to at least repeat their portion of the 2008 voting population if not expand on it.

You might argue that maybe a few independents would get upset by this move, but keeping those people happy really doesn't mean anything at all if Latinos are unenthusiastic about voting, and until very recently it was beginning to look that way. Now they are fired up to vote.

mlyonsd
06-25-2012, 02:17 PM
McCain had the conservative vote, as did the first Bush.

The risk is not that Latinos would vote for Romney, but that they would stay home. If that happened, Obama is toast. He needs Latino voters to at least repeat their portion of the 2008 voting population if not expand on it.

You might argue that maybe a few independents would get upset by this move, but keeping those people happy really doesn't mean anything at all if Latinos are unenthusiastic about voting, and until very recently it was beginning to look that way. Now they are fired up to vote.If Obama fires up independents and they swing Romney's way it's over.

Independents will determine the election IMO.

alnorth
06-25-2012, 02:27 PM
If Obama fires up independents and they swing Romney's way it's over.

Independents will determine the election IMO.

Independents also broke towards Gore in the final days.

They aren't the end-all be-all, if the base isn't going to the polls, the independents aren't going to save you. They only determine who wins when both sides turn out their base and one side doesn't have a significant base advantage over the other.

mlyonsd
06-25-2012, 02:29 PM
Independents also broke towards Gore in the final days.

They aren't the end-all be-all, if the base isn't going to the polls, the independents aren't going to save you. They only determine who wins when both sides turn out their base and one side doesn't have a significant base advantage over the other.I agree if one side's base doesn't show up it's over. I don't see that happening this year though.

vailpass
06-25-2012, 02:39 PM
I can see the black turnout moving back toward historical levels.
I can see the latino turn out staying level.
I can see conservative turn out at an all time high.
I can see college age turnout being lower than it was last election though I'm curious to see how the college vote breaks this time.

alnorth
06-25-2012, 03:10 PM
I agree if one side's base doesn't show up it's over. I don't see that happening this year though.

Well, NOW it wont, but for a while there it looked like the Latino vote wasn't going to show up because they believed Obama had broken his promise.

Munson
06-25-2012, 03:19 PM
I can see the black turnout moving back toward historical levels.
I can see the latino turn out staying level.
I can see conservative turn out at an all time high.
I can see college age turnout being lower than it was last election though I'm curious to see how the college vote breaks this time.

I don't really see it. It was historic in '08 with everyone getting caught up in "hope and change" and electing the first black president. Its not so historic this time around.

alnorth
06-25-2012, 03:25 PM
I don't really see it. It was historic in '08 with everyone getting caught up in "hope and change" and electing the first black president. Its not so historic this time around.

Black voters are not staying home. They are going to be out in force again.

Now, we shouldn't overestimate what that means because the black vote is a fairly small portion of the voting population, Obama cant just get absolutely skunked 2-to-1 on the white vote and expect to win, but for what its worth, I expect them to hold to their 2008 level.

ForeverChiefs58
06-25-2012, 03:26 PM
In Arizona dissent, Scalia blasts Obama’s deportation stay, immigration policies


In a stinging, 22-page dissent to Monday's decision striking down most of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized President Barack Obama's announcement earlier this month that he would stay the deportation of young illegal immigrants and suggested that the federal government does not want to enforce its immigration laws.

"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," Scalia, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dissent. "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."

Scalia went on to write:

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.

Scalia also repeatedly referenced Obama's policy of prosecutorial discretion, which directs Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to prioritize deporting the illegal immigrants who are frequent border crossers, have committed crimes, or recently entered the country illegally. The Obama administration has deported a record number of illegal immigrants, but its prosecutorial discretion policy still draws the ire of illegal immigration hawks.

Scalia directly referred to Obama's immigration enforcement policy as "lax" at one point.

"Must Arizona's ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the executive's unwise targeting of that funding?" Scalia asked. Later, he added: "What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that 'federal policies' of nonenforcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration."

The federal government "does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude," Scalia alleged.

Arizona's entire immigration law should be upheld, Scalia wrote, because it is "entitled" to make its own immigration policy. At one point, he cites the fact that before the Civil War, Southern states could exclude free blacks from their borders to support the idea that states should be able to set their own immigration policies.

The majority of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that most of Arizona's law is unconstitutional, save for the provision that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/arizona-dissent-scalia-blasts-obama-deportation-stay-immigration-185431255.html

vailpass
06-25-2012, 03:57 PM
I don't really see it. It was historic in '08 with everyone getting caught up in "hope and change" and electing the first black president. Its not so historic this time around.

That is what I meant by returning to historical levels. Historically, the black turnout has not been overly high.
Some of them have stopped believing that its goanbe free gas an shit fo errbody.

mlyonsd
06-25-2012, 04:04 PM
Well, NOW it wont, but for a while there it looked like the Latino vote wasn't going to show up because they believed Obama had broken his promise.Oh yes, I agree, but this ruling will hurt Obama with Independents. If played right it could be a big deal.

Iz Zat Chew
06-25-2012, 04:16 PM
What I find amusing about the courts decision is that some have reported that the law was struck down and some say the court upheld a key part of the law. I guess the correct term is used with like believers.

What I see is that Arizona has blazed a trail for the rest of the states to follow, they have basically said that states cannot make their own immigration rules and that the government already has a law (which was basically copied for the Arizona law) that each state can now equally enforce. A few states seem to have already been working towards that end.

It will be interesting to see what the outcome is across the nation.

vailpass
06-25-2012, 04:22 PM
Some good insight here. Interesting to hear the illegal scumbags bitch about maybe having to live by the laws of the country which they have invaded...

Latino advocates: Hispanics should carry driver's licenses, immigration documents


Latino advocates are advising Hispanics who are U.S. citizens to carry their driver's licenses and Hispanic immigrants to carry their immigration documents to protect them from an increase in racial profiling they believe is coming after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the most controversial part of Arizona's immigration law known as Senate Bill 1070.

The advocates are also advising undocumented immigrants not to answer any questions from the police about their immigration status or place of birth.

"If they don't have documents, they are required to give their name and date of birth and that's it," said Daniel Ortega, a Phoenix lawyer and Latino advocate.

The Supreme Court today rejected three of four provisions, but let stand the most controversial part that requires local police to question suspected illegal immigrants about their status, dubbed the "papers please" provision by opponents.

Local and national Latino and immigrant advocates have been preparing for the Supreme Court's ruling for weeks. The decision did not come as a surprise after the argument in April, when the justices asked questions that seemed to indicate they didn't have a problem with the portion of law that requires local police to question suspected illegal immigrants about their immigration status, when reasonable. Two lower courts had blocked enforcement of key provisions of the law, which Gov. Jan Brewer signed in April 2010.

The section upheld is aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants in Arizona, but Latino advocates say they believe it will have a much broader reach, affecting all Latinos, including U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, not just the undocumented.

"I think the Supreme Court tried to narrow that impact, but for us it still puts a bull's eye on the backs of many Latinos in this country," Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, told CNN's John King.

Several Latinos interviewed today said they are most concerned about the one part of the law the Supreme Court upheld.

"It's going to make it harder to live and work here," said Luis Anrades, an undocumented immigrant who moved to Phoenix a year ago from Nayarit, in northern Mexico.

Efrain Ramirez said he believes the provision if enforced broadly "will hurt the economy, not just those of us working here."

He moved to Phoenix from Mexico eight years ago, is married to a citizen and has two children, ages five and three.

He said he's "in the process" of getting his status corrected.

Regardless of the constitutionality, "police will stop you because of how you look, if you look Mexican; now they'll have more power to kick you out," said Javier Jimenez, an undocumented construction worker who said he has been in Phoenix 12 years.

Latino advocates are concerned that under the law, Latinos are more likely to be scrutinized about their immigration status regardless of whether they were born in the U.S.

"Everyone with brown skin and dark haired is concerned," Ortega said, "because we know that without SB 1070, racial profiling has been prevalent. With SB 1070 it's going to be even more prevalent."

Advocates are also concerned the law will lead to an increase in deportations of illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in this country for years and have U.S. citizen children.

"We want to make sure everyone remains calm. The last thing we want to see is kids yanked out of school and people packing up in the middle of the night and leaving," said Lydia Guzman, a Latino and immigrant advocate who runs Respect-Respeto, a group for immigrants seeking advice about their rights.

It's unclear how soon local police will begin enforcing the provision upheld today by the Supreme Court.

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, the injunction blocking the provision from taking effect is still in place. The case now goes back to the lower courts. Authorities cannot begin enforcing the provision upheld by the Supreme Court until U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton lifts the injunction she issued in 2010. It is unclear how long that process could take.

Thousands of immigrants left the Arizona after Brewer signed SB 1070, fearing that police would begin stopping Latinos merely to question them about their immigration status, something the law explicitly prohibits.

Whether more people will leave as the result of the Supreme Court's decision remains to be seen, but so far immigrant advocates say they have not seen signs of another large-scale exodus.

Two years ago, neighborhoods with large numbers of immigrants were filled with yard sales, as people prepared to leave.

"I think the ones who wanted to leave already left," Guzman said. "They didn't want to stick around and wait for the court ruling."

She said immigrant groups have assembled teams of lawyers to interpret the court ruling and inform immigrants about how it could affect them.

She said she continues to hear misconceptions from Latinos that "the police are just going to be pulling people over willy nilly."

"We are telling them, 'No. There has to be a legitimate reason for them to pull you over,' " she said.

Former Democratic state Rep. Ben Miranda said today that although the Supreme Court upheld the "papers please" provision, he believes it will lead to civil-rights abuses once police start enforcing it, resulting in it being struck down.

"The quicker the decision is made on the merits, the sooner the Supreme Court can discover that this unworkable provision is unconstitutional as applied," Miranda said. "Remember, on the face this law could appear constitutional and obviously does. But in terms of enforcing it, in terms of as applied -- which is another aspect of the constitutionality of any law -- that's where I think it's going to run into trouble. And I think, ultimately, it will be shut down."

Socorro Cordova, the spokeswoman for the Consul General of Mexico in Arizona, said in a written statement issued earlier that it will keep Mexican nationals living in Arizona informed about the implications of the court ruling and is commited to "the protection of their civil rights according to U.S. law, regardless of their immigration status."

A March Department of Homeland Security report estimated there were 360,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona as of January 2011.

That was down 110,000 from the year before and down 200,000 from the peak in 2008, when an estimated 560,000 illegal immigrants lived in Arizona.

Christian Perez, 22, an undocumented immigrant from Baja California Norte who lives in Glendale, works on a cleaning crew with other undocumented immigrants. He said he has heard some of them taking about leaving Arizona and possibly moving to Canada.

"Most people think it's going to get worse," Perez said, referring to the immigration enforcement climate in Arizona.

Perez, however, said he is waiting to see how the law is enforced before deciding what to do.

"I'm not thinking of leaving," he said. "If they kick me out, that's another way."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/06/01/20120601latino-advocates-hispanics-should-carry-drivers-licenses-immigration-documents.html#ixzz1yqXDZx1T

tiptap
06-25-2012, 08:26 PM
My reading of the SC decision is that everything was struck down. Except if a person is arrested or is being investigated for a crime, then Arizona authorities can reasonably inquire about one's legal status. But it reserves the right to revisit this part as well WHEN THERE IS ACTUALLY SOMEONE ARRESTED and this inquiry is then investigated. The court seemed really willing to strike it down if Arizona abuses this part of investigation and makes legal status the investigation itself instead of the criminal activity.

HonestChieffan
06-25-2012, 08:34 PM
Chicago comes to Arizona. Obama abandons border security....This only applies to Arizona. Amazing.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-suspends-ice-cooperation-with-arizona-law-enforcement-after-scotus-ruling


On Monday, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency suspended the federal program known as 287(g) for Arizona, which allows local law enforcement to investigate a suspect’s immigration status after an arrest had been made for any offense. The program has been highly effective in identifying criminal aliens at the local level.

The decision came only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court announced their decision to let stand the portion of Arizona’s immigration law which requires local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is here illegally.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, 287 (g) agreements are “not useful” in states that have enacted SB1070-type laws.

So, even if local law enforcement arrests an illegal alien, their requests to ICE are likely to fall upon deaf ears and the suspect will simply be released.

KC native
06-25-2012, 10:36 PM
Chicago comes to Arizona. Obama abandons border security....This only applies to Arizona. Amazing.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-suspends-ice-cooperation-with-arizona-law-enforcement-after-scotus-ruling


On Monday, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency suspended the federal program known as 287(g) for Arizona, which allows local law enforcement to investigate a suspect’s immigration status after an arrest had been made for any offense. The program has been highly effective in identifying criminal aliens at the local level.

The decision came only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court announced their decision to let stand the portion of Arizona’s immigration law which requires local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is here illegally.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, 287 (g) agreements are “not useful” in states that have enacted SB1070-type laws.

So, even if local law enforcement arrests an illegal alien, their requests to ICE are likely to fall upon deaf ears and the suspect will simply be released.

Are you surprised? They already said they would do this.

KC native
06-25-2012, 10:37 PM
My reading of the SC decision is that everything was struck down. Except if a person is arrested or is being investigated for a crime, then Arizona authorities can reasonably inquire about one's legal status. But it reserves the right to revisit this part as well WHEN THERE IS ACTUALLY SOMEONE ARRESTED and this inquiry is then investigated. The court seemed really willing to strike it down if Arizona abuses this part of investigation and makes legal status the investigation itself instead of the criminal activity.

$50 says Maricopa county is the first.

patteeu
06-26-2012, 09:09 AM
In other SCOTUS news, there actually was another decision that was sort of important. The Supreme court declared that LWOP for minors is unconstitutional.

Not quite. They said that mandatory LWOP for juveniles was unconstitutional, but they left room for judge-imposed (or jury-imposed) discretionary LWOP for juveniles when individual circumstances warrant it.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2012, 10:00 AM
Not quite. They said that mandatory LWOP for juveniles was unconstitutional, but they left room for judge-imposed (or jury-imposed) discretionary LWOP for juveniles when individual circumstances warrant it.


I agree with this ruling because these people in some cases were sentenced that way without a Jury. WTF?

Frankie
06-26-2012, 12:13 PM
In Arizona dissent, Scalia blasts Obama’s deportation stay, immigration policies
You really outta not post violent words like this. They are very threatening.

vailpass
06-26-2012, 01:24 PM
You really outta not post violent words like this. They are very threatening.


LMAO toothless old man

banyon
06-26-2012, 03:58 PM
Not quite. They said that mandatory LWOP for juveniles was unconstitutional, but they left room for judge-imposed (or jury-imposed) discretionary LWOP for juveniles when individual circumstances warrant it.

I read the case the same way as you pat.

It does concern me though that the next step will be to argue some sort of disparate impact problem like the death penalty because it's now discretionary, effectively ending it altogether.

banyon
06-26-2012, 03:58 PM
Yes, and if the Feds have qualms about how Arizona is performing their jobs then they can just refuse to accept any prisoners from the state of AZ (IIRC they already have said this is an option).

Doing it that way sounds like an equal protection violation to me.

patteeu
06-26-2012, 04:24 PM
I read the case the same way as you pat.

It does concern me though that the next step will be to argue some sort of disparate impact problem like the death penalty because it's now discretionary, effectively ending it altogether.

That's a really good point.

ForeverChiefs58
06-26-2012, 04:41 PM
You really outta not post violent words like this. They are very threatening.

Do you have any gasoline?

notorious
06-26-2012, 05:04 PM
If the Feds are not providing services to the state that they provide to everyone else, the people of Arizona should stop paying that percentage of their Federal taxes.

HonestChieffan
06-26-2012, 05:23 PM
It is better your taxes pay for advertising about food stamps, green energy in Africa, and buddy money for contributors than border security for our country.

Iz Zat Chew
06-26-2012, 05:23 PM
If the Feds are not providing services to the state that they provide to everyone else, the people of Arizona should stop paying that percentage of their Federal taxes.

I'm thinking that's a good idea.

KC native
06-26-2012, 08:13 PM
Doing it that way sounds like an equal protection violation to me.

They're obviously not going to explicitly say that, but if someone doesn't fit their priority criteria you can be sure they won't rush in getting back to Arizona.

Eventually, they'll get their case they want to beat the "papers please" portion and that will be the end of this bill. I can see it now. Arizona holds someone wrongly, Feds say they don't want the person, Arizona continues to hold them longer, and then it all comes down.

Arizona can't win in this game and knowing the attention whoring Arpaio, it won't be long until they fuck it up.

La literatura
06-27-2012, 10:01 PM
In Arizona dissent, Scalia blasts Obama’s deportation stay, immigration policies

Richard Posner strikes out at Scalia:

Dear Walter and Dahlia,

I have read Arizona v. United States and was particularly struck by Justice Scalia's opinion dissenting from the part of the decision that invalidated several provisions of the Arizona law.

Justice Scalia is famously outspoken. Is that a good thing for a Supreme Court justice to be? Good or bad, it seems correlated with an increasing tendency of justices to engage in celebrity-type extrajudicial activities, such as presiding at mock trials of fictional and historical figures (was Hamlet temporarily insane when he killed Polonius? Should George Custer be posthumously court-martialed for blowing the Battle of the Little Big Horn?). My own view, expressed much better by professor Lawrence Douglas of Amherst, is that such activities give a mistaken impression of what trials are good for. But I would give Justice Sotomayor a pass for appearing on Sesame Street to adjudicate a dispute between two stuffed animals.

But that is to one side of Justice Scalia's opinion.

He is very concerned with the fact that the Obama administration recently announced a program suspending deportation efforts directed at more than1 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30. He quotes President Obama as having said that the program was "the right thing to do." Justice Scalia says that it "boggles the mind" to think that Arizona could be contradicting federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law "that the President declines to enforce." He says that the federal government "does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude." The federal government is "refus[ing] to enforce the Nation's immigration laws."

These are fighting words. The nation is in the midst of a hard-fought presidential election campaign; the outcome is in doubt. Illegal immigration is a campaign issue. It wouldn't surprise me if Justice Scalia's opinion were quoted in campaign ads. The program that appalls Justice Scalia was announced almost two months after the oral argument in the Arizona case. It seems rather a belated development to figure in an opinion in the case.

Illegal immigration is a polarizing political and social issue. Many people hate illegal immigrants. Others regard them as an indispensable part of the American labor force. There are 10 million to 11 million illegal immigrants (for rather obvious reasons no one knows the exact number), and illegal immigrants are thought to amount to about 5 percent of the total labor force. Because they tend to do jobs that few Americans want, and because their wages are below average, many (though by no means all) economists believe that the illegal immigrants actually increase the wages of Americans (including legal immigrants). The reason is that the existence of a large body of low-wage workers increases the demand for goods and services both by reducing the cost of production and by their own purchases as consumers, and increased demand for goods and services translates into increased demand for labor and hence higher wages. This is not a certainty but seems a good guess of the effect of illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants do receive some social services, but fewer than citizens do. It is unclear whether they commit more crimes on average than citizens; they may commit fewer. Of course, some illegal immigrants are criminals, and the Obama administration has decided to focus the very limited resources of the federal immigration enforcement authorities on catching and deporting the criminals. Focusing on them and leaving the law-abiding (law-abiding except for the immigration law itself!) illegal immigrants seems a defensible policy. And certainly state and local law enforcement can assist the feds in apprehending illegal immigrants who commit crimes (being in this country without legal authorization is unlawful, but, with some exceptions, it is not criminal); nothing in the Arizona decision prevents that.

In his peroration, Justice Scalia says that "Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrant who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy." Arizona bears the brunt? Arizona is only one of the states that border Mexico, and if it succeeds in excluding illegal immigrants, these other states will bear the brunt, so it is unclear what the net gain to society would have been from Arizona's efforts, now partially invalidated by the Supreme Court. But the suggestion that illegal immigrants in Arizona are invading Americans' property, straining their social services, and even placing their lives in jeopardy is sufficiently inflammatory to call for a citation to some reputable source of such hyperbole. Justice Scalia cites nothing to support it.

As of last year there were estimated to be 360,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, which is less than 6 percent of the Arizona population—below the estimated average illegal immigrant population of the United States. (So much for Arizona's bearing the brunt of illegal immigration.) Maybe Arizona's illegal immigrants are more violent, less respectful of property, worse spongers off social services, and otherwise more obnoxious than the illegal immigrants in other states, but one would like to see some evidence of that.

Sincerely,

Richard Posner

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2012/_supreme_court_year_in_review/supreme_court_year_in_review_justice_scalia_offers_no_evidence_to_back_up_his_claims_about_illegal_i mmigration_.html

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 10:38 PM
E.J. Dionne Jr. Washington Post Wednesday, June 27, 11:21 AM

Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court.

He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem.

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.

“After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants,” Scalia said. “The president has said 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 laws. 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 federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

What boggles the mind is that Scalia thought it proper to jump into this political argument. And when he went on to a broader denunciation of federal policies, he sounded just like an Arizona Senate candidate.

“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem,” the politician-justice proclaimed. “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 simply unwilling to do so.

“Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.” Cue the tea party rally applause.

As it happens, Obama has stepped up immigration enforcement. But if the 76-year-old justice wants to dispute this, he is perfectly free as a citizen to join the political fray and take on the president. But he cannot be a blatantly political actor and a justice at the same time.

Unaccountable power can lead to arrogance. That’s why justices typically feel bound by rules and conventions that Scalia seems to take joy in ignoring. Recall a 2004 incident. Three weeks after the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case over whether the White House needed to turn over documents from an energy task force that Dick Cheney had headed, Scalia went off on Air Force Two for a duck-hunting trip with the vice president.

Scalia scoffed at the idea that he should recuse himself. “My recusal is required if . . . my ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ ” he wrote in a 21-page memo. Well, yes. But there was no cause for worry, Scalia explained, since he never hunted with Cheney “in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation.”

Don’t you feel better? And can you just imagine what the right wing would have said if Vice President Biden had a case before the court and went duck hunting with Justice Elena Kagan?

Then there was the speech Scalia gave at Switzerland’s University of Fribourg a few weeks before the court was to hear a case involving the rights of Guantanamo detainees.

“I am astounded at the world reaction to Guantanamo,” he declared in response to a question. “We are in a war. We are capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in a war. War is war and it has never been the case that when you capture a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. It’s a crazy idea to me.”

It was a fine speech for a campaign gathering, the appropriate venue for a man so eager to brand the things he disagrees with as crazy or mind-boggling. Scalia should free himself to pursue his true vocation. We can then use his resignation as an occasion for a searching debate over just how political this Supreme Court has become.

La literatura
06-27-2012, 10:43 PM
Scalia is probably going to vote in favor of Obamacare, and just needs to bolster his conservative cred. I know that sounds ridiculous, but his concurrence in Raich is a pretty solid explanation of how Congress can reach fairly far.

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 11:30 PM
Scalia is probably going to vote in favor of Obamacare, and just needs to bolster his conservative cred. I know that sounds ridiculous, but his concurrence in Raich is a pretty solid explanation of how Congress can reach fairly far.

You really think so? I'd be shocked. He really seems to enjoy his status as conservative hero and his too-frequent extra commentary (such as seen in the AZ decision) really seems to show some contempt for the other side.