High court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law

[Smiley-one 13]

By Tom Curry, msnbc.com National Affairs Writer

Updated at 11:55 am ET The Supreme Court on Monday upheld one part of the Arizona immigration law but struck down other sections.

The part of the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/120625_SCOTUS_Immigration_Decision.pdf

The justices struck down three other parts of the law:

•One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;

•One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;

•And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.

"Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration" while the federal goverrment tries to enforce immigration law, but the state "may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion.

The court said that there are several ways for state officials to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, such as by responding to federal requests for information about when a particular non-citizen will be released from state custody.

"But the unilateral state action" to arrest and detain suspected illegal immigrants "goes far beyond these measures, defeating any need for real cooperation" between the state and the federal government.

Monday's decision is only a prelude to further litgation over what now remains of the Arionza statute.

NBC’s Pete Williams reported that “there are other lawsuits against this law. There are several civil liberties groups suing in Arizona, claiming that this law is racial profiling, and those cases have yet to work their way through the courts.”

Monday's decision was a partial victory for President Obama who had criticized the Arizona law, saying it “threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”

In a statement Monday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed SB 1070 into law, claimed that the high court ruling was "a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens."

But House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said flatly that Mondays's ruling was a defeat for those who seek stricter enforcement of immigration laws.

Smith said the decision "limits the ability of states to protect their citizens and communities from illegal immigrants. It is the federal government’s job to enforce our immigration laws, but President Obama has willfully neglected this responsibility. This dereliction of duty has left states to address the crime, job loss, and other costs of illegal immigration."

He added, “Unfortunately, under this Administration, today’s ruling essentially puts an end to immigration enforcement since the states no longer can step in and fill the void created by the Obama administration."

The Justice Department had moved quickly in 2010 to block enforcement of the law. The administration had argued that the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the federal government, not the states, and that where the federal government has pre-empted state action, no state can intrude on that federal turf.

The majority on Monday essentially agreed with that argument.

In the oral argument before the high court on April 25, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said Arizona did not have the power to exclude or remove a person who is in the state illegally.

Although some critics of the law have contended that it would inevitably lead to targeting of Latinos simply because of appearance, speaking Spanish, or having a Spanish accent, Verrilli told the justices on April 25 “We're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case.”

Since enforcement of the law had been blocked by a federal judge soon after its enactment, the Obama administration did not present a record to the Supreme Court of the law leading to incidents of ethnic profiling of Latinos in the state.

Joining Kennedy's majority opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred in part and dissented in part.

Justice Elena Kagan, who served as Obama’s solicitor general, had recused herself from the Arizona case.

The high court’s decision comes just days after Obama announced a new administration policy of not deporting illegal immigrants under age 30 who came to the United States, or were brought to the United States before reaching age 16, who are in school, or have graduated from high school, gotten a general education certificate, or are military veterans. The illegal immigrants covered by the new administration policy will be permitted to apply for authorization to work legally in the United States.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Smiley-one

[_Simpson_ 250]

The part of the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

[Dan J 277]

Which basically makes it toothless. They can ask, but they cannot arrest a person for being out of status or an illegal alien; or fine a person for not carrying immigration documents. All they can do is let the federal government know, which makes it up to the federal government to do anything.

Its more or less a waste of time to pull over people suspected of immigration violations.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Which basically makes it toothless. They can ask, but they cannot arrest a person for being out of status or an illegal alien; or fine a person for not carrying immigration documents. All they can do is let the federal government know, which makes it up to the federal government to do anything.

Its more or less a waste of time to pull over people suspected of immigration violations.

Yep. In fact, a person can basically tell a local law enforcement officer to go to hell if he/she asks for proof you are citizen and they can't do squat.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Which basically makes it toothless. They can ask, but they cannot arrest a person for being out of status or an illegal alien; or fine a person for not carrying immigration documents. All they can do is let the federal government know, which makes it up to the federal government to do anything.

Its more or less a waste of time to pull over people suspected of immigration violations.

sigh

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

sigh

You disagree?

[_Simpson_ 250]

You disagree?

No, I agree. I just don't like it.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Which basically makes it toothless. They can ask, but they cannot arrest a person for being out of status or an illegal alien; or fine a person for not carrying immigration documents. All they can do is let the federal government know, which makes it up to the federal government to do anything.

Its more or less a waste of time to pull over people suspected of immigration violations.

I've been thinking about this all day and there is one possible way the law could be used. While they can't legally arrest or detain an illegal unless a crime is involved, you might see a state database form that could then be handed over to the Feds....assuming people answer accurately...of course if they don't and there is reasonable suspicion they are lying that COULD be a crime....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I've been thinking about this all day and there is one possible way the law could be used. While they can't legally arrest or detain an illegal unless a crime is involved, you might see a state database form that could then be handed over to the Feds....assuming people answer accurately...of course if they don't and there is reasonable suspicion they are lying that COULD be a crime....

One of the biggest arguments behind the proponents of SB1070 was that local law enforcement was giving this kind of information to immigration officials, but nothing was being done. However, the bottle neck has to do with the courts - because of due process, there is no simple, easy way to deport undocumented immigrants. Large scale deportation has never been regarded as a reasonable nor efficient way to combat the influx of undocumented immigrants in this country. SB1070 was an attempt to side-step due process by detaining suspects indefinitely, until their day in court.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[james&olya 1,121]

Yep. In fact, a person can basically tell a local law enforcement officer to go to hell if he/she asks for proof you are citizen and they can't do squat.

Exactly! And unless and until laws and policies are changed in the US requiring everyone to carry ID and present it on demand, regardless of skin color, language spoken or accent, it will be a problem for any such law to pass constitutional muster if it is used the way we all know that this law is intended.

[Pooky 3,830]

Exactly! And unless and until laws and policies are changed in the US requiring everyone to carry ID and present it on demand, regardless of skin color, language spoken or accent, it will be a problem for any such law to pass constitutional muster if it is used the way we all know that this law is intended.

You mean ... to identify people in this country illegally?

Now, who on earth would want to do that? Certainly not the Federal Government, whose job it should be, but who has abrogated the duty and responsibility for the past 25 years.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You mean ... to identify people in this country illegally?

Now, who on earth would want to do that? Certainly not the Federal Government, whose job it should be, but who has abrogated the duty and responsibility for the past 25 years.

Our Federal Gov't. has had the common sense historically to recognize the complexities of the ebb and flow of undocumented migrations from our southern border, avoiding simplistic solutions that would achieve nothing. We are a nation of immigrants and will always be defined by an openness to people who come here seeking to make a better life for themselves and their families. The only real injustice in our national approach to immigration is that we don't provide a legal avenue for those who are willing to work and contribute to this country.

[slim 1,533]

We are a nation of LEGAL immigrants and will always be defined by an openness to people who come here LEGALLY seeking to make a better life for themselves and their families.

fixored.

The only real injustice in our national approach to immigration is that we don't provide a legal avenue for those who are willing to work and contribute to this country.

I don't know about all that. My wife, and many others here on VJ, didn't seem to have a problem with legally entering the United States.

Edited June 26, 2012 by slim

[JohnR! 5,495]

One of the biggest arguments behind the proponents of SB1070 was that local law enforcement was giving this kind of information to immigration officials, but nothing was being done. However, the bottle neck has to do with the courts - because of due process, there is no simple, easy way to deport undocumented immigrants. Large scale deportation has never been regarded as a reasonable nor efficient way to combat the influx of undocumented immigrants in this country. SB1070 was an attempt to side-step due process by detaining suspects indefinitely, until their day in court.

This is where the entire kerfuffle blew up in Jen Brewer's face. She played her hand and lost because her laws did not do anything in order to remove anyone from Arizona. she has been called on her every bluff and simply doesnt have the winning hand.

If she really meant to do something about immigration, she would have assigned her force to help the CBT agents at the border, where the problem really is.

What is left of SB1070 is not enforceable, which is evidenced by the fact the no other law enforcement officers in her state are daring to make a spectacle of themselves, other than Arpaio, who should be pleased he already got his 15 minutes of fame. Apparently nobody told him his show was canceled.