Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law


nmk
06-25-2012, 08:40
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577480392205316110.html

1 out of 4 provisions upheld.

sbhaven
06-25-2012, 08:43
Yep they upheld the "show your papers" portion which is a win for AZ.
Opinion here...
6/25/12 - Arizona v. United States (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf)

Libs and the MSM will spin the AZ opinion as a win, even though the heart of the case was upheld.

hogfish
06-25-2012, 08:47
This helps. It's too bad the federal government's open border policy forces a state into this mess.

:miff:

JBnTX
06-25-2012, 08:51
Hey Obama, how do you like that?...:pepper:

sbhaven
06-25-2012, 08:53
MSNBC is already spining the AZ opinion as a win...
High court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law (http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/25/12398271-high-court-strikes-down-key-parts-of-arizona-immigration-law?lite)
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.

The 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.” The Justice Department moved quickly in 2010 to block enforcement of the law.

ChuteTheMall
06-25-2012, 08:58
This helps. It's too bad the federal government's open border policy forces a state into this mess.

:miff:

It's too bad the self-proclaimed Party of Principle hasn't got a clue:

The issuance of U.S. passports should cease. We look forward to an era in which American citizens and foreigners can travel anywhere in the world without a passport. We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas, or other papers required to cross borders.
http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/platform/itafi.html


I'm glad that we will never have a Libertarian President or Congress:

Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.

We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/platform/imm.html

Such timeless matters of principle cannot shift with political winds, Libertarians will destroy their glorious party if they pander to polls for political expedience. Oh wait......:tinfoil:

callihan_44
06-25-2012, 09:12
PAPERS PLEASE! :wavey:

hogfish
06-25-2012, 09:15
It's too bad the self-proclaimed Party of Principle hasn't got a clue:




I'm glad that we will never have a Libertarian President or Congress:



Such timeless matters of principle cannot shift with political winds, Libertarians will destroy their glorious party if they pander to polls for political expedience. Oh wait......:tinfoil:

Hah! You got me there! :supergrin:

You are right, of course. I believe you must be a citizen to have all the protections the constitution provides.

Know that this derailment is your fault. :rofl:

TxDoubleAgent
06-25-2012, 09:17
"Here We Go"

SGT HATRED
06-25-2012, 09:22
Not a slam dunk but it sure beats a total shut out...

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 09:23
PAPERS PLEASE! :wavey:

Sounds good to me,but if they are under 30, with Barry in office, all they have to claim is that they came to Amerika as a child.

They could explain that in court though.

mt920
06-25-2012, 10:23
One out of four isn't much of a victory to me.... Just my two cents. I guess some are satisfied with allowing immigrants to work without permits. Police can't arrest an immigrant they believe has committed a deportable offense. In addition, it's not a crime for immigrants who fail to carry registration documents.

This is not much to cheer about.....

sbhaven
06-25-2012, 10:31
It appears that even though they upheld the bit about showing the papers they indicate that it could (should?) be challenged.
(2) It is not clear at this stage and on this record that §2(B), in practice, will require state officers to delay the release of detainees for no reason other than to verify their immigration status. This would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision. But §2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. If the law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision would likely survive preemption—at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objectives. Without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that conflicts with federal law. Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277. This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect. Pp. 22–24.

sbhaven
06-25-2012, 11:03
Scalia makes this statement at the end of his opinion...
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction 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.
Emphasis mine.

Jerry
06-25-2012, 11:09
PAPERS PLEASE! :wavey:

:upeyes:

When I am stopped for a "traffic violation" I must produce my "papers" (driving is a privilege) why shouldn't an illegal submit to the same? If I'm "arrested" for commuting a crime, drugs, robbery, assault and etc. I must produce my "papers" why shouldn't an illegal? :dunno:

Jerry
06-25-2012, 11:22
Just now, noon, Local "Fox news" channel 8. The Supreme Court leaves intact the portion of the law that states the Federal Government can stop local law reinforcement form demanding proof of citizenship. Then, at the end, the law allows Arizona law enforcement to ask for proof of citizenship if a person is involved in a traffic stop or during the investigation of a crime. I so love the double talk spin. :upeyes:

ChuteTheMall
06-25-2012, 11:39
Sounds good to me,but if they are under 30, with Barry in office, all they have to claim is that they came to Amerika as a child.

They could explain that in court though.

Any chance they might lie?
:whistling:

Gundude
06-25-2012, 11:47
Libs and the MSM will spin the AZ opinion as a win, even though the heart of the case was upheld.Hmm, this sounds like exactly the kind of "spin" you're projecting onto the MSM. The one out of four parts that is upheld just happens to be the "heart of the case"?

So police can "ask for papers", they just can't do anything about it if you're illegal?

sbhaven
06-25-2012, 12:21
Hmm, this sounds like exactly the kind of "spin" you're projecting onto the MSM. The one out of four parts that is upheld just happens to be the "heart of the case"?

So police can "ask for papers", they just can't do anything about it if you're illegal?
Were there not lots of protests over this law because immigrants content they'd be racially profiled and asked to prove their immigration status? Was not the chief complaint from many of those protesters that the AZ police were being given the power to stop people and asking them to show papers?

While the court indicated law enforcement couldn't "racially profile", once stopped and detained or arrested the immigration status could still be checked. The court indicated the stop must be in accordance with established federal immigration and civil rights laws. So it still means that those who are illegal (cannot prove legal residency) could still be reported by AZ police to ICE if they are stopped and detained/arrested. From the opinion...
(1) The mandatory nature of the status checks does not interfere with the federal immigration scheme. Consultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system. In fact, Congress has encouraged the sharing of information about possible immigration violations. See §§1357(g)(10)(A), 1373(c). The federal scheme thus leaves room for a policy requiring state officials to contact ICE as a routine matter. Cf. Whiting, 563 U. S., at ___. Pp. 20–21.

Gundude
06-25-2012, 12:30
Were there not lots of protests over this law because immigrants content they'd be racially profiled and asked to prove their immigration status? Was not the chief complaint from many of those protesters that the AZ police were being given the power to stop people and asking them to show papers?

While the court indicated law enforcement couldn't "racially profile", once stopped and detained or arrested the immigration status could still be checked. The court indicated the stop must be in accordance with established federal immigration and civil rights laws. So it still means that those who are illegal (cannot prove legal residency) could still be reported by AZ police to ICE if they are stopped and detained/arrested. From the opinion...Uh, isn't ICE the problem AZ was trying to get around?

Now that it's obvious to all that there will be no consequence to being discovered as an illegal, the illegals don't need to worry as much about being questioned about it.

DOC44
06-25-2012, 12:33
PAPERS PLEASE! :wavey:

Maybe obama will go to AZ and someone will ask him for his papers.

Doc44

vart
06-25-2012, 12:41
Uh, isn't ICE the problem AZ was trying to get around?

Now that it's obvious to all that there will be no consequence to being discovered as an illegal, the illegals don't need to worry as much about being questioned about it.

Exactly. The Supremes took away any authority for AZ cops to enforce federal immigration laws...

Not a win for my fellow citizens, IMHO...

Cops can pull over an illegal for a traffic violation, confirm he is here illegally, then call ICE to notify them. They will then tell the cops to pound sand, and the cops must let the criminal go.

That criminal is then able to go commit further crimes such as robbery, rape, etc. If he is caught commiting one of those crimes, then he is arrested and held and shipped back to Mexico, where he gets more fake papers and comes back to start the process all over again.:steamed:

sbhaven
06-25-2012, 12:44
Uh, isn't ICE the problem AZ was trying to get around?
Actually no, the portion of the law that wasn't struck down had nothing to do with AZ getting around ICE.
The actual bill language (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf) for section 2b...
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

sbhaven
06-25-2012, 13:05
Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Arizona police
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

Gundude
06-25-2012, 13:05
Actually no, the portion of the law that wasn't struck down had nothing to do with AZ getting around ICE.
The actual bill language (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf) for section 2b...Yeah, and after that immigration status is detemined, then what?

"Sir, I've determined you're an illegal alien. Here is your ticket for jaywalking. Have a nice day."

Chronos
06-25-2012, 13:25
It's too bad the self-proclaimed Party of Principle hasn't got a clue:




I'm glad that we will never have a Libertarian President or Congress:



Such timeless matters of principle cannot shift with political winds, Libertarians will destroy their glorious party if they pander to polls for political expedience. Oh wait......:tinfoil:

Yet another who really, really loves government's progressive-era "innovations."

sbhaven
06-25-2012, 13:56
This is apparently the program at issue (mentioned in a previous post (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19129386&postcount=24)) that is being suspended.
Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act (http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/287g.htm)

Interesting how the court rules and the administration immediately thumbs their nose at the ruling saying they won't enforce federal law. The administration obviously had this ready to go. Which then makes one wonder what orders they have ready to go (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1429068) if parts or all of Obamacare is torpedoed by SCOTUS?

Ruble Noon
06-25-2012, 14:20
Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law

And struck down three others. Hurray for the "conservative" justices nominated by republicans. :upeyes:

maxsnafu
06-25-2012, 14:35
Exactly. The Supremes took away any authority for AZ cops to enforce federal immigration laws...

Not a win for my fellow citizens, IMHO...

Cops can pull over an illegal for a traffic violation, confirm he is here illegally, then call ICE to notify them. They will then tell the cops to pound sand, and the cops must let the criminal go.

That criminal is then able to go commit further crimes such as robbery, rape, etc. If he is caught commiting one of those crimes, then he is arrested and held and shipped back to Mexico, where he gets more fake papers and comes back to start the process all over again.:steamed:

Way to go, John Roberts: the strongest argument for turning out in November for Mitt Romney was maintaining the “conservative” majority on the Supreme Court, and you just demolished that argument in a single blow

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 14:38
Sounds good to me,but if they are under 30, with Barry in office, all they have to claim is that they came to Amerika as a child.

They could explain that in court though.

I spoke a little too soon I guess.

States face uphill climb on immigration enforcement after court ruling, DHS policy change


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/feds-suspend-immigration-enforcement-program-after-arizona-court-ruling/#ixzz1yq6rzsDy

By Monday afternoon, the Department of Homeland Security had pulled back on a program known as 287(g), which allows the feds to deputize local officials to make immigration-based arrests. According to a DHS official, the administration has determined those agreements are "not useful" now in states that have Arizona-style laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has since rescinded that agreement with Arizona -- with the state itself, and three local law enforcement agencies.*
The move means that even if local police step up immigration checks, they'll have to rely on federal officials to make the arrests.*
And federal officials made clear that ICE would be selective in responding to the expected rise in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria -- such as being wanted for a felony.*


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/feds-suspend-immigration-enforcement-program-after-arizona-court-ruling/#ixzz1yq77Fust

ChuteTheMall
06-25-2012, 14:57
The move means that even if local police step up immigration checks, they'll have to rely on federal officials to make the arrests.*
And federal officials made clear that ICE would be selective in responding to the expected rise in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria -- such as being wanted for a felony.*


Can Sheriff Joe hold a arrested illegal alien (DUI or disorderly conduct, or whatever) until the feds show up?
Or indefinitely if they don't?

Wouldn't indefinite detention annoy the open borders libtard-Ronulans?
:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 16:50
Can Sheriff Joe hold a arrested illegal alien (DUI or disorderly conduct, or whatever) until the feds show up?
Or indefinitely if they don't?

Wouldn't indefinite detention annoy the open borders libtard-Ronulans?
:rofl:

I'm for holding them for 30 days, then busing them to Washington DC, then drop them off in front of ICE HQ, handcuff the chain gang to any stout object, and pull away. Send a Bill to the White House for the travel expenses and detainment costs.