Supreme Court strikes down most of the Arizona Immigration law

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T-h1qvVdAx0

The Supreme Court today struck down most of Arizona's controversial law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants.
The court left standing only the "check your papers" partsof the law that requires state and local police to perform roadside immigration checks of people they've stopped or detained if a "reasonable suspicion" exists they are in the country illegally.
The court indicated that that would face further scrutiny.
The court rejected the parts of the law that making it a state crime for illegal immigrants not to possess their federal registration cards; for illegal imigrants to work, apply for work or solicit work; and a section that allowed state and local police to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant when probable cause exists that they committed "any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."
The law, known as SB1010, has become a flashpoint for the debate over how to enforce immigration in the U.S. and served as a blueprint for similar laws in five other states - Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.
President Obama called the Arizona law "misguided" and his Department of Justice sued the state. Former Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney said he would drop the federal lawsuit against Arizona and adopted the Arizona-inspired idea of making life so difficult for illegal immigrants that they choose to "self-deport."
Four key provisions of the law were blocked by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix, a ruling that was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court in San Francisco. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and both sides held oral arguments on April 25.
Sponsors said the law was necessary because the federal government has failed to control the influx of illegal immigrants into the country, forcing states like Arizona to grapple with the security concerns and high costs of educating and caring for illegal immigrants. They said the law simply empowers police and state officials to help enforce federal immigration laws.
Opponents said it unfairly criminalizes otherwise law-abiding people, opens the door for racial profiling of Hispanics legally in the country and forces state law enforcement to interfere with the intricacies of federal immigration policy.

PDF Written Decision

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.
Text of the 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.

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.”

Ohhhhh....the repubs are silent. Did you think it was going to really go any other way?

Ohhhhh....the repubs are silent. Did you think it was going to really go any other way? Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

this is the one they thought was a slam dunk. Now they are rrally worried about obamacare!

Yea, in addition I thought this was very interesting:

Quote: "Justice Scalia announced that he supports every provision of SB1070, and complained about President Obama implementing the goals of the DREAM Act -- a policy that has nothing to do with the case -- reinforcing the worst suspicions about Scalia being a Republican activist in a justice's robe."

Apparently the SC left it open for the multitudes of civil law suits that have yet to go through with regard to the "papers please" portion that was upheld. It was said at this time there is no evidence of racial profiling but they would revisit it should it come up in legal action. So they did leave it open to be pressed later on with the civil lawsuits which maybe years down the road may "knock out" that portion they upheld today.

and it turns out Scalia was right........the provision that mattered the most to illegal immigrant protection racket was upheld.......all of them cops can now say "show me your papers"......heh

and it turns out Scalia was right........the provision that mattered the most to illegal immigrant protection racket was upheld.......all of them cops can now say "show me your papers"......heh Originally Posted by dearhunter

All they can do is in the event of an arrest or detention is look into it or ask. They cannot arrest them without warrant or cause simply because they think they are illegal immigrants, and I might add they left it open to revisit if racial profiling occurs and all those wonderful civil lawsuits have yet to go through court that will adversely affect that one portion of the bill they did uphold.

It's a partial victory, but a step in the right direction. We won't see the last of this and it does deter other states from trying to implement extreme immigration laws on their own.

It's Benjamin...not Benjamen...

You are stupid, naive or a pundant.......I don't care enough to determine which.......the cops in Arizona can simply turn them over to ICE for processing on suspicion of status......they will not have to release them.

I don't ever remember the law being about stopping people for the sole purpose of "checking" their papers. It always was about asking the question during a "legitimate" stop........I use quotes there. Because, we all know how easy it is for a cop to find a legitimate reason to stop anyone.

Well, I got it wrong on this one. I didn't realize how statist the Court has become. Not a good day for those who love liberty.

You are stupid, naive or a pundant.......I don't care enough to determine which.......the cops in Arizona can simply turn them over to ICE for processing on suspicion of status......they will not have to release them.

I don't ever remember the law being about stopping people for the sole purpose of "checking" their papers. It always was about asking the question during a "legitimate" stop........I use quotes there. Because, we all know how easy it is for a cop to find a legitimate reason to stop anyone. Originally Posted by dearhunter

Better re-read what the SC said..lol

...and by the way as was stated before they left it open for all the civil lawsuits that are about to come AZ's way.

Should have guessed the outcome after seeing previous SCOTUS mistake. An Arizona rancher tries to keep illegals off his property, and he has to pay them $80,000 for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. So if someone enters the country illegally, and illegally enters your property, you must give them cookies, and politely ask them to leave, if it isn't inconvenient. According to SCOTUS. Otherwise, you have to pay them.

No wonder the country is going to hell.

You got to love how Jan Brewer spins this, and now she says the "heart of the bill" was the "show me your papers please" when she said sometime back it was not..lmao

Quote:
"Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Monday to uphold part of the state's immigration law was a victory for all Americans.


Despite the court striking down key provisions of the statute, Brewer said the heart of the law can now be enacted. The court upheld the "show me your papers" provision, which allows police to check the status of someone they suspect is in the U.S. without documents.


The ruling, however, took the teeth out of the provision by prohibiting police officers from arresting people on minor immigration charges."

There's no way to spin it. It is a huge victory for large government, and a blow to freedom. Gov. Brewer is doing what she can, but this was not a win for Arizona.

..and I might add, law enforcement is already voicing concerns about having to be "immigration" checkers because as it was stated in the news "most are not trained for this and it could be a slippery slope to enforce"...

Quote:
"There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced," Kennedy wrote. "At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume (the provision) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law."


Kennedy made clear that Arizona authorities had to enforce the immigration status checks in compliance with federal law or face certain constitutional challenges.

That is the key right there.. and if the police start harassing legal citizens based solely on their color or culture they will surely be hit with much more in the way of civil rights lawsuits. Those law suits will drain Arizona dry..