SCOTUS rejects most of Arizona immigration law

[Tricky]

The Supreme Court has sided with the Federal Government and overturned most of the provisions of the controversial Arizona immigration law.

The one part, and a controversial part it is, is that they say it is okay to check immigration status when a person is being detained for any other crime. Here's what they struck down:

-- Authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.
-- Making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.
-- Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work. That would include immigrants standing in a parking lot who "gesture or nod" their willingness to be employed.

Kennedy appeared to be the swing vote, but Roberts also went with the majority, which was important because Kegan had recused herself for having argued the case for the Feds before she was appointed. Not surprisingly, Scalia and his lap dog, Thomas dissented.

I think it was mostly the right decision. I'm a little disappointed that the whole thing wasn't thrown out (Allowing Jan Brewer to declare "victory") but I can understand why that one provision was allowed to stand. Background checks on someone stopped for a crime are routine.

 

[Neally]

Both Brewer and BO are spinning it as a victory, and it is a mixed bag.

The one left standing was the provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. Several here had argued that this was intended to overwhelm the immigration databases and thereby somehow undermine the federal right to determine immigration policy. Oh and the whole bogus racial profiling thing.

 

[Peephole]

Both Brewer and BO are spinning it as a victory, and it is a mixed bag.

The one left standing was the provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. Several here had argued that this was intended to overwhelm the immigration databases and thereby somehow undermine the federal right to determine immigration policy. Oh and the whole bogus racial profiling thing.

Brewer claiming victory is pretty retarded, right? A law she supported was largely struck down...

 

[crimresearch]

Buuuh... buuuhh.. buuhhh... You have to show papers!!! It's Constitutional and everything!!!

Where are those legal experts now??

 

[MG1962]

Brewer claiming victory is pretty retarded, right? A law she supported was largely struck down...

Not really because the States now have had their powers defined, in the past this did not exist in this issue.

 

[Tricky]

Buuuh... buuuhh.. buuhhh... You have to show papers!!! It's Constitutional and everything!!!

Where are those legal experts now??

I'm not sure how this is going to be enforced, and that will determine a lot. Allowing officers to "check immigration status" may mean that they can perform a routine check, which I suspect would turn up such things. I'm basically okay with that, since background checks are SOP for most places. However, if they demand that those who have been stopped "show papers", then they must demand it of everyone, otherwise it is profiling. The next move will be Arizona's. If they try to use profiling and enforce the law differently depending on appearance or last name, then they could wind up back in court again.

 

[MG1962]

I'm not sure how this is going to be enforced, and that will determine a lot. Allowing officers to "check immigration status" may mean that they can perform a routine check, which I suspect would turn up such things. I'm basically okay with that, since background checks are SOP for most places. However, if they demand that those who have been stopped "show papers", then they must demand it of everyone, otherwise it is profiling. The next move will be Arizona's. If they try to use profiling and enforce the law differently depending on appearance or last name, then they could wind up back in court again.

And I would lay odds I could wander around Arizona for years and never be asked for my papers. Oh wait I am not Mexican I am Australian

 

[I Ratant]

DWS...(Driving while swarthy) is a common reason for people being pulled over here.

 

[crimresearch]

I'm not sure how this is going to be enforced, and that will determine a lot. Allowing officers to "check immigration status" may mean that they can perform a routine check, which I suspect would turn up such things. I'm basically okay with that, since background checks are SOP for most places. However, if they demand that those who have been stopped "show papers", then they must demand it of everyone, otherwise it is profiling. The next move will be Arizona's. If they try to use profiling and enforce the law differently depending on appearance or last name, then they could wind up back in court again.

Which I wouldn't be surprised if they have every intention of doing just that, so they can waste more millions of the taxpayer's money to further the 'Obama is soft on illegals like himself' meme.

 

[Biscuit]

Both Brewer and BO are spinning it as a victory, and it is a mixed bag.

The one left standing was the provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. Several here had argued that this was intended to overwhelm the immigration databases and thereby somehow undermine the federal right to determine immigration policy. Oh and the whole bogus racial profiling thing.

In the press conference I saw Brewer said something like, "The federal government wronged the people of America with this decision." That doesn't sound like a victory march to me.

Further she shouldn't because the SC only ruled that the supremacy clause does not strike down the status check provision but that if it is used to violate civil rights then it can be struck down. There is no victory here for her. (thats my basic understanding based on what my customers have been saying and what little of the news I have caught.)

How can there not be an issue with racial profiling here? What about a person in Arizona would give you reasonable suspicion to ask for their identification?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I hope this is evidence that Roberts and Kennedy are not as fanatically right wing as Thomas, Scalia and Alito are. That would make the court more balanced for decisions we can expect in the long run.

 

[crimresearch]

In the press conference I saw Brewer said something like, "The federal government wronged the people of America with this decision." That doesn't sound like a victory march to me.

Further she shouldn't because the SC only ruled that the supremacy clause does not strike down the status check provision but that if it is used to violate civil rights then it can be struck down. There is no victory here for her. (thats my basic understanding based on what my customers have been saying and what little of the news I have caught.)

How can there not be an issue with racial profiling here? What about a person in Arizona would give you reasonable suspicion to ask for their identification?

Oh, no doubt that Canadian accents, shifty behavior like driving new mini-SUVs with 2 children named Muffy and Buffy in soccer uniforms, as well as foreign sounding names like 'Hoffman' will be printed up as guidelines.

 

[Biscuit]

I'm not sure how this is going to be enforced, and that will determine a lot. Allowing officers to "check immigration status" may mean that they can perform a routine check, which I suspect would turn up such things. I'm basically okay with that, since background checks are SOP for most places. However, if they demand that those who have been stopped "show papers", then they must demand it of everyone, otherwise it is profiling. The next move will be Arizona's. If they try to use profiling and enforce the law differently depending on appearance or last name, then they could wind up back in court again.

What papers am I meant to show? If they presume that an AZ state ID card or drivers license is proof then the FF&C clause would require all state issued ID's to be proof.

Having worked in the bar industry for a number of years near the U of A I have become a bit of an expert in fake ID cards. Over the last decade we have seen lots of advancements in ID technology to thwart the people that make the fakes. UV, IR, holograms, microprint, raised printing, and even see through bits that are all claimed to be fool proof. Sure enough within a year of each states new advancement along comes the fakes replicating it. I haven't seen one yet but there are now fakes for the new CA and TX cards, if you have ever seen either it is no small achievement to fake the security features on those cards.

My point is that if my DL is seen as proof we are going to see an explosion of fakes and fraud with regards to state DL and a windfall for the providers of these.

If my DL is not seen as proof then what do I need to have with me? Will my certificate of live birth be enough or must I carry the long form?

 

[KingMerv00]

I hope this is evidence that Roberts and Kennedy are not as fanatically right wing as Thomas, Scalia and Alito are. That would make the court more balanced for decisions we can expect in the long run.

I'm no fan of Scalia but at least he has been known to make a valid point from time to time. Thomas is on a loony whack-a-do planet all by himself. Or rather, I sometimes fantasize he was.

 

[Neally]

In the press conference I saw Brewer said something like, "The federal government wronged the people of America with this decision." That doesn't sound like a victory march to me.

She also said this, “Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is 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. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."-http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/arizona-governor-jan-brewer-on-immigration-ruling-we-won/

How can there not be an issue with racial profiling here? What about a person in Arizona would give you reasonable suspicion to ask for their identification?

Already covered multiple times in the original debate on this. Very simple non-racial profiling scenarios could indicate illegals.

Brewer claiming victory is pretty retarded, right? A law she supported was largely struck down...

No more so than BO claiming a victory when the key controversial provision was upheld.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Allowing officers to "check immigration status" may mean that they can perform a routine check, which I suspect would turn up such things. I'm basically okay with that, since background checks are SOP for most places. However, if they demand that those who have been stopped "show papers", then they must demand it of everyone, otherwise it is profiling. The next move will be Arizona's. If they try to use profiling and enforce the law differently depending on appearance or last name, then they could wind up back in court again.

State agents can determine immigration status (that's a federal thing). So when they check the status, what it means is, they request the federal government to check the status. The issue was that doing so for virtually EVERYONE a cop interacts with would have the effect of swamping federal resources and forcing the federal government to abandon its enforcement policy in favor of Arizona's stated policy of enforcement by attrition.

Allowing cops to request verification of immigration status for people who are detained for other reasons, presumably, would not have that effect.

I think the court was correct in saying that racial profiling was not a legal issue here. If police begin using this law somehow to cover for racial profiling, then--as you say--Arizona will find itself back in court.

 

[jj]

So, if somebody thinks your tail light might be out, and pulls you over, they can demand evidence of legal immigration?

How does a native-born citizen produce that, do tell?

 

[KingMerv00]

So, if somebody thinks your tail light might be out, and pulls you over, they can demand evidence of legal immigration?

How does a native-born citizen produce that, do tell?

Long form birth certificate. No not THAT one, the one that says you're from Kenya.

 

[Biscuit]

She also said this, “Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is 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. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."-http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/arizona-governor-jan-brewer-on-immigration-ruling-we-won/

I guess she can claim victory and defeat at the same time.

Already covered multiple times in the original debate on this. Very simple non-racial profiling scenarios could indicate illegals.

You brought it up here so I assumed you wanted to talk about it. Link or something please or just answer my question...

No more so than BO claiming a victory when the key controversial provision was upheld.

I think 3 out 4 aint bad but what did he say that you are taking exception to? This law will be challenged further the moment it is used to violate an American's civil rights and then its out the door.

 

[BenBurch]

On balance a sane decision, and a victory for the Administration.