Arizona Immigration law

[LoneStarSoldier]

So, Arizona's Immigration law has been mostly struck down in the Supreme Court's ruling today. Any thoughts/opinions on this? Let's try to keep it civil though and agree to disagree. Also, next on the agenda is President Obama's Healthcare plan any opinions on that?

 

[Tejano Scott]

I can't really comment since I don't know for sure what was struck down or what was upheld. I hear they struck down the portion requiring automatic citizen checks on arrested individuals. Not sure about anything else.

 

[Acera]

Not mostly struck down, just some of the lesser elements.

The court did allow the main component of the law to stand. That requires state and local police to check the immigration status of people they've stopped or detained if a "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the country illegally.

 

[Tejano Scott]

Here is the text of the decision... Still haven't read it yet, but I will later:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/25/scotus.arizona.pdf?hpt=hp_t1

 

[FlashBang]

Does not have much value anymore since the EO that was issued for "kids" up to 30 years old grants them quasi immunity from deportation. I think anyone found to be illegally here in any State should be detained then placed on a bus to Washington DC. Once there they will be readily available for a meeting with INS to discuss and justify them being allowed to be here. Let DC take the responsibility for their support and other costs until the determination is made. They are in effect telling States that they have to assume this cost so perhaps a little Quid pro quo is in order.

 

[TxDad]

Jan Brewer will find something else to poke the administration with.

 

[Charlie]

And of course, good for her!

 

[skinman]

"The national government has significant power to regulate immigration," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law."

Extremists on both sides will bitch and moan, but our Constitution works because we do not get to pick and choose which parts we support and enforce. This was the right call for the right reason, and that a majority conservative Court states this clearly pretty much drives this point home...

 

[TxDad]

Extremists on both sides will bitch and moan, but our Constitution works because we do not get to pick and choose which parts we support and enforce. This was the right call for the right reason, and that a majority conservative Court states this clearly pretty much drives this point home...

It may have been the correct choice per the Constitution, but it has driven a point home that the FEDs arent doing their job. Personally, I think that was one of its main points of being implemented. It caught the Gov's attention. Maybe some good for the border states will come from this.

 

[skinman]

It may have been the correct choice per the Constitution, but it has driven a point home that the FEDs arent doing their job. Personally, I think that was one of its main points of being implemented. It caught the Gov's attention. Maybe some good for the border states will come from this.

I agree. Our current immigration situation needs addressing but becoming a police state is not acceptable.

 

[LoneStarSoldier]

I agree, our immigration system as it currently stands needs reform. My wife is a permanent resident and we are pursuing citizenship for her, but we're doing things the LEGAL way. She's always paid her taxes, obeyed the law, etc. But I think the process for getting citizenship should be stream-lined or at least better regulated, the waiting forever rhetoric is getting old already. Nonetheless, I feel the main reason Arizona even created this law was out of necessity (i.e. the federal government not doing their job in enforcing immigration)

 

[stdreb27]

Lol, if you want to be entertained, go read scalia's dissent.

He all but asked if he was the last sane person on the planet...

After reading that, I dont know how, you reach the conclusion the court did. It is brilliant.

 

[macshooter]

I agree. Our current immigration situation needs addressing but becoming a police state is not acceptable.

As legal US citizens we are already much farther down the road toward a police state, with the patriot act, and all the surveillance powers the govt has over US citizens, and all the information that is collected on us through google and social networks, than an "undocumented worker" will ever be by someone simply asking them for proof of citizenship.

So a state cannot pursue policies that undermine federal law, but the federal govt can pursue policies that undermine federal law? In other words, we all have to follow federal law, but the govt can do any damn thing it wants to?

With obama's new immigration enforcement edict, how exactly is anyone supposed to verify that an undocumented person has been here for at least 5 years, is under the age of 30, or has no criminal record (since we cannot even verify that the person is who he or she says they are, because they have no documentation) What prevents any illegal from assuming a name and lying to DHS about all of that? Doesn't a policy like that undermine federal law? So the govt is above the law? That is certainly how this govt is acting.

Are we really living in a country where as a US citizen, the govt has the right snoop on your ISP records, email or cell phone location, and can arrest and hold you without charging you if you are declared a "terrorist", where you have to submit to being groped or irradiated and viewed naked by strangers in order to travel by air (even though that does nothing to prevent or detect a terrorist hiding a weapon or a bomb up their ass, and while the security goons make jokes, humiliate people, and steal stuff from their bags), yet being asked for proof of citizenship if you are pulled over is an oppressive measure of a "police state", and being asked to show proof of being a US citizen before YOU CAN VOTE is considered racist and a violation of civil rights?

Seems like anyone who feels that way cares a lot more about criminals who are in this country illegally than they do about US citizens, US sovereignty, US national security, and the integrity of our elections. Seems like these people have more in common with and sympathize more with, and treat our enemies better than they do the citizens of this country.

 

[Renegade]

Extremists on both sides will bitch and moan, but our Constitution works because we do not get to pick and choose which parts we support and enforce. This was the right call for the right reason, and that a majority conservative Court states this clearly pretty much drives this point home...

No this was 100% the wrong call for any reason. We are NOT following the Constitution.

The fact is, Amendment X gives the power to enforce immigration to the states

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

since immigration law is not delegated to United States by the Constitution.

So simple a CaveMan could have figured it out.

 

[skinman]

No this was 100% the wrong call for any reason. We are NOT following the Constitution.

The fact is, Amendment X gives the power to enforce immigration to the states

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

since immigration law is not delegated to United States by the Constitution.

So simple a CaveMan could have figured it out.

This power is contained in the Enumerated Powers, located in Section 1, Article 8.4, as the Rule of Naturalization in the main body of the Constitution, so the 10th Amendment does not apply since the power had already been reserved by the United States.

 

[Renegade]

This power is contained in the Enumerated Powers, located in Section 1, Article 8.4, as the Rule of Naturalization in the main body of the Constitution, so the 10th Amendment does not apply since the power had already been reserved by the United States.

The Federal Gov does have control of Naturalization, and states (AFAIK) do not contest it. Illegally entering the country is not Naturalization, except in the rare case of someone sneaking in and then asking for asylum, like Obama's Aunt/Uncle have done.

 

[winchster]

I'm with Justice Scalia on this one

"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, 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."

 

[Texastransplant]

Problem is it basically takes Arizonia Sovereignty away or says it's not good. The law was copied after the Federal goverments policy. Now they are saying it doesn't apply? On top of these the president in violation of his oath to defend the country against all enemies forgien and domestic has said that HSD will not respond to any requests from Arizona. This is crazy, where is our goverment going. First we have him go around congress with his amnesty program last week and now this. Folks we are under attack from within.

 

[skinman]

The Federal Gov does have control of Naturalization, and states (AFAIK) do not contest it. Illegally entering the country is not Naturalization, except in the rare case of someone sneaking in and then asking for asylum, like Obama's Aunt/Uncle have done.

Ok, fair point. However, the US Constitution does not specify that only citizens have rights and while the text of the Constitution may refer to citizens, it also refers to persons, and the USSC has consistently disagreed that the Constitution only applies to citizens.

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment statement "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here."

In Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896), the Court applied the 5th and 6th Amendments, ruling that ". . . all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall ...not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school ruling that, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non [the existence or nonexistence of an issue for determination] does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

Finally, the committee that crafted the 14th Amendment stated that, "The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . ."

While the state of Arizona may have felt the need to pass this restrictive law, it clearly did not have the power to do so. The Court remains consistent and ruled as such.

 

[stdreb27]

I'm still a little confused as to what was do heinous about the law?