Supreme Court upholds AZ immigration law status checks, strikes down other parts

[Little-Acorn]

The Supreme Court announced today that an Arizona cop, when encountering a person in other parts of his duties (traffic stop, domestic violence call etc.), could legally check whether the person was an illegal alien if he had reasonable cause to suspect he might be one.

But they struck down the parts of the law that had said the AZ cop could then arrest the person for being an illegal alien, and a few other parts of the law.

Full text of the Supreme Court decision, with syllabus, Opinion, and concurring and dissenting opinions, can be found here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182

Apparently the AZ law had said that the cop could check the person's status if there was good reason to suspect he was an illegal alien, but could not use race, color etc. as criteria to decide; and could then arrest the person if he was an illegal. The cop could then bring him to a local police station or jail, call the appropriate Federal authorities, and hold the person until the Feds showed up and took him away. AZ cops could not deport the person, they could only turn him over to the Feds, and (supposedly) the Feds would then deport him.

Well, most of that is gone now. The AZ cop can still check the person's illegal-alien status, but if they find he's an illegal, they can't arrest him (at least, not for that alone) or bring him down to the station for it.

The USSC's labored explanation for this, is that states cannot "interfere or impede" the Feds' efforts to enforce Federal law on immigration. How an immediate call to the Feds to come and get the guy "interferes or impedes" them, I'm not sure. But the Supremes somehow decided that it does.

Maybe the Supremes are saying that, when the illegal is held in a local station, that somehow "impedes" the Feds from running into him on the street themselves? Sounds like quite a stretch to me.

Now I have to wonder: How many instances will we see of an AZ cop pulling a guy over for running a stop sign, checking his immigration status and finding he is an illegal alien, and then looking the car over and noticing the left rear taillight is out, and bringing him in for the taillight (while giving the Feds a courtesy call and informing them they have found an illegal alien who is now being detained for having a taillight out on his car)? And then taking a really long time to process the paperwork for releasing the guy on the taillight charge?

Of course, we all know how quickly and enthusiastically the Feds respond to calls of an illegal alien being found: They are out to lunch. The entire Supreme Court lawsuit was filed by the Feds on grounds that they didn't have time to process all the illegal-alien calls they would be getting from state and local cops if the AZ law were to stand as written.

----------------------------------------------------------

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182 for complete text of the Opinions)

Syllabus (legally quoted as a public document with no copyright restrictions):

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

ARIZONA et al. v. UNITED STATES

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 11–182. Argued April 25, 2012—Decided June 25, 2012

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Arizona statute known as S. B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State. The United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect. Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C) makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”; and §2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the United States had established a likelihood of success on its preemption claims.

Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1. Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88. Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52. Pp. 7–8.

3. Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 are preempted by federal law. Pp. 8–19.

(a) Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field in which Congress has left no room for States to regulate. In Hines, a state alien-registration program was struck down on the ground that Congress intended its “complete” federal registration plan to be a “single integrated and all-embracing system.” 312 U. S., at 74. That scheme did not allow the States to “curtail or complement” federal law or “enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.” Id., at 66–67. The federal registration framework remains comprehensive. Because Congress has occupied the field, even complementary state regulation is impermissible. Pp. 8–11.

(b) Section 5(C)’s criminal penalty stands as an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), a comprehensive framework for “combating the employment of illegal aliens,” Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U. S. 137, makes it illegal for employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized workers, 8 U. S. C. §§1324a(a)(1)(A), (a)(2), and requires employers to verify prospective employees’ employment authorization status, §§1324a(a)(1)(B), (b). It imposes criminal and civil penalties on employers, §§1324a(e)(4), (f), but only civil penalties on aliens who seek, or engage in, unauthorized employment, e.g., §§1255(c)(2), (c)(8). IRCA’s express preemption provision, though silent about whether additional penalties may be imposed against employees, “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles” or impose a “special burden” making it more difficult to establish the preemption of laws falling outside the clause. Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U. S. 861–872. The correct instruction to draw from the text, structure, and history of IRCA is that Congress decided it would be inappropriate to impose criminal penalties on unauthorized employees. It follows that a state law to the contrary is an obstacle to the regulatory system Congress chose. Pp. 12–15.

(c) By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States. The federal scheme instructs when it is appropriate to arrest an alien during the removal process. The Attorney General in some circumstances will issue a warrant for trained federal immigration officers to execute. If no federal warrant has been issued, these officers have more limited authority. They may arrest an alien for being “in the United States in violation of any [immigration] law or regulation,” for example, but only where the alien “is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.” §1357(a)(2). Section 6 attempts to provide state officers with even greater arrest authority, which they could exercise with no instruction from the Federal Government. This is not the system Congress created. Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform an immigration officer’s functions. This includes instances where the Attorney General has granted that authority in a formal agreement with a state or local government. See, e.g., §1357(g)(1). Although federal law permits state officers to “cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States,” §1357(g)(10)(B), this does not encompass the unilateral decision to detain authorized by §6. Pp. 15–19.

4. It was improper to enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that §2(B)’s enforcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives. Pp. 19–24.

(a) The state provision has three limitations: A detainee is presumed not to be an illegal alien if he or she provides a valid Arizona driver’s license or similar identification; officers may not consider race, color, or national origin “except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona Constitution[s]”; and §2(B) must be “implemented in a manner consistent with federal law regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.” P. 20.

(b) This Court finds unpersuasive the argument that, even with those limits, §2(B) must be held preempted at this stage. Pp. 20–24.

(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.

(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. 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.

641 F. 3d 339, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., Thomas, J., and Alito, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Kagan, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.


(See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182 for the full text of the Opinion etc.)

[jimnyc]

I suppose every little bit counts. The more we get to sending illegals back, prosecuting them, businesses that hire them... Maybe they'll find a few of the illegal scum in stops now at least.


The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law in a 5-3 decision on Monday that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops. That part of the law, which never went into effect because of court challenges, will now immediately be enforced in Arizona. Other parts of the law, including a provision that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, will remain blocked, as the justices affirmed the federal government's supremacy over immigration policy.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, wrote the opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas partially dissented, saying the entire law should have been upheld.

In the opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that the federal government's "power to determine immigration policy is well settled." But he also showed concern for what he described as Arizona's outsize burden in dealing with illegal immigration, seeming to sympathize with their decision to butt in on immigration enforcement. "Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful im*migration," he wrote. "Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in Arizona each year." But, ultimately, the justices found that Arizona can not mete out their own state punishments for federal immigration crimes.

"Arizona may have under*standable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," Kennedy writes in the opinion's conclusion.

The police immigration checks are allowed, however, because state police would simply flag federal authorities if they find an illegal immigrant. Kennedy did not rule out that these checks may be implemented in an illegal way, which means more lawsuits may be forthcoming.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-upholds-key-part-arizona-immigration-law-141927514.html

[jimnyc]

Moved my thread here, LA beat me by seconds!

[Missileman]

It makes absolutely no sense to allow a cop to determine if someone's in violation of federal law and not let them detain them for that violation.

[logroller]

Moved my thread here, LA beat me by seconds!
I got an mms text earlier and wanted to post about it too...maybe if we weren't so busy messaging we'd have beat him to the post.

Ive got to say though, I agree with the court on this one, especially after their previous ruling on e-verify in regulating intrastate business. I'm a bit confused on which part was remanded though.

[ConHog]

It makes absolutely no sense to allow a cop to determine if someone's in violation of federal law and not let them detain them for that violation.

no joke. what's next? LEOs can pull speeders over , but not ticket them for speeding?

[logroller]

no joke. what's next? LEOs can pull speeders over , but not ticket them for speeding?

Come on. You know as well I as I they just come up with some other probable cause. I think that guy fits the description for xyz...

[ConHog]

Come on. You know as well I as I they just come up with some other probable cause. I think that guy fits the description for xyz...



Of course, but then you leave open all sorts of doors for defense attorneys. "Your honor, they only claim my client resembled this Guadalupe who is wanted for bank robbery because he's Hispanic"

[logroller]

Of course, but then you leave open all sorts of doors for defense attorneys. "Your honor, they only claim my client resembled this Guadalupe who is wanted for bank robbery because he's Hispanic"

Where would this trial take place, Mexico?

[Little-Acorn]

Actually three of the Justices (Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) voted that the parts of the Arizona law that were struck down, shouldn't have been. (Alito said that two of them shouldn't have been and one should.)

Scalia basically said that the states are "sovereign", and one of the most basic characteristics of sovereignity, is that you can exclude who you want to from entering your territory. Since the Constitution didn't explicitly strip the states' sovereignity away form them, they have the power to pass and uphold laws like SB1070.

Thomas said even more directly, that sovereignity wasn't the controlling issue; but simply that states can enforce Federal law, unless the Constitution, or Congress, specifically tells them not to. And no part of the Const, or any law passed by Congress, tell Arizona not to pass a law like SB1070 which simply mirrors existing Federal law.

Justice Thomas wrote (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182 ):

I agree with Justice Scalia that federal immigration law does not pre-empt any of the challenged provisions of S. B. 1070. I reach that conclusion, however, for the simple reason that there is no conflict between the “ordinary meanin[g]” of the relevant federal laws and that of the four provisions of Arizona law at issue here. (“Pre-emption analysis should not be a freewheeling judicial inquiry into whether a state statute is in tension with federal objectives, but an inquiry into whether the ordinary meanings of state and federal law conflict” (brackets; internal quotation marks omitted)).

Section 2(B) of S. B. 1070 provides that, when Arizona law enforcement officers reasonably suspect that a person they have lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested is unlawfully present, “a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person” pursuant to the verification procedure established by Congress in 8 U. S. C. §1373(c). Nothing in the text of that or any other federal statute prohibits Arizona from directing its officers to make immigration-related inquiries in these situations. To the contrary, federal law expressly states that “no State or local government entity may be prohibted, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from” federal officials “information regarding the immigration status” of an alien. And, federal law imposes an affirmative obligation on federal officials to respond to a State’s immigration-related inquiries.

Section 6 of S. B. 1070 authorizes Arizona law enforcement officers to make warrantless arrests when there is probable cause to believe that an arrestee has committed a public offense that renders him removable under federal immigration law. States, as sovereigns, have inherent authority to conduct arrests for violations of federal law, unless and until Congress removes that authority. See United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 589 (1948) (holding that state law determines the validity of a warrantless arrest for a violation of federal law “in the absence of an applicable federal statute”). Here, no federal statute purports to withdraw that authority. As Justice Scalia notes, ante, at 12, federal law does limit the authority of federal officials to arrest removable aliens, but those statutes do not apply to state officers. And, federal law expressly recognizes that state officers may “cooperate with the Attorney General” in the “apprehension” and “detention” of “aliens not lawfully present in the United States.” Nothing in that statute indicates that such cooperation requires a prior “request, approval, or other instruction from the Federal Government.”

Section 3 of S. B. 1070 makes it a crime under Arizona law for an unlawfully present alien to willfully fail to complete or carry an alien registration document in violation of 8 U. S. C. §1304(e) and §1306(a). Section 3 simply incorporates federal registration standards. Unlike the Court, I would not hold that Congress pre-empted the field of enforcing those standards. “[O]ur recent cases have frequently rejected field pre-emption in the absence of statutory language expressly requiring it.” Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U. S. 564, 617 (1997); see, e.g., New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 415 (1973) . Here, nothing in the text of the relevant federal statutes indicates that Congress intended enforcement of its registration requirements to be exclusively the province of the Federal Government. That Congress created a “full set of standards governing alien registration,” ante, at 10 (majority opinion), merely indicates that it intended the scheme to be capable of working on its own, not that it wanted to preclude the States from enforcing the federal standards. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 (1941) , is not to the contrary. As Justice Scalia explains, ante, at 14, Hines at most holds that federal law pre-empts the States from creating additional registration requirements. But here, Arizona is merely seeking to enforce the very registration requirements that Congress created.

Section 5(C) of S. B. 1070 prohibits unlawfully present aliens from knowingly applying for, soliciting, or performing work in Arizona. Section 5(C) operates only on individuals whom Congress has already declared ineligible to work in the United States. Nothing in the text of the federal immigration laws prohibits States from imposing their own criminal penalties on such individuals. Federal law expressly pre-empts States from “imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.” 8 U. S. C. §1324a(h)(2) (emphasis added). But it leaves States free to impose criminal sanctions on the employees themselves.

[ConHog]

Where would this trial take place, Mexico?


Oh, you're pro deportation sans trial? Hmmmm

[DragonStryk72]

It makes absolutely no sense to allow a cop to determine if someone's in violation of federal law and not let them detain them for that violation.

OOh, wait, you know what this means, right? Cops can't arrest you for breaking federal laws, right? That would be "impeding" the Feds power.

[logroller]

Oh, you're pro deportation sans trial? Hmmmm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought such privileges and immunities applied only to citizens. Is being an unregistered immigrant even a federal crime?

[ConHog]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought such privileges and immunities applied only to citizens. Is being an unregistered immigrant even a federal crime?

Nope. If an illegal is arrested for murder, he gets his trial avec ALL rights associated with said trial. We don't just throw him in a hole.

[Missileman]

OOh, wait, you know what this means, right? Cops can't arrest you for breaking federal laws, right? That would be "impeding" the Feds power.

Time to take up bank robbery?

[ConHog]

Time to take up bank robbery?

rofl

imagine that defense. "your honor, that guy had no jurisdiction to arrest me when I robbed that bank"

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This ruling makes no sense. The court says the state has no right to protect it's own border. That means states do not have state Sovereignty by default. May as well toss all state constitutions then. The court made a big mistake and only a few justices actually sided with our Constitution! This will not end well . Just more decay from within. -Tyr

[revelarts]

It makes absolutely no sense to allow a cop to determine if someone's in violation of federal law and not let them detain them for that violation.


OOh, wait, you know what this means, right? Cops can't arrest you for breaking federal laws, right? That would be "impeding" the Feds power.

Sooo does this apply to the EPA FDA OSHA Etc etc. no state or local enforcement?

And it's "unconstitutional" for a state or local to make laws similar to existing federal laws?

I'm not a Fan of the AZ law but this would seem to have a lot more implications than immigration as far as states vs feds rights go.

[ConHog]

This ruling makes no sense. The court says the state has no right to protect it's own border. That means states do not have state Sovereignty by default. May as well toss all state constitutions then. The court made a big mistake and only a few justices actually sided with our Constitution! This will not end well . Just more decay from within. -Tyr

Actually sir a state border that is also a national border belongs to the federal government and per the COTUS federal law trumps state law. If the federal government ever rules that AZ can't enforce laws on the CA border you MIGHT have a point.

That wasn't even the argument AZ was making anyway. They were fine with and in fact WANTED to follow federal law.

[logroller]

Nope. If an illegal is arrested for murder, he gets his trial avec ALL rights associated with said trial. We don't just throw him in a hole.
He gets a trial if he's charged; just being arrested doesn't mean he'll be charged. They would have to release him after 72? Hours for that cause, but that's plenty of time to check his residency status which was completely unrelated to the causes for detainment/ arrest. Still have to say though, bing here illegally isn't a crime punishable by imprisonment, it's a civil litigation handled by a hearing.

[ConHog]

He gets a trial if he's charged; just being arrested doesn't mean he'll be charged. They would have to release him after 72? Hours for that cause, but that's plenty of time to check his residency status which was completely unrelated to the causes for detainment/ arrest. Still have to say though, bing here illegally isn't a crime punishable by imprisonment, it's a civil litigation handled by a hearing.

I know many would like to see it become a crime punishable with jail time, but what good does that do? Then we the taxpayer ARE supporting them .

[DragonStryk72]

Sooo does this apply to the EPA FDA OSHA Etc etc. no state or local enforcement?

And it's "unconstitutional" for a state or local to make laws similar to existing federal laws?

I'm not a Fan of the AZ law but this would seem to have a lot more implications than immigration as far as states vs feds rights go.

Now here's the issue of the reverse: Shouldn't that mean that federal laws concerning, say, hate crimes be unable to be arrested be feds?

[ConHog]

now here's the issue of the reverse: Shouldn't that mean that federal laws concerning, say, hate crimes be unable to be arrested be feds?

lolwut?

[DragonStryk72]

Actually sir a state border that is also a national border belongs to the federal government and per the COTUS federal law trumps state law. If the federal government ever rules that AZ can't enforce laws on the CA border you MIGHT have a point.

That wasn't even the argument AZ was making anyway. They were fine with and in fact WANTED to follow federal law.

But, the state law specifically aids federal law, it doesn't "trump" in any way, shape or fashion, so the COTUS point you're posing doesn't stand here.

[DragonStryk72]

lolwut?

Well, the hate crimes bill only passes a law so that a person on the hook for another crime can be held on a federal level, much like the immigration law was supposed to work. So, therefore, doesn't this mean that if you are arrested by the FBI, following this particular precedent, that you could have all charges dropped for false arrest?

[ConHog]

But, the state law specifically aids federal law, it doesn't "trump" in any way, shape or fashion, so the COTUS point you're posing doesn't stand here.

Right, which is the difference between this and say potentially Alabama and Agenda21. I'm in 100% agreement with you there. I was only speaking to the fact that the border technically speaking belongs to the federal government, not the state of AZ.

[ConHog]

Well, the hate crimes bill only passes a law so that a person on the hook for another crime can be held on a federal level, much like the immigration law was supposed to work. So, therefore, doesn't this mean that if you are arrested by the FBI, following this particular precedent, that you could have all charges dropped for false arrest?

I don't guess I'm following your logic DS.

[DragonStryk72]

I don't guess I'm following your logic DS.

It's a law that backs up existing law, but going in the opposite direction, so the reverse should logically be true as well.

[DragonStryk72]

Right, which is the difference between this and say potentially Alabama and Agenda21. I'm in 100% agreement with you there. I was only speaking to the fact that the border technically speaking belongs to the federal government, not the state of AZ.

"It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security."

As the federal government is knowingly not doing their jobs, it begins to fall on the victim of that negligence (AZ), to take up their protection themselves. If the cops in Houston decided to stop arresting criminals, they shouldn't be able to bitch because the citizens set up their own methods of protection that make them look like asshats.

[ConHog]

"It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security."

As the federal government is knowingly not doing their jobs, it begins to fall on the victim of that negligence (AZ), to take up their protection themselves. If the cops in Houston decided to stop arresting criminals, they shouldn't be able to bitch because the citizens set up their own methods of protection that make them look like asshats.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I was merely responding to another poster's claims that the border between AZ and Mexico was a state border, it is NOT it's a national border. Of course being a national border, the USG absolutely should uphold the laws.

[Missileman]

Just heard that the Obama admin's reaction to the ruling is this: federal agencies have been ordered to NOT respond to notifications by AZ police that they have an illegal in custody. WTF?

[ConHog]

Just heard that the Obama admin's reaction to the ruling is this: federal agencies have been ordered to NOT respond to notifications by AZ police that they have an illegal in custody. WTF?

That would not surprise me. Hopefully if that is what they do, AZ will turn around and sue them.

[Kathianne]

Seems to be true, MM:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/06/obama-administration-softens-impact-of-supreme-court-ruling-in-arizona/


Obama administration softens impact of Supreme Court ruling in Arizona


Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court approved Arizona law enforcement officers’ authority to demand “papers please” from suspected illegal immigrants, the Obama administration moved to mitigate the on-the-street impact by suspending Arizona authorities’ instant access to the immigration database used to determine the legal status of questioned or arrested suspects.


Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, a former governor, attorney general and federal prosecutor in Arizona, abruptly suspended the so-called 287 (g) program in Arizona that deputizes local and state law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws and provides them access to federal immigration files in order to do that.


Napolitano spoke in bureaucratic language.


But the significance of her action means that illegal immigrants stopped and questioned by law enforcement officers in Arizona under provisions upheld by the Supreme Court will not be prosecuted by federal authorities unless they have committed crimes beyond unlawful residence, have repeatedly violated immigration laws or are recent arrivals who entered the country illegally.


The high court ruling “confirmed that state laws cannot dictate the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies or priorities,” Napolitano said, taking an exacting view of the court’s decision.


Napolitano said immigration enforcement agencies led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement would narrow the focus of immigration status checks in Arizona to categories of unlawful immigrants that meet existing guidelines rather than expanding the net under the Supreme Court ruling to include immigration checks on all questioned or arrested suspects detained by Arizona law enforcement officers.


The Department of Homeland Security will “implement operational enhancements to its programs in Arizona to ensure that the agency can remain focused on its priorities,” Napolitano said.


Unlawful immigrants taken into custody and jailed in Arizona will still be checked against immigration enforcement databases under the so-called Secure Communities program DHS said.


The administration decision ignited criticism by conservative Republicans, including Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Smith said federal immigration enforcement personnel assigned to Arizona had “been directed not to respond to the requests from state and local police officers for assistance in enforcing immigration laws unless the individual meets DHS so-called enforcement priorities.”


As Smith put it: “States took a hit in today’s Supreme Court decision when it comes to their ability to enforce immigration laws and keep their communities safe from illegal immigrants. But to add insult to injury, the Obama administration followed up the case with a knockout punch that could send Arizona reeling backwards on immigration enforcement and border security.”


Smith called President Obama’s action the latest example of “a pattern of abusing his authority to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S.”




http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/06/25/homeland-security-revokes-287g-immigration-check-agreements-in-arizona/


The U.S. Department of Homeland Security today rescinded agreements that allowed seven Arizona law enforcement agencies to check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants, further hindering the state’s ability to enforce SB1070 following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling today.


DHS announced that it was terminating its 287(g) task force agreements with the Arizona Department of Public Safety; the Florence, Mesa and Phoenix police departments; and the Pima, Pinal and Yavapai county sheriff’s offices. Those were the only agencies left in Arizona that had street-level 287(g) agreements.


The federal agency also announced the nationwide suspension of the program, saying it would no longer sign new agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies.


Several Arizona police agencies also have 287(g) agreements for their jails, which allow agencies to check the immigration status of anyone booked into jail. Those agreements will remain in place, according to DHS...

[ConHog]

Seems to be true, MM:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/06/obama-administration-softens-impact-of-supreme-court-ruling-in-arizona/

Interesting.

That's easy to fix. Just round a bunch of suspected illegals up and refuse to release them until the federal government allows them access to the databases.

[gabosaurus]

My question is, are the police going to ask everyone they stop for proof of citizenship? They now have the power to do so. Because if you don't ask everyone, it is profiling, which is illegal.
Does every citizen of Arizona have to carry proof of citizenship with them at all times? How about non-residents who are just passing through?

[ConHog]

My question is, are the police going to ask everyone they stop for proof of citizenship? They now have the power to do so. Because if you don't ask everyone, it is profiling, which is illegal.
Does every citizen of Arizona have to carry proof of citizenship with them at all times? How about non-residents who are just passing through?

Gabyy, there are ways of asking questions to gather intel before going that far. let's be reasonable and admit to that the AZ police probably have a nose for who's illegal and who isn't without asking anyone anything.

Example. Car is pulled over for speeding and the brown guy doesn't have a DL , and he's pretty shifty acting, guess what? He's probably illegal.

The white guy who has a DL ? Probably not. I mean let's be grown ups and admit that HISPANICS are sneaking into AZ so that is where you start looking.

[Kathianne]

Gabyy, there are ways of asking questions to gather intel before going that far. let's be reasonable and admit to that the AZ police probably have a nose for who's illegal and who isn't without asking anyone anything.

Example. Car is pulled over for speeding and the brown guy doesn't have a DL , and he's pretty shifty acting, guess what? He's probably illegal.

The white guy who has a DL ? Probably not. I mean let's be grown ups and admit that HISPANICS are sneaking into AZ so that is where you start looking.

Furthermore, let's admit that there are huge numbers of legal Hispanics in AZ, CA, TX, etc., along with more than substantial problems with illegals. Legal residents tend to have little problem with producing DL's and insurance coverages. Unfairly Hispanics under this ruling may get more 'warnings' for headlights or tail lights burned out, but doubt that those with those problems and DL and insurance will find more problems than going to shop and buying bulbs, then proving they did so.

I think bottom line that overwhelmed states like AZ, care little about illegals that are earning enough to have insurance and DL, they aren't the drain on services. Just a guess.

[SassyLady]

Sheriff Joe says he won't stop enforcing AZ laws:


AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio on FOX News today: "I'm not stopping anything. I'm going to continue to enforce those state laws regardless of what the federal government is trying to put pressure on me to satisfy all these activists, which by the way are in front of my building right now."

"Three and half years they've been in front of my building. So, I'm not going to bend to the federal government, especially when we still have state laws to enforce."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/25/sheriff_joe_arpaio_im_not_stopping_anything.html

[logroller]

Sheriff Joe says he won't stop enforcing AZ laws:



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/25/sheriff_joe_arpaio_im_not_stopping_anything.html
Reminds me of law enforcement refusing to integrate the south. In a previous life I think he was in he confederacy...guess the south will rise again...only to be crushed, again.

[DragonStryk72]

My question is, are the police going to ask everyone they stop for proof of citizenship? They now have the power to do so. Because if you don't ask everyone, it is profiling, which is illegal.
Does every citizen of Arizona have to carry proof of citizenship with them at all times? How about non-residents who are just passing through?

Really? So then every single driver who is stopped for so much as tapping the brakes a little too hard (Actually got pulled over for that one July 4th. Hadn't been drinking, the guy in front of me just hit his brakes suddenly), should be administered a full sobriety test? Or, since we can't profile, should we let people who are obviously drinking and driving continue to do so, cause, you know, can't profile at all?

YES, you have to have a driver's license on you if you are driving a vehicle, and it must be the appropriate license for the vehicle you are driving. That is true in every single state in the Union.

[logroller]

Really? So then every single driver who is stopped for so much as tapping the brakes a little too hard (Actually got pulled over for that one July 4th. Hadn't been drinking, the guy in front of me just hit his brakes suddenly), should be administered a full sobriety test? Or, since we can't profile, should we let people who are obviously drinking and driving continue to do so, cause, you know, can't profile at all?

YES, you have to have a driver's license on you if you are driving a vehicle, and it must be the appropriate license for the vehicle you are driving. That is true in every single state in the Union.

I think she meant racial profiling. Any behavior being associated with criminal activity isn't necessarily profiling. Reminds me of Ron white's defense tactic claiming he was profiled, because the police were stopping every white man....who was driving on the sidewalk.:laugh2:

[taft2012]

Time to take up bank robbery?

No, in that case the local police would arrest you and you would initially be charged with the state's robbery laws.

Local police would notify the feds they have a robbery suspect in custody who robbed a bank. Feds would then come and pick the suspect up for delivery to federal prosecutors.

[taft2012]

This country has descended into complete Orwellism.

Arizona is dragged into the USSC Supreme Court to ask why they are assisting the Federal government to enforce federal laws.

I'd like to know why sanctuary cities like New York City are not dragged into court to explain why they are obstructing enforcement of federal laws.

The federal government has become one huge organized crime family under the leadership of Don Obama.

[fj1200]

OOh, wait, you know what this means, right? Cops can't arrest you for breaking federal laws, right? That would be "impeding" the Feds power.

Can you name a Federal law that is not already a State law, minus immigration?

[logroller]

Can you name a Federal law that is not already a State law, minus immigration?

Treason?

[jimnyc]

The message in Arizona - if you're in the country legally, you have nothing to be worried about at all.

The message from Washington - Come into the country illegally if you like, we're not going to enforce laws.


Calling the decision to terminate the agreements a "lawless action," Ben Quayle, R-Ariz, sent a letter to U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., demanding that DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano be called before the House Homeland Security Committee. King chairs the committee.


"We now confront the spectacle of the president of the United States behaving as an emperor, and the Cabinet officers entrusted with the security of the nation as his court jester," Quayle wrote.


Perfectly stated. Obama and his administration are choosing votes, from illegals too likely, instead of enforcing and upholding the rule of law.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20120625arizona-immigration-law-profiling-fears.html

[gabosaurus]

EVERYONE needs a driver's license to drive. Suppose they catch an Anglo or Asian guy driving without a license. Does he have to prove citizenship?
What if you are a legal Latino?

[jimnyc]

EVERYONE needs a driver's license to drive. Suppose they catch an Anglo or Asian guy driving without a license. Does he have to prove citizenship?
What if you are a legal Latino?

Breaking the law, be prepared to have your citizenship run. Don't break the law and you'll be ok.

[gabosaurus]

Wonderful. Now answer the question.

[jimnyc]

Wonderful. Now answer the question.

I just did, if you're driving without a license, that's illegal, and you'll likely be ran for citizenship. If you're not breaking a law, you have no reason to be pulled over and likely not ran through the database. How fucking hard is it to understand this? It's not rocket science. You break the law and you run the risk of being run through the database.

Are you angry that the overwhelming majority of illegals are wetback and latino scum, and therefore will be targeted more? I have no sympathy. Come here legally and this is a non-issue for you.

[Gaffer]

The message in Arizona - if you're in the country legally, you have nothing to be worried about at all.

The message from Washington - Come into the country illegally if you like, we're not going to enforce laws.



Perfectly stated. Obama and his administration are choosing votes, from illegals too likely, instead of enforcing and upholding the rule of law.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20120625arizona-immigration-law-profiling-fears.html



We may get another contempt of congress vote going here as well. Every little bit helps.

[jimnyc]

We may get another contempt of congress vote going here as well. Every little bit helps.

That's the only positive from the power grabs this nitwit and his administration have been making. He's digging his own grave in an election year. Unlike many liberals and illegals, most Americans still expect them to uphold the laws, not circumvent them for political gain.

[logroller]

Unlike many liberals and illegals, most Americans still expect them to uphold the laws, not circumvent them for political gain.
:rofl: well color me liberal, cause that's exactly what I expect.

[DragonStryk72]

I think she meant racial profiling. Any behavior being associated with criminal activity isn't necessarily profiling. Reminds me of Ron white's defense tactic claiming he was profiled, because the police were stopping every white man....who was driving on the sidewalk.:laugh2:

lol, Did you know, I was thinking of using that one when I was writing the response?

[Little-Acorn]

My question is, are the police going to ask everyone they stop for proof of citizenship?
Of course not. Why would they do that?


They now have the power to do so.
Wrong as usual. You haven't even read the law, have you?

Jeez, does little gabby EVER get anything right?

[Missileman]

My question is, are the police going to ask everyone they stop for proof of citizenship? They now have the power to do so. Because if you don't ask everyone, it is profiling, which is illegal.
Does every citizen of Arizona have to carry proof of citizenship with them at all times? How about non-residents who are just passing through?

If the cop asks for a license and gets "No Habla" and no ID, I think it's fair to assume they might be here illegally and pursue it further. If the person provides a valid driver's license that cops aren't going to ask for anything else.

[gabosaurus]

If the cop asks for a license and gets "No Habla" and no ID, I think it's fair to assume they might be here illegally and pursue it further. If the person provides a valid driver's license that cops aren't going to ask for anything else.

Let's say police stop a car with several Latinos. The driver presents a valid driver's license. Is the officer allowed to ask any other questions not pertaining to the alleged offense?

[ConHog]

Let's say police stop a car with several Latinos. The driver presents a valid driver's license. Is the officer allowed to ask any other questions not pertaining to the alleged offense?

Read the law Gabby, seriously. A person doesn't have to prove their identity except for under specific circumstances.

For instance, if a cop pulled my wife over and just asked me my name and I said "Bob" I'm under no obligation to provide ID to that effect UNLESS he has evidence that I have committed a crime then he can dig further. Being Latino isn't a crime, so no. The cop can ask of course, but no one is required to produce ID under those circumstances.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There is already a federal immigration law that obama refuses to enforce! Obama is the highest law enforcement officer of the land! It is his gd sworn duty to enforce that law yet he refuses and then actively seeks to stop a sovereign state from doing so! He goes around the legislature to create law by executive fiat! He defies federal court rulings instructing him to lift the offshore drilling moratorium and he appoints corrupt people not fit to sweep floors in a crack house to be czars! He cited Executive privilege to cover up a conspiracy and crime. In short he is a gd , lying bastard! F-HIM --TYR

[aboutime]

If the cop asks for a license and gets "No Habla" and no ID, I think it's fair to assume they might be here illegally and pursue it further. If the person provides a valid driver's license that cops aren't going to ask for anything else.

Missileman. You know it, I know it, the Gov. of AZ, and her police officers know it. But since there is an ELECTION just around the corner. OBAMA THE IDIOT must pretend...as he normally does. To be really concerned for the Latino people whom he EXPECTS...will vote for him. EVEN IF THEY ARE ILLEGALS, and NOT Citizens.
It's the Obama, Holder Way of Skirting around the OBAMA version of the U.S. Constitution.

Thankfully. Because we have the Internet that OBAMA hasn't been able to fully control. Americans from all walks of life, skin color, and origin...are now More Knowledgeable than OBAMA and the Democrats want people to be.
We're all gonna enjoy watching Obama's PERP WALK Next January as he helps Michelle load the U-HAUL.

[ConHog]

Missileman. Y whom he EXPECTS...will vote for him. EVEN IF THEY ARE ILLEGALS, and NOT Citizens.
It's the Obama, Holder Way of Skirting around the OBAMA version of the U.S. Constitution.





Obama expects illegals to vote for him? :lol: you people are deranged.

[Missileman]

Let's say police stop a car with several Latinos. The driver presents a valid driver's license. Is the officer allowed to ask any other questions not pertaining to the alleged offense?

I'm certain they'll handle it the same way as if it were a car full of white people.

[Missileman]

Obama expects illegals to vote for him? :lol: you people are deranged.

We're giving them a myriad of other rights and benefits associated with citizenship...we're only an executive order away from giving them a vote.

[ConHog]

We're giving them a myriad of other rights and benefits associated with citizenship...we're only an executive order away from giving them a vote.

will NEVER happen, and Obama won't even try.

Obviously he is pandering to the Hispanic citizens vote (although Lord knows many of them are against illegal immigration to) but he isn't ever going to try to get illegals the ability to vote.

PS can you post some of these "rights" you think illegal immigrants are getting that they shouldn't?

[Missileman]

will NEVER happen, and Obama won't even try.

Obviously he is pandering to the Hispanic citizens vote (although Lord knows many of them are against illegal immigration to) but he isn't ever going to try to get illegals the ability to vote.

PS can you post some of these "rights" you think illegal immigrants are getting that they shouldn't?

First and foremost, the right to take up residency. You can add the right to public assistance, the right to public education...I can probably come up with a nice list if you want to play dumb.

[ConHog]

First and foremost, the right to take up residency. You can add the right to public assistance, the right to public education...I can probably come up with a nice list if you want to play dumb.

First , I'd argue that none of those are rights. But be that as it may, I'd also argue that the federal government hasn't granted ANY illegals those rights, nor have any executive orders been issued.

Second of all, schools are the domain of states in that the federal government doesn't dictate to states that they must educate illegal aliens.

Third, illegals are not given public assistance, the only way they can get that (from the federal gov't anyway I can't speak for kooky states like CA) is if they apply using fake documents, which they certainly will be arrested for if caught, and in fact according to the GAO the amount illegals collect in publis assistance every year is thought to be very small.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GGD-78-20

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

First and foremost, the right to take up residency. You can add the right to public assistance, the right to public education...I can probably come up with a nice list if you want to play dumb.

Somebody here agrues far more for liberal causes than they do coservative causes yet appears to claim to be more republican or conservative ! Somebody plays games like I've seen so often at other forums. Only there we openly called them Rino's. Not talking about you missileman. ;)
I mean no conservative that I know argues that obama is a good president .-Tyr

[Missileman]

First , I'd argue that none of those are rights. But be that as it may, I'd also argue that the federal government hasn't granted ANY illegals those rights, nor have any executive orders been issued.

Second of all, schools are the domain of states in that the federal government doesn't dictate to states that they must educate illegal aliens.

Third, illegals are not given public assistance, the only way they can get that (from the federal gov't anyway I can't speak for kooky states like CA) is if they apply using fake documents, which they certainly will be arrested for if caught, and in fact according to the GAO the amount illegals collect in publis assistance every year is thought to be very small.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GGD-78-20

Obama just granted every illegal between 16 and 30 de facto amnesty through executive order as long as they're no more than minor criminals. The number is around 1.2 million beneficiaries of his majesty's fiat.

[ConHog]

Obama just granted every illegal between 16 and 30 de facto amnesty through executive order as long as they're no more than minor criminals. The number is around 1.2 million beneficiaries of his majesty's fiat.

That has absolutely nothing to do with your claims about other rights.

And no doubt states will sue and get an order forcing ICE to act.

[avatar4321]

Just heard that the Obama admin's reaction to the ruling is this: federal agencies have been ordered to NOT respond to notifications by AZ police that they have an illegal in custody. WTF?

I heard that. that's seriously messed up. Is it wrong to just wish someone would run for office promising to enforce the laws already passed? If you dont like the law, have it repealed. You dont have the right to pick and choice what laws to obey.

[ConHog]

I heard that. that's seriously messed up. Is it wrong to just wish someone would run for office promising to enforce the laws already passed? If you dont like the law, have it repealed. You dont have the right to pick and choice what laws to obey.

Beyond the pale that he would actually announce it isn't it? Just speaks to his arrogance.

[Missileman]

That has absolutely nothing to do with your claims about other rights.

And no doubt states will sue and get an order forcing ICE to act.

He just granted them the right to live here, and now that they're "legal", you can bet that they'll be getting all the bells and whistles with their new status...tuition assistance, government scholarships, housing, food stamps, etc.

[ConHog]

He just granted them the right to live here, and now that they're "legal", you can bet that they'll be getting all the bells and whistles with their new status...tuition assistance, government scholarships, housing, food stamps, etc.

That isn't what he did at all.

What he did is the equivalent of a state trooper sitting on the side of the highway refusing to write people tickets for speeding. That doesn't change the speed limit, the next state trooper can certainly write tickets, and will. And the speed limit is still the speed limit.

This will be challenged in court and he will lose. I'm sure he even knows that, it's a political move, nothing more and it doesn't make illegals suddenly legal and eligible for anything.

[SassyLady]

He just granted them the right to live here, and now that they're "legal", you can bet that they'll be getting all the bells and whistles with their new status...tuition assistance, government scholarships, housing, food stamps, etc.

Don't they get all these benefits already?

I didn't think he granted them legal status, just said he wouldn't deport them anymore.

[ConHog]

Don't they get all these benefits already?

I didn't think he granted them legal status, just said he wouldn't deport them anymore.

Yes and yes.

[SassyLady]

Yes and yes.

Maybe I need to become an illegal then....no consequences and free benefits!

[ConHog]

Maybe I need to become an illegal then....no consequences and free benefits!

you don't have to be an illegal to join OWS Sassy. :lol:

[SassyLady]

you don't have to be an illegal to join OWS Sassy. :lol:

I do occupy Wall Street, Con, just not on the sidewalks.

[fj1200]

Second of all, schools are the domain of states in that the federal government doesn't dictate to states that they must educate illegal aliens.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GGD-78-20

I think SCOTUS has decided that states must educate all kids, even illegals.

[ConHog]

I think SCOTUS has decided that states must educate all kids, even illegals.

you're right

Plyler v. Doe

I didn't remember that one