Arizona's Illegal-alien law SB1070 being argued NOW before the Supreme Court

[Little-Acorn]

Now the Obamanites are trying to persuade the SupremeCourt that Arizona's law saying Arizona cops can check people's immigration status when they encounteer them for other reasons (traffic stop, domestic violence call, mugging or robbery call etc.), is also unconstitutional. Oral arguments are happening Today, Wednesday, right now.

The Obamanites say that Arizona is not allowed to make laws on immigration checks, illegal-alien status etc. They say that since the Constitution states that Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization", this means the States cannot make any laws regarding checking immigration status, even if those state laws exactly match Congress's laws.

Mostly, the Obamanites (and many past administrations, Dem and Republican alike) have not wanted to enforce our immigration laws, and have mostly not done so for decades. Border states have been getting flooded by illegal aliens walking across the border, and have been screaming that the Fed govt stop it. Bizarrely, the Fed govt has not only refused to stop it, but the Obamanites have even sued Arizona when that state tried to do something about the illegal-alien invasion they are suffering.

Arizona made a law, SB1070, which says among other things that if Arizona cops come into contact with somebody for non-immigration purposes (traffic stop, citizen complaint etc.), they can check the person's immigration status at that time. And if they find reason to believe the person is an illegal alien, they then call Federal immigration authorities and turn the person over to the Feds. The Arizona cops do nothing more than that.

Naturally, the screaming began at once. The usual cries of "racism", the usual hysterical claims that Arizona cops are hunting down people based solely on whether they look Hispanic (backed by no evidence as usual).

Now Arizona's law is being challenged by the Obamanites in the Supreme Court. And it sounds like it's not going too well for them - even Obama-appointee Justice Sonia Sotomayor said frankly to the Obama lawyers, "You can see it's not selling very well."

The Supremes won't issue a ruling for a while, probably in June I suppose.

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

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/25/arizona-immigration-law-battle-arrives-at-supreme-court/

Supreme Court signals support for Arizona immigration law provision

Published April 25, 2012
FoxNews.com

The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it might uphold a key element of Arizona's immigration law, as justices across the board suggested the state has a serious problem on its hands and should have some level of sovereignty to address illegal immigration.

The justices appeared to ready to allow a provision requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the U.S. illegally.

The justices strongly suggested Wednesday they are not buying the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority, with Chief Justice John Roberts at one point saying he doesn't think the federal government even wants to know how many illegal immigrants are in the country.

"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

Just like the health care overhaul challenge heard earlier this month, Wednesday's hearing on the immigration law drew passionate surrogates from both sides. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was loudly booed by the law's opponents in front of the courthouse. She said in a statement Wednesday afternoon that "I am filled with optimism -- the kind that comes with knowing that Arizona's cause is just and its course is true."

While the justices addressed the traffic stop provision Wednesday, it was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped draft the law, voiced optimism in Arizona's chances.

"This was a very good day for Arizona in the Supreme Court today," he told Fox News. "The U.S. Justice Department was on the ropes."

But Brent Wilkes, director for the League of United Latin American Citizens, warned that the law would take a "human toll" on Arizona families if allowed to stand.

"This is really a racial profiling bill," he told Fox News.

The hearing Wednesday morning has implications far beyond Arizona's borders, as several states, including Alabama and South Carolina, have followed in Arizona's footsteps to craft their own immigration enforcement measures.

 

[dogtowner]

I liked the Drudge headline "Obama's lawyer chokes again". Its bad when the wise latina smacks you.

“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

I'm becoming more convinced that the BO Campaign wants to be ruled against the way they are tripping over themselves trying to lose. It could just be the affirmative action Harvard lawyer laying out a painfully lame case which the schmuck doing the arguing can use to explain away his apparent incompetence.

 

[steveox]

If the Justices rule in Favor,,, It Means every GOP State in America will order cops to Arrest you if youre Mexican.

 

[dogtowner]

If the Justices rule in Favor,,, It Means every GOP State in America will order cops to Arrest you if youre Mexican.

haven't read the law have you ?
and illegals come from many many countries.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Naturally, the screaming began at once. The usual cries of "racism", the usual hysterical claims that Arizona cops are hunting down people based solely on whether they look Hispanic (backed by no evidence as usual).

If the Justices rule in Favor,,, It Means every GOP State in America will order cops to Arrest you if youre Mexican.

Can I call 'em, or what?

 

[dogtowner]

Can I call 'em, or what?

its a conditioned response now, but yes you can spot um a mile away

 

[Cruella]

SCOTUS has struck down parts of the immigration law but upheld the part that drives the left crazy.

Jan Brewer, Gov of Arizona thinks it's a win

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10thAmendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens,” Gov. Brewer said in a statement. “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://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-split-on-arizona-immigration-law/

 

[steveox]

Well what should do now is tell people armed themselves with guns and go to the mexican border put a sign there in spanish and say

¡ADVERTENCIA!
Si usted va algún futher
pegarán un tiro a usted

It says in english
WARNING!
If you go any futher
you will be shot

So put citizens on the border with guns. If you see a mexican crossing shoot him dead. And Jan Brewer should reverse murder laws on the books. And say now the law only applies to leagal American citizens. If they kill an leagal citizen youll be arrested for murder. But if you kill an illegal immingrant then nothing will be done to you. So these illegals have to choices go back to Mexico or die? And Paramedics cannot serve you if youre illegal. If youre sick then suffer you will not go to the hospital youll have to make due where youre at. So its time to make American Immingration tough and Harsh,,Just like Mexico is

HARSH", YOU SAY - PLEASE READ TO THE BOTTOM

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no "bad-mouthing" our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.

8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.

Harsh, you say ?...


The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of "MEXICO" !!!

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/harsh-immigration-laws/blog-149163/

 

[Cruella]

That will never happen. Remember what happened to the border agents who chased a drug dealer and shot him in the butt? They spent two years in prison before idiot Bush was shamed into giving them a repreve when he left office. We also had some retired people sitting on the border calling in reports about illegal crossers and Bush called them "Vigilantes". Obama isn't going to do squat. It's congress and a dedicated President that has to pass a law regarding shutting down the border and putting stricter laws on the books.

 

[Cruella]

Vindictive King Hussein Obama rules (take that Arizona)

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/

 

[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.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Awww, the ones always crying about the constitution...just got bitch slapped with every part of there law called UNCONSTITUTIONAL...The only part they did not say was Unconstitional ...was only due to the fact they said they can't rule on that until its enforced....and then said but if it is ...and then basically said that it would be near impossible to do so in a way that would not violate the law...

so 95% thrown out...and the other 5% they said try it and it most likey will be gone as well...

AZ's Idiot Republican leader...calls it a Victory...lol I hope your just as Victorious on the Health care bill.

 

[dogtowner]

Awww, the ones always crying about the constitution...just got bitch slapped with every part of there law called UNCONSTITUTIONAL...The only part they did not say was Unconstitional ...was only due to the fact they said they can't rule on that until its enforced....and then said but if it is ...and then basically said that it would be near impossible to do so in a way that would not violate the law...

so 95% thrown out...and the other 5% they said try it and it most likey will be gone as well...

AZ's Idiot Republican leader...calls it a Victory...lol I hope your just as Victorious on the Health care bill.

well, the 95% you are pleased with was all duplication of federal law (all but word for word) so its hardly necessary to have their own version to enforce those points. The 5% you are unhappy with is a key new power that all the other states have been using as a model and is the trigger to the real goal.

feel free to spike the ball if you wish but the desired effect will be felt in Arizona.

 

[steveox]

That will never happen. Remember what happened to the border agents who chased a drug dealer and shot him in the butt? They spent two years in prison before idiot Bush was shamed into giving them a repreve when he left office. We also had some retired people sitting on the border calling in reports about illegal crossers and Bush called them "Vigilantes". Obama isn't going to do squat. It's congress and a dedicated President that has to pass a law regarding shutting down the border and putting stricter laws on the books.

Thats why its so importaint to vote out DEMOCRATS! If The Tea Party stays strong and stick together Democrats will become very small in numbers. And and people need to register with the Klu Klux Klan membership. Remember it was back in late 1950s the klan had grown over 100,000 members
http://www.kkklan.com/wall.htm
What if we can grow over 1 million klan members as well the strong tea party. This would scare illergal immingrants out of the us and headding back to mexico and then we can take our country back to its roots.
This is what its gonna take get our America back! David Duke was right all along

 

[pocketfullofshells]

well, the 95% you are pleased with was all duplication of federal law (all but word for word) so its hardly necessary to have their own version to enforce those points. The 5% you are unhappy with is a key new power that all the other states have been using as a model and is the trigger to the real goal.

feel free to spike the ball if you wish but the desired effect will be felt in Arizona.

so what your saying is...the Republican Plan was...95% what they already could do...but just wanted to pass the law anyway ( I take it this means they are retarded or you admit it was a political game) and the 5% key new power...well here is the problem with it...they basically said its impossible to do. Going to arrest someone...and then decided you should check if they are legal...but not use race or nationality to decided if you should check it...

and of course as soon as you do, it will go right back to court...and most likey..be shot down..

But yes keep pretending like somehow this is a win for right wingers.