Supreme Court signals support for Arizona immigration law provision

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
holy shit im shocked....

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/25/justice/scotus-arizona-law/index.html?hpt=hp_c1



Washington (CNN) -- Parts of Arizona's sweeping immigration law received a surprising amount of support from a short-handed Supreme Court Wednesday.

States throughout the country considering their own tough immigration laws are closely following the proceedings over what has become a thorny issue.

Fed up with illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico -- and what they say is the federal government's inability to stop it -- legislators in Arizona passed a tough immigration law. The federal government sued, saying that Arizona overreached.

While intense oral arguments took place among the justices, outside there were competing demonstrations on the courthouse plaza, with the law's opponents saying it promotes discrimination and racial profiling. Backers say illegal immigration has created public safety and economic crises.

At issue is whether states have any authority to step in to enforce immigration matters or whether that is the exclusive role of the federal government. In dry legal terms, this constitutional question is known as pre-emption.

"If, in fact, somebody who does not belong in this country is in Arizona, Arizona has no power? What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders? said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Even liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the federal governments' lawyer his case was "not selling very well."

Federal courts had blocked four key parts of the state's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, known as SB 1070.

Paul Clement, lawyer for Arizona, told the high court the federal government has long failed to control the problem, and that states have discretion to assist in enforcing immigration laws.

But the Obama administration's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, strongly countered that assertion, saying immigration matters are under its exclusive authority and state "interference" would only make matters worse.

Opponents of the Arizona immigration law have argued that parts of the law equate to racial profiling. But that is not one of the arguments that the federal government is using in the case.

"No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked the solicitor general.

"We are not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case," Verrilli responded.

Roberts pointed out that under the Arizona law, police stops are not made for immigration reasons, but for violations of other laws.

"All that has to do with immigration law is whether or not they can ask the federal government to find out if this person is illegal or not, and then leave it up to you. It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally or not," he said.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer issued a statement saying it is significant that the state had the chance to present its case to the high court.

"Of course, we likely will not know the court's decision for weeks. But I am filled with optimism -- the kind that comes with knowing that Arizona's cause is just and its course is true," she said.

Several other states followed Arizona's lead by passing laws meant to deter illegal immigrants. Similar laws are under challenge in lower courts in Georgia, Alabama, Utah, Indiana and South Carolina. Arizona's appeal is the first to reach the Supreme Court.
2010: What the AZ immigration law says
2010: Feds vs. state over immigration
2010: AZ governor signs immigration bill

Arizona is the nation's most heavily traveled corridor for illegal immigration and smuggling.

Justice Elena Kagan did not hear this case. Before taking the bench last year, she had been involved in the administration's initial legal opposition to the law as solicitor general. A 4-4 high court split would be likely to keep the Arizona law in legal limbo, preventing the four provisions of the law from going into effect but not settling the larger constitutional questions.

It would also shift the election-year fight over the issue to other states with current or pending crackdown laws.

Opinion: What if justices let states make immigration policy?

The court hearing over the illegal immigration law comes at an interesting time. The Pew Hispanic Center this week released a report that found that Mexican immigration to the United States has come to a standstill.

The economic downturn in the United States and better conditions in Mexico, along with deportations and other enforcement, has led many to return to Mexico.

However, the debate continues as more than 10 million unauthorized immigrants -- from Mexico and other countries -- continue to live in the United States.

Even if immigration has slowed to lows not seen in decades, proponents of tough immigration laws want to beef up enforcement ahead of any future pressures.

The four Arizona provisions on hold are:

-- A requirement that local police officers check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.

-- A provision authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.

-- A section making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.

-- A ban on 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.

Although the specific question before the high court relates to the law's enforcement, the justices could use the appeal to address the broader constitutional questions.

The administration, backed by a variety of immigrant and civil rights groups, says allowing such discretionary state authority would hurt relations between the United States and other countries, disrupt existing cooperative efforts and unfairly target legal immigrants.

Mexican migration slows, but debate isn't over

The legislation has a variety of supporters and detractors.

Republican lawmakers, outspoken Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and various state governments were among those filing briefs supporting the law. The Mexican government, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the city of Tucson, Arizona, were among those supporting the Justice Department's side.

A tale of opposing views in Arizona

Civil rights and minority groups, as well as some law enforcement agencies, worry the law would encourage racial profiling, drain vital and scarce law enforcement resources, hamper investigation of more serious crimes and cripple relations with immigrant communities.

In a CNN/ORC International poll last fall, 52% of those surveyed said illegal immigration was extremely or very important to their vote for president. But a similar poll in March showed only 4% saying it is the most important issue facing the United States today, while 53% said the economy is the top issue.

While a federal judge in 2010 stopped enforcement of the most controversial provisions, other parts of SB 1070 were given the go-ahead, including a ban on "sanctuary cities," or municipalities with laws or policies that render them relatively safe for undocumented immigrants.

Judge Susan Bolton's ruling also allowed a provision making it illegal to hire day laborers if doing so impedes traffic. Her order allowed parts of the law dealing with sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants to take effect.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco subsequently sided with the Justice Department, largely on the argument that federal immigration policy -- as well as America's standing in the world -- would be greatly undermined if individual states adopted their own separate immigration laws. Doing so, the court concluded, essentially meant a given state would be adopting its own foreign policy, one that may be in opposition to national policy.

The outcome of the Arizona appeal could set important precedent on similar laws pending across the country.

The case is Arizona v. U.S. (11-182) and is to be the last argued before the high court this term. A ruling could come in late June, just before the justices recess for the summer.
 
Last edited:

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
If states do not have some kind of right to make their own laws, why do we have states? Lets just do away with the 50 states and form a single nation.

Sooner or later there has to be a line drawn in the sand, this is the line the federal government can not cross.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
But .. but... what happened to all those brilliant 'experts' around here who claimed that it was a slam dunk that the law would be tossed? (you know who you are!)

I hope the court upholds this law and proves our "constitutional scholar in chief" wrong ...... yet again.
 

Pneumothorax

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2002
1,182
23
81
Best thing ever if the states finally get the right to enforce federal law that the current executive doesn't want to enforce!
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
Best thing ever if the states finally get the right to enforce federal law that the current executive doesn't want to enforce!

Best thing ever, would be for states to be able to enforce their own laws, and without outside interference.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
"All that has to do with immigration law is whether or not they can ask the federal government to find out if this person is illegal or not, and then leave it up to you. It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally or not," he[Roberts] said.

Wasnt Obama the guy you unilaterally decided to release detained illegal immigrants instead of deporting them?

Seems, it is not a question of not wanting to know, but of want them to stay.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
But .. but... what happened to all those brilliant 'experts' around here who claimed that it was a slam dunk that the law would be tossed? (you know who you are!)

Yup, that was before we realized that Mr. Scalia was about to disgrace himself by going on a political crusade against the administration.

I usually don't agree with Roberts, but at least I can respect him. Scalia is cat piss.

Edit: Also, can we suspend all SCOTUS hearings until the administration actually hires a solicitor general that make a goddamn argument?
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,613
47,219
136
Yup, that was before we realized that Mr. Scalia was about to disgrace himself by going on a political crusade against the administration.

I usually don't agree with Roberts, but at least I can respect him. Scalia is cat piss.

They are referring to a single section of the 4 major ones under dispute, and their argument centers around how the Arizona law might not conflict with federal law, not that Arizona has the right to enforce separate immigration provisions on its own. I have seen nothing here that in any way questions total federal dominance over immigration issues.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Yup, that was before we realized that Mr. Scalia was about to disgrace himself by going on a political crusade against the administration.

Yeah, Scalia gets to cast 5 votes on the court. Oh, wait, he only casts 1 vote, so it would take at least 4 other judges to agree with him.... and from the sounds of the questions, at least one or two of the libs even agree. Are they on a 'political crusade' against our constitutional scholar in chief as well?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
They are referring to a single section of the 4 major ones under dispute, and their argument centers around how the Arizona law might not conflict with federal law, not that Arizona has the right to enforce separate immigration provisions on its own. I have seen nothing here that in any way questions total federal dominance over immigration issues.

hahahah You're starting to weasel out already? How many of your posts should I go dig up where you said the law would get tossed? Some sections might get tossed, but it looks like the law overall might get upheld. Expert indeed :p
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
But the Obama administration's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, strongly countered that assertion, saying immigration matters are under its exclusive authority and state "interference" would only make matters worse.

A fine example of "we know what's best for you" arrogance.

Roberts pointed out that under the Arizona law, police stops are not made for immigration reasons, but for violations of other laws.

"All that has to do with immigration law is whether or not they can ask the federal government to find out if this person is illegal or not, and then leave it up to you. It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally or not," he said.

Makes sense to me, but then I'm not a lawyer.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,022
2,590
136
If states do not have some kind of right to make their own laws, why do we have states? Lets just do away with the 50 states and form a single nation.

Sooner or later there has to be a line drawn in the sand, this is the line the federal government can not cross.

Best thing ever if the states finally get the right to enforce federal law that the current executive doesn't want to enforce!

So first of all I'm going to state my position against this law. It essentially lets you racial profile freely without any sort of reprimand. Don't think about the illegal immigrants who will be affected by this law. Think of the all the legal, law abiding immigrants and citizens who will be rounded up to collectively spend countless nights and weekends in jails whilst waiting for their papers to be delivered to police from family members. Think of the society those legal immigrants who are of foreign descent will live in, one where they always have to carry papers, always are watching their back, and always are in fear of arrest, especially when those who happen to not share their skin color would be allowed to walk freely without the same requirements.

Its easy to support or be indifferent about a law when they are coming for other people. However, the fact of the matter is, if the practice continues, eventually they will come for you as the Pastor Nimoeller so clearly said (about nazi germany):

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me"



However, the reason the law must fall is quite simple. Foreign policy is the federal governments department and immigration falls under the federal governments jurisdiction. This sort of law is akin to Arizona blacklisting german imports, or refusing to accept iranian citizens or starting a war with north korea. Everyone is pissed off at north korea sure, but its not arizona's right to say "we are tired of the federal government mucking about with that situation and we are finally going to go do something about it". That is usurping powers they do not have. North Korea's actions affects everyone with their saber rattling (just like immigration affects everyone); that doesn't mean arizona can start unilateral policies to take care of the problem.They have representation in the federal government concerning foreign policy; they should use it and stop trying to play dictator.
 
Last edited:

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
"If, in fact, somebody who does not belong in this country is in Arizona, Arizona has no power? What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders? said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Ow.

"All that has to do with immigration law is whether or not they can ask the federal government to find out if this person is illegal or not, and then leave it up to you. It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally or not," he said.

Ow.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
This sort of law is akin to Arizona blacklisting german imports, or refusing to accept iranian citizens or starting a war with north korea. Everyone is pissed off at north korea sure, but its not arizona's right to say "we are tired of the federal government mucking about with North Korea and we are finally going to go do something about it". That is usurping powers they do not have. North Korea's actions affects everyone with their saber rattling (just like immigration affects everyone); that doesn't mean arizona can start unilateral policies to take care of the problem.They have representation in the federal government concerning foreign policy; they should use it and stop trying to play dictator.

If North Korea invaded Arizona and the Federal Government did nothing to stop it, something tells me Arizona would be justified to do it on their own.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,022
2,590
136
If the 49 other states voted that arizona should accept north korea's presence for now, Arizona has to accept it. its not like the blood shed by their patriots is any more valuable than anyone else. Regarding foreign policy they DO have representation in the federal government and can use it.

And do you guys not see how ridiculously 1984, gestapo nazi germany this law is? Are you that right wing, America for white americans only? This law wouldn't even be up for debate if it were reasonable and not inherently racist and discriminatory to LEGAL CITIZENS!
 
Last edited:

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
Yeah, Scalia gets to cast 5 votes on the court. Oh, wait, he only casts 1 vote, so it would take at least 4 other judges to agree with him.... and from the sounds of the questions, at least one or two of the libs even agree. Are they on a 'political crusade' against our constitutional scholar in chief as well?

Scalia leads the conservative wing of the court with includes Thomas, Alito, and usually Roberts and Kennedy.

Ginsburg and Breyer are the only liberal members of the court. Sotomayor and Kagan are centrists.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Negative....He's bitching about Federal interference,so where do you draw the line?

Well to draw a connection between air travel and illegal immigration.

If Arizona was suffering from a large number of airplane crashes and the federal government refused to do anything about (or even enforce current laws on aircraft safety) then I think reasonable people would agree Arizona had a right to protect its citizens from the dangers of airplanes falling from the sky.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
If the 49 other states voted that arizona should accept north korea's presence for now, Arizona has to accept it. its not like the blood shed by their patriots is any more valuable than anyone elses.

Except in my hypothetical it's their blood being shed in larger quantity than anyone else's.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,022
2,590
136
Except in my hypothetical it's their blood being shed in larger quantity than anyone else's.

Life isn't fair. All states have major issues to deal with. It doesn't mean they can break the law and assume new powers to do so.