Supreme Court strikes down key provisions, but not all, of Arizona immigration law

SwizzleStick · #1 Jun 25, '12, 8:12 am

"Supreme Court strikes down key provisions, but not all, of Arizona immigration law

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona’s crackdown on immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion on checking suspects’ status could go forward."...

Source link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...l1V_print.html

SwizzleStick · #2 Jun 25, '12, 8:15 am

"High court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law

The Supreme Court upheld one part of the Arizona immigration law but struck down other sections."...

Source link: http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...discussion_nav

_Abyssinia · #3 Jun 25, '12, 8:18 am

Brewer: Supreme Court's Arizona decision a 'victory for the rule of law'

Quote:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer issued the following statement Monday on the Supreme Court striking down three provisions of the state's law cracking down on illegal immigrants but upholding, for now, a fourth provision allowing police to stop people suspected of being in the country illegally:

Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual's civil rights.

The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona's law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.

Of course, today's ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, "We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1yooTqL6v

Trader · #4 Jun 25, '12, 8:22 am

It is interesting that the decision does uphold the police powers of the states, which are a major part of the tenth amendment. Obamacare is also being attacked in court for violating the tenth amendment. Maybe this means that the Supreme Court recoginizes that the tenth amendment is still more relevant than the opinion of a former law school lecturer now residing in the White House.

Elizabeth502 · #5 Jun 25, '12, 8:46 am

Liberal bias in headline: Washington Post's spin on this is, i.m.o., not as legallly accurate as Yahoo News' reverse headline:

"Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona immigration law, strikes down rest."

Usually I don't care for their headlines, or their interpretation of news stories from the AP, etc. But in this case I agree, as the story is laid out with regard to what can be defined as "key provision(s)," that the "upholds" headline gets it right. No, state officials cannot exact punishment (that's still up to the feds), but they can indeed stop and engage in questioning. That was considered the "key provision" by many observers.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...141927514.html

**estesbob** · #6 Jun 25, '12, 8:49 am

I am not comfortable with the provision they did uphold. i can not see any way this provision will not focus on Hispanics. My sister-in-law is Hispanic and she and my brother travel extensively. They refuse to drive through Arizona because of this provision and I dont blame them

Elizabeth502 · #7 Jun 25, '12, 9:14 am

My brother-in-law is Hispanic and I am comfortable with it. Same reason I am comfortable being stopped at random sobriety checkpoints in my region: because I do not drink and drive. I feel fine being stopped because I have nothing to hide or dodge from. Nor does my brother-in-law. When one is Hispanic one can be often stopped in Mexico, by the way.

_Abyssinia · #8 Jun 25, '12, 9:15 am

Arizona Senators: 'Today's Ruling Appears to Validate a Key Component of Arizona’s Immigration Law'

Quote:

Arizona senators Jon Kyl and John McCain released the following statement on the Supreme Court's ruling today on tht state's immigration law:

“While we still want to fully review the Supreme Court’s decision, today’s ruling appears to validate a key component of Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070. The Arizona law was born out of the state’s frustration with the burdens that illegal immigration and continued drug smuggling impose on its schools, hospitals, criminal justice system and fragile desert environment, and an Administration that chooses to set enforcement policies based on a political agenda, not the laws as written by Congress. We will continue our efforts on behalf of the citizens of Arizona to secure our southern border. We believe Arizonans are better served when state and federal officials work as partners to protect our citizens rather than as litigants in a courtroom.”

UPDATE: And here's Mitt Romney's statement on the decision:

“Today's decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. This represents yet another broken promise by this President. I believe that each state has the duty--and the right--to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. As Candidate Obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office. But 4 years later, we are still waiting.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...aw_647836.html

ringil · #9 Jun 25, '12, 9:19 am

So both sides claiming victory.

I wish the entire law would have been struck down but I suppose that is what AZ has to deal with. I strongly believe this will lead to racial profiling.

**estesbob** · #10 Jun 25, '12, 9:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringil

So both sides claiming victory.

I wish the entire law would have been struck down but I suppose that is what AZ has to deal with. I strongly believe this will lead to racial profiling.

Again I can not see how it will not. How many whites and blacks are going to be asked to proves their citizenship. If you were pulled over today could you prove you were a citizen? I couldn't.

austenbosten · #11 Jun 25, '12, 9:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringil

So both sides claiming victory.

I wish the entire law would have been struck down but I suppose that is what AZ has to deal with. I strongly believe this will lead to racial profiling.

How? They have to already be in violation of something else. A cop can't just walk up and ask "Wüster Papiers?"

That's like saying the TSA leads to racial profiling, when we know that is not the case.

ringil · #12 Jun 25, '12, 9:34 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by estesbob

Again I can not see how it will not. How many whites and blacks are going to be asked to proves their citizenship. If you were pulled over today could you prove you were a citizen? I couldn't.

Does an ID count? I'm just asking- don't have an agenda in asking.

ringil · #13 Jun 25, '12, 9:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by austenbosten

How? They have to already be in violation of something else. A cop can't just walk up and ask "Wüster Papiers?"

That's like saying the TSA leads to racial profiling, when we know that is not the case.

If a cop wants to pull you over they will find a reason. They do it all the time.

And regarding the TSA, some would prefer that they do engage in racial profiling.

austenbosten · #14 Jun 25, '12, 9:36 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by estesbob

Again I can not see how it will not. How many whites and blacks are going to be asked to proves their citizenship. If you were pulled over today could you prove you were a citizen? I couldn't.

Umm lets see, I lived in two places where I know both whites and blacks would be questioned their legal residency or citizenship. New York City, because of the numerous Russian immigrants in Brighton Beach and here in Columbus where we have a huge Somali population.

And Estesbob, all you need is a valid driver's license der! If you are an alien, you still have to carry your green card or other immigrant documents as perscribed by Federal Law.

**estesbob** · #15 Jun 25, '12, 9:37 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringil

Does an ID count? I'm just asking- don't have an agenda in asking.

I dont know what IDs will suffice. I suspect that Hispanics IDs will be subject to much moor rigorous examination that mine