The Arizona immigration law was blocked in three of four crucial parts by the US Supreme Court. The fourth part, allowing law enforcement officials to demand proof of legal residence, was upheld. Only eight Justices decided the case. Justice Elena Kagan, the newest and arguably the most liberal of the nine justices, recused herself, probably because she worked on the case while in the Obama administration.
The part of the law the Court upheld which allows, in fact it requires, law enforcement officials to demand proof of legal residence, does not include provisions for enforcing federal immigration law. Those portions of the law were set down on the basis that State law cannot preëmpt federal law. However, the "show your papers" part isn't out of the woods yet. As one Justice pointed out, the government's case was not built on equal treatment issues. Their ruling implicitly invites further challenge on that basis. "This opinion," Justice Kennedy wrote, "does not foreclose other pre-emption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect."
The Justices seem to be saying that law enforcement can ask for anything they like, they just have to do it even-handedly. However, it's hard to see how it would be possible to ask for proof of legal residence without asking either everyone... or no one. It's equally hard to see how Arizona can expect to not see a new challenge based on violation of civil rights. The Court has virtually promised that it would accept such a challenge, and it is simply too easy to slide into profiling based on appearance.
Citizens will be challenged, and they won't have the "proper" papers on them. After all, who, besides legal aliens, carries the stuff that constitutes proof of citizenship with them? A driver's license won't do. Literally millions of illegal aliens are likely to have a driver's license that would pass muster. Few citizens carry birth certificates, passports, or naturalization papers with them. The Supreme Court will be seeing the Arizona immigration law again, and the smart money will be on the Court striking the last of it down. It's not possible to enforce what Arizona's Governor Brewer called "the heart" of this law without creating equal rights violations.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 96
Pass whatever laws you want, so long as there are Americans who care more about paying cheap wages than they do about solving collective problems you will have plenty of foreign nationals willing to take the risk.
Worker wants a job...I have a job...win/win except for the labor union that gets in the way...
They are all American citizens and, as far as I have observed, very happy...
Just sayin'...You people are talking about something that you don't understand at all...
...You people are talking about something that you don't understand at all...
That's what southerners used to say to me when I told 'em Jim Craw laws needed to be busted. Wonder if you're as wrong as they were...
The moment is not typical or relevant...
You mistake figures on the internet with reality...a common liberal mistake...
Business is bottom line...not a conservative thing...just reality...
How about all the "liberals" stop buying product produced by illegal labor...
There seems to be an awful lot of "hate" legislation being passed lately. Will we never learn?
Stop spewing lies and racist dribble.
The article concerns the state of Arizona attempting to pass an un Constitutional law aimed at allowing police forces to legally harrass citizens of the state without reason. A state which is already under DOJ scrutiny, having a county sheriff (Joe Arpaio) recently being charged with numerous violations of open hostility and unwarranted harrassment of both incarcerated prison inmates and Latino immirgrants.
It's nice to see a new member here on Gather News, but, before you accuse another member of lying and/or being a racist, it would serve you better think twice and know the person you are accusing. Lora Covrett, to whom your thread is attached and thereby addressing, I can assure you is neither. Further, your accusations are unwarranted, not to mention insulting and derogatory.
Shut the hell up, "H."
DYANA: No one is talking about pulling people over (although, whether you believe it or not, "driving while black/brown" IS a civil infraction in many places). It's the demanding of papers that we're sure is going to become an abuse of equal treatment under the law.
And Lora I did have to produce ID which they then ran. What about that Huh?
So that means the upcoming Romney administration can pick and choose what laws they want to enforce.
So that means the upcoming Romney administration can pick and choose what laws they want to enforce.
We will see come November. Can't wish you good luck in the election, however I can wish you a happy day and take to opportunity to remind you of the old adage, "Don't count your chickens before the ballots are counted"
Every police force and law enforcement agency does exactly that. It picks and chooses which laws they will enforce. It's impossible to do otherwise given the number of laws and the number of violations. That's true of traffic laws, that's true of municipal ordinances, that's true of the tax laws, that's true of laws regulating Wall Street.
Therefore, every Administration must decide how to distribute it's enforcement efforts since it cannot enforce all the laws all the time. This is another reason why we value so highly Administration officials with good judgment.
Not sure just how much enforcement you expect.
BTW...Lincoln issued the EP to keep England from entering the war on the side of the Confederates...he didn't give a flip about the slaves and, in reality, freed no slaves...that took the 13th Amendment...
comparison to abortion...false equivlency...
Citizens??? These people are illegal aliens...I don't really care but some rational people do...
But...laws should be enforced or changed...
Immirgrants are what has made our country what it is today, the greatest and most revered country in the world. Citizens from foreign lands have immigrating to our country for the past 300 years. People with pride in being an American and with the conviction to keep America safe from all aggression by our enemies. Such immirgrants have fought and died to keep the American Dream alive for others. People have immirgrated from all around the world to become an American citizen and thereby, to assume the right to live in a country which is so diverse in ethnic and nationality groups, that it has become known as the Melting Pot of the world.
Still today, people of all cultures, nationalities, ethnic and religious backgrounds clammer to become an American citizen. They want to be apart of a nation where people are truly free to live and let live, free to determine their destiny, free to believe and practice their religion, free to speak their convictions, free to approve laws under which we all live, and most importantly of all, free to choose and elect their leaders.
There is little doubt that laws governing immirgration are needed and must exist for the welfare of us all. However, the legislating of any law simply to prevent a certain nationality and/or ethnic group of people from entering our country and seeking to become an American citizen is, IMO, Un American by the moral nature of our society, detrimental to the foundation upon which our country was established, as well as inconsistant with values and principles which has made our country, the greatest country in the world.
Such attempts to legislate discriminatory laws which are contrary to the majority of the American people's wishes, must always be challenged and shown to be biased and un American acts of bigoted people.
Stop believing all the propaganda you are being spoon fed.
First off, the above paraphrased statement by you is without a doubt nothing which pretains to me. Gather members of all political affiliations will tell you that I don't bend over for anyone, regardless of their political party affiliation. Neither do I allow myself to be spoon fed political talking points or propaganda, I don't need to, for I keep abreast on all political issues on a daily basis. Further and more to the point, I am my own man, first, last and always and it would be foolish of you to believe otherwise now that you have been forewarned.
It would appear that you are a person with a self destructive purpose and an agenda, hellbent on unleasing your anger on whomever you find available. Inasmuch, it would be my suggestion that before you alienate any more members, it would behoove you to read their past comments and post. In doing so, you will more than likely find that most members are good people who have a far better understanding of the U.S. political system and are far more prepared to debate issues concerning current events than you presently are.
Since you are a new member, I'm going to overlook your asinine remarks this time, but do not take my generosity for personal weakness. For it is not. You are making a fool of youself with your personal attacks against people you nothing about and free advise only comes around once.
DYANA, I'm sure that you're not, but pay no attention to the sanctimonious joker on this thread. Self-appointed "sophisticates" are amusing...and a dime per dozen. ;)
Arizona was like a kid asking for a pony, a new car, a bike and Game Boy for Xmas...They got the Game Boy which is all they really expected...
BTW, DYANNA? No you don't.
Cookie...so you don't care about the wetbacks...you only want the unions to prosper...you are such a hypocrite...