SCOTUS backs Arizona immigration law

[Paslode]

Maybe common sense will prevail.....unless the POTUS pulls out his Executive Fiat pen.

May 26, 2011
Supreme Court backs Arizona immigration law
10:51 AM

By John Bacon, USA TODAY

The Supreme Court today upheld an Arizona law penalizing companies that hire illegal immigrants, rejecting a challenge by business groups and civil liberties organizations, our court correspondent Joan Biskupic reports.

Updated at 11:36 a.m.: U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, released a statement supporting the ruling: "Not only is this law constitutional, it is common sense. American jobs should be preserved for Americans and legal workers."

Updated at 11:23 a.m.: The Associated Press reports that Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority made up of Republican-appointed justices, said the Arizona's employer sanctions law "falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democratic appointees, dissented. The fourth Democratic appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate because she worked on it while serving as President Obama's solicitor general.

CAPTION
By Ross D. Franklin, AP
Updated at 11:07 a.m.: The law permits the state to take away the business licenses of companies that knowingly hire illegal workers. It requires employers to use an otherwise optional federal verification program, known as the E-Verify system, which collects data on workers from the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security.

The ruling, by a 5-3 vote, comes off oral arguments presented in December. Reporting on those arguments, Biskupic had noted that the court "appeared poised ... to uphold" the law.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Obama administration had opposed the law.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...igration-law/1

[greenberetTFS]

Hallelujah..........

Big Teddy

[Dusty]

I really can't see how that could have gone any other way in a still-sane Country...

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Dusty

I really can't see how that could have gone any other way in a still-sane Country...

Silly, with one more Obama appointed Justice, of course.

TR

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Silly, with one more Obama appointed Justice, of course.

TR

One more of those will drive the Country over the edge of sanity...

[Box]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Silly, with one more Obama appointed Justice, of course.

TR

...how true.
Scary, but we are only one appointment away from watching the SCOTUS start to legislate from the bench.

I am sure that liberals have the same opinion of a right leaning court, but liberals are wrong about everything.

[KLB]

This is huge news. I'm surprised it hasn't generated more responses here. SCOTUS has upheld the first real test of whether or not immigration is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government. They've come down on the side of the states here which sets a big new precedent. Look for more state-generated laws that address enforcement of immigration laws. It's about time. I'm sure the Thursday release of the decision was no accident. This is a huge set back for the Obama administration. Employers are going to have to think twice about hiring illegal immigrants now. There's teeth to the consequences now in Arizona, and likely many states will now follow.

[ZonieDiver]

Unfortunately, since it's passage in 2007, the 'Employer Sanctions Law' has only resulted in two companies being sanctioned, and one had already gone out of business before the proceedings were completed. All the company must do to satisfy the law is use the Feds 'E-verify' system, which is a joke.

The illegal alien presents false SSAN document, which is 'verified' by 'E-verify' - voilà, company is off the hook... 'wink, wink, nod, nod'! Unless some disgruntled employee tips off some LE officials (read: Sheriff Joe), and they swoop in, round 'em up, and actually check the documents (which are - shockingly - found to be bogus), nothing happens.

The guy who provided the bulk of the funding for the now-failed challenge owns a 'bazzilion' McDonalds franchises here in AZ... surprise (and not the AZ city near Peoria, which should have it's name changed to 'Surprise!' - with the exclamation point).

[rdret1]

http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/9705783/

Alabama decided to take Arizona's lead. Maybe this will give renewed emphasis on illegal immigration to other states. Of course the Southern Poverty Law Center is calling it "mean-spirited" and "racist".

[Dusty]

Snip

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25...gration-cases/

[Updated at 10:26 a.m. ET] The Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. government, striking down three parts of the Arizona immigration law, but the Court did uphold one the most notorious provisions: 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.

The question now is can that single provision stand on its own, or does the court action mean Arizona has to go back to the drawing board on their immigration law.

[Updated at 10:23 a.m. ET] CNN's Senior Political Analyst David Gergen weighs in on the Arizona immigration ruling:

“The court apparently has said, ‘No, you can’t do that.’ Those are centralized powers and you can’t step in.”

[Updated at 10:18 a.m. ET] The Supreme Court has issued 5-3 decision in favor of U.S. government, with Justice Kennedy saying that the government has significant power to regulate immigration and while Arizona may have signifacnt frustrations they may not have policies that undermine federal law.

This is a win for the federal government and a loss for Arizona

Snip

[Stargazer]

I am not surprised that they ruled this way. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito had concurring and dissenting opinions.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-182b5e1.pdf

No surprise, that I found Justice Scalia's opinion to be more palable and true to what I consider the spirit of the Constitution and state sovereignty.

Justice Scalia Opinion excerpt:

Today's opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit's injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provision of Arizona's law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign's territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent

Justice Scalia opinion excerpt:

Federalist No 42, supra, at 271, see Art.... In other words, the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States' power to exclude those why did not want, but to vindicate it.

Justice Scalia opinion excerpt:

The Government complains that state officials might not heed "federal priorities." Indeed they might not, particularly if those priorities include willful blindness or deliberate inattention to the presense of removable aliens in Arizona. The States's whole complaint -- the reason this law was passed and this case has arisen -- is that the citizens of Arizona believe federal priorities are too lax. The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition. The Executive's policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute such a prohibition.....

... Must Arizona's ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement or even worse, to the Executive's unwise targeting of that funding?

Also thought Justice Scalia's reference to the President's deferral policy was appropo, before offering the following....

... So the issue is a stark on. Are sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the Nation's immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered int the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court's holding? Today's ruling surely fails that test

I just finished reading Madison's notes of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Further, if you read the concerns that were being addressed to the citizens in the Federalist Papers -- you know this is true.


Justice Alito's opinion on enforcement priorities/agency policy:

The United States' attack on S2(B) is quite remarkable. The United States suggests that a state law may be pre-empted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency's current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not law. They are nothing more than agency policy

[Stargazer]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-court-ruling/

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's immigration law, Obama administration officials announced Monday they are suspending a key program that allowed state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law....

...The move further weakens efforts by Arizona and other states to take the reins on immigration enforcement....

..... Officials also said Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be selective in responding to the expected increase in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status of people they pull over. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria -- such as being wanted for a felony.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1ypiQJ7vM

[afchic]

Can anyone please explain to me how the federal government can chose not to enforce a duly passed law by Congress?

Percentage wise, I wonder if some of the weapons from Fast and Furious might be finding their way to some of these illeagles, and as a whole, if these immigration laws are not enforcable, the chances of catching illeagles with these weapons is statistically reduced.

Okay, perhaps that might be a stretch, but statistically crimes in general will go undeterred. I am not saying all of these folks are all drug dealers and cartel members or criminals (other than the fact they are here illeagally), but as with any population segment, there will be some who do fall into that category.

[mark46th]

Quote:
"In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's immigration law, Obama administration officials announced Monday they are suspending a key program that allowed state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law....

...The move further weakens efforts by Arizona and other states to take the reins on immigration enforcement....

..... Officials also said Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be selective in responding to the expected increase in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status of people they pull over. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria -- such as being wanted for a felony.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1ypiQJ7vM "

Once again Obama and Holder thumb their noses at the Supreme Court. Shameful. For a former Constitutional Law professor to do this is unfathomable. For a president to undermine a Supreme Court ruling he swore to uphold should be an automatic impeachment.