SCOTUS Arizona Decision

[jimzinsocal]

Here we go. For our reading pleasure. Not what Id paint as a "win" for Arizona or Republicans particularly.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182

[jimzinsocal]

Since Im scrounging around for a perceived "win" (Im kidding) Id have to say reading this from Scalia is about as close as Ill get

As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari- zona citizens for employment.
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.

[Keven]

The cliffnotes version for those who are allergic to legalese, these three sections were struck down by the Supreme Court:

Section 3 - It was a state misdemeanor to be an immigrant in Arizona without proof that you were lawfully there. SCOTUS ruled that this law was overruled by federal laws. The Constitution says that federal laws overrule or "preempt" state laws.

Section 5(C) - It was a state misdemeanor if you were an illegal immigrant and knowingly applied to a job in Arizona knowing you didn't have a right to work in the US. SCOTUS ruled that Arizona stepped on the toes of federal law (Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986), which clearly states the punishment and procedure for dealing with the employment of illegal immigrants.

Section 6 - Gave state law enforcement officials permission to arrest illegal immigrants without a federal warrant in some situations. SCOTUS ruled that only the federal government can arrest illegal immigrants for being in the country illegally.

The section that said that state law enforcement officers should fully investigate the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrest remained.

Not really a "win" for conservatives, but not really a win for the open border folks either. A lot of them seemed to be opposed to the idea of cops asking if Hispanic-looking guys were in the country illegally (that's racist) and that part of the law is still in effect.

[no2guncntrl]

I see it as a loss for states who are trying to stem the tide of illegal
immigration. How will border states try and stop this now with a current
Admin that basically endorses breaking our immigration
laws by NOT really enforcing them ?

If the Feds choose to ignore or set aside fed immigration laws,
whats the sense of even having them ?

One thing that NEEDS to set into law is mandatory E-Verify. NO illegal
alien should be able to come here, seek work, get work and be able to
support his or her family or send money out of the country without paying
a portion of said paycheck into a savings fund that pays for the process of
becoming legal. Only exception would be as far as I'm concerned, are those who
honorably served in the military and in a combat role.

[Keven]

I see it as a loss for states who are trying to stem the tide of illegal
immigration. How will border states try and stop this now with a current
Admin that basically endorses breaking our immigration
laws by NOT really enforcing them ?

If the Feds choose to ignore or set aside fed immigration laws,
whats the sense of even having them ?

Well, SCOTUS has made it clear today that the Constitution says that it's the job of the federal government, not the states, to enforce immigration laws.

So, you'd think the White House would take the cue from the public and get serious.

The only thing they send back to Mexico are assault rifles. *rimshot*

[no2guncntrl]

I feel it's ruling played right into the hands of the one who should
not be named. Now it's just a matter of time before more
backdoor shenanigans are put to the People for out and out
blanket amnesty.

I thought for sure that the Court would of ruled for states to devise
and implement their own immigration laws due to the abuse of fed
laws. I was surprised somewhat by Roberts decision reaffirming
fed law over state law regarding this but he is a constitutional jurist.

I don't agree with the ruling at all save for the checks, but even this
will prove mute. So officers can check status of those stopped..

NOW WHAT DO THEY DO WITH EM ?

Just to make it clear, this isn't about those from down south.
That swarm of people coming here legally or not has dropped way down.
Largest group of legals or illegals coming here are now Asian. I couldn't
care less what race a person is, I care about is if that person has come
here legally.

We have to obey the laws of our land, why should illegals not have to ?
Oh that's right, they're ILLEGAL. The states have tried to adhere to our
fed laws, but they being what they are and the lack of enforcement, states
are now hamstrung thanks to the ruling today.

[AMDScooter]

The his majesty has decided to simply stop all federal cooperation unless it's a felon.

Obama Administration Refusing To Assist Arizona With Immigration-Status Checks

[Keven]

I don't agree with the ruling at all save for the checks, but even this
will prove mute. So officers can check status of those stopped..

NOW WHAT DO THEY DO WITH EM ?

Well, they're supposed to report them to ICE. But, like Scoot said, we have a belligerent White House who thinks that by being soft on immigration he can get Mexican-Americans to vote for him.

The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution is pretty clear that federal law overrules state law in matters where the federal government has jurisdiction and SCOTUS believes the federal government has the right to manage border security.

If we didn't have a jackalope president, he would interpret the actions by Arizona as a sign that America wants something to be done on border security.

If SCOTUS says that it's the federal government's job to enforce immigration and border security laws, and the current federal government isn't doing it, then what is the only choice of America? Get a new executive branch. See you at the polls.

[jimzinsocal]

DHS new rule that avoids Arizona law enforcement folks. You can read it at DHS Homepage. DOJ and ACLU have hotline numbers set yo to assist illegal aliens.
What is becomming clear is illegal immigrants are now a protected class/group of folks.
It also gets even more clear that someone wants their votes.
What else explains the DOJ and Obama's behaviour?
The question becomes for Republicans. How do we make the case for law enforcement and not alienate the Latino group as a whole?
Thats the hard part.
How is what the Administration is doing different than the play for votes type of thing we see reeinacted in Gangs of New York?
Is the Administration so obvious that its all about votes?

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/20...ng-sb1010.shtm

[BlackDragon24]

DHS new rule that avoids Arizona law enforcement folks. You can read it at DHS Homepage. DOJ and ACLU have hotline numbers set yo to assist illegal aliens.
What is becomming clear is illegal immigrants are now a protected class/group of folks.
It also gets even more clear that someone wants their votes.
What else explains the DOJ and Obama's behaviour?
The question becomes for Republicans. How do we make the case for law enforcement and not alienate the Latino group as a whole?
Thats the hard part.
How is what the Administration is doing different than the play for votes type of thing we see reeinacted in Gangs of New York?
Is the Administration so obvious that its all about votes?

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/20...ng-sb1010.shtm

Its always about the votes. Democrats pander to illegals (or more accurately, the families of illegals who CAN vote) the same way republicans pander to pro-lifers.

The way I read this decision is that three of the four parts of the law up for question got struck down, and the controversial "papers please" part of the law is still up for debate. There a bunch more lawsuits coming down the pipeline that will most likely determine that part of the law.

I think we also got a nice insight into exactly what kind of a right-wing schill Scalia has become. I don't think I've ever seen a supreme opinion written is such a way that so obviously singles out a sitting president for policy decisions.

Obama the shrewd politician is winning the politics game again. He took what was basically a republican idea (DREAM ACT) and put it in an executive order, so now all of the republicans who supported this policy previously have to do a 180, cuz you know, agreeing with anything the president does is sin. Kind of like cap and trade, health care mandate, etc.

Meanwhile, Romney's rebuttle to all of this is "Obama Sucks." Which I'm pretty sure is going to be his entire platform the rest of the way, because he doesn't seem interested in pointing out any type of policy he might embrace as president.

[Keven]

The way I read this decision is that three of the four parts of the law up for question got struck down, and the controversial "papers please" part of the law is still up for debate. There a bunch more lawsuits coming down the pipeline that will most likely determine that part of the law.

That's DailyKos logic. The Supreme Court has decided that Section 2 of the law (the so-called "papers please" section) stands. They only struck down the parts I outlined above. Ginsburg, Beyer and Sotomayor didn't even protest that part of the law, although the court's decision did blast Arizona for passing Section 2 without considering the civil rights impact.

The Supreme Court decides what cases it will hear and unless the makeup of the court changes dramatically, I don't see them taking another case to address the Constitutionality of Section 2. The "papers please" law will stand in Arizona for a long time. But, don't worry, BD. Your precious illegal immigrants can still apply for jobs in the United States at a time when there aren't enough jobs for, you know, real Americans.

I think we also got a nice insight into exactly what kind of a right-wing schill Scalia has become. I don't think I've ever seen a supreme opinion written is such a way that so obviously singles out a sitting president for policy decisions.

Obama the shrewd politician is winning the politics game again. He took what was basically a republican idea (DREAM ACT) and put it in an executive order, so now all of the republicans who supported this policy previously have to do a 180, cuz you know, agreeing with anything the president does is sin. Kind of like cap and trade, health care mandate, etc.

wut.

The DREAM Act was the brain child of •••• Durbin (lefty) and Orrin Hatch (left-leaning Republican - not exactly Rand Paul here). It's hardly a Republican idea.

Come on, BD, you can't defend everything Obama does from now until election day with the "It was a Republican idea first!!!!!" defense.

[AMDScooter]

^^^ Bamma the "shrewd" dude.

1) Dun wanna talk about the "stimulus" no more.
2) Has his "landmark" HC bill in the supreme court to determine if it's constitutional or not.
3) Picks a immigration fight with AZ.. loses.
4) Is well under 50% approval.

Is currently pandering to anyone left that might listen to him in desperation. That's "Shrewd"?

Much like your choice in Libtard chikas... I'm not impressed. But you do a good job trying to make something outta nuthin'.

[IAmGhostDog]

Meanwhile, Romney's rebuttle to all of this is "Obama Sucks." Which I'm pretty sure is going to be his entire platform the rest of the way, because he doesn't seem interested in pointing out any type of policy he might embrace as president.

Have to agree with that.
Romney is a empty suit who panders to which ever crowd he happens to be talking to.
It's pretty sad when that's the best that the repug's can come up with.

[BlackDragon24]

Come on, BD, you can't defend everything Obama does from now until election day with the "It was a Republican idea first!!!!!" defense.

Its more of a "Since Obama is for it, we are against it, even if we used to be for it before Obama was for it" defense, and it works quite well, thanks

[Dutchcedar]

Its more of a "Since Obama is for it, we are against it, even if we used to be for it before Obama was for it" defense, and it works quite well, thanks

That seems to be a recurring argument for all things Obambi.

Its as if saying you like Cadillac blinkers means you must like Cadillacs.

Its the Juan Williams/Sean Colmes standard argument.

Do ya think a president's pandering for votes from sub-set of voters might be in anyway different than proposing an idea in a comprehensive bill?