Skip to comments.Will The Supreme Court Seal Our Nation's Borders?
Posted on 12/14/2011 11:34:04 AM PST by raptor22
Border Justice: As the administration proposes unmanned border entry and halving our National Guard force on the border, the Supreme Court agrees to tackle Arizona's tough immigration law in an election year.
Arizona wasn't around when the original 13 states formed the federal government knowing there were certain things it could do best, such as the constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense and protect our borders.
National and border security involves not only deterring foreign armies armed with tanks, but also protecting our borders from an invasion involving ladders and pickup trucks. That, Arizona argued when it passed SB1070, the feds have woefully failed to do. So Arizona cloned federal law and said we'll do it ourselves.
Attorney General Eric Holder, who never met a memo he has read, started complaining about SB1070 as a discriminatory incarnation of profiling that usurped federal authority over immigration policy even before it was signed into law by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010. He would later admit he hadn't even read the law he and the Department of Justice went to federal court to stop.
The Obama administration sued and a federal judge put what it considered the most controversial parts of the ruling on hold. In April a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit rejected an initial Arizona appeal and refused to reverse the order preventing key parts of the law from being enforced.
The administration argument is that Arizona is usurping federal powers and that immigration is a federal matter. Arizona argues that the federal government is a creation of the states, not the other way around, and that in any event SB1070 is a copy of existing federal law.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
No. Washington government is Washington government. Of, by, and for Washington government.
Reminds me of the Battle of Wyoming...The Feds didn’t do their job and a lot of the local militia died.
Illegal immigration ping
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they werent already required to carry. Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling. Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official may not consider race, color, or national origin in making any stops or determining an aliens immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in solely considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: Reasonable suspicion is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Reality: Reasonable suspicion has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of reasonable suspicion: A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-drivers license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions. The SB1070 provision in question reads: For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people. Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do. Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien. The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment). Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725
my bet is "NO""
“Attorney General Eric Holder, who never met a memo he has read...”
Comment: We have reached that place in our nations history when both the population and those that govern them intuitively choose the most harmful course of action.
“Will The Supreme Court Seal Our Nation’s Borders?”
No...There are only 9 of them...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.