Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court should overturn Arizona's anti-illegal-immigration law
Seattle Times Editorial ^ | April 1, 2012 | Seattle Times Editorial

Posted on 04/01/2012 1:24:34 PM PDT by moonshinner_09

U.S. Supreme Court should overturn Arizona's anti-illegal-immigration law THE U.S. Supreme Court should strike down four troubling provisions of Arizona's anti-illegal-immigration law. They conflict with federal laws and ought not become models for states grappling with illegal immigration.

The federal government has exclusive authority over immigration enforcement. One can debate the efficacy of federal efforts but Arizona's 2010 immigration law was a wrongheaded attempt to supersede federal law.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked key provisions of the law, including requiring law enforcement to question people about their immigration status, ask for documentation and detain those without it. Arguments that this could lead to racial profiling are persuasive. The immigration status of people arrested would also have to be determined before they could be released

(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: aliens; immigration; sb1070; seattle
How about any illegals arrested in AZ be dropped off at any local Seattle police station and let them fiqure out how to deal with thousands of new illegals dropped off in their city?
1 posted on 04/01/2012 1:24:43 PM PDT by moonshinner_09
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

Seattle must be feeling the heat of being overrun with illegal aliens leaving Arizona. Deal with it hippies!!! I guess with the “boycott” thing not working out, the SCOTUS is all you have left!


2 posted on 04/01/2012 1:29:19 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (It's time to WEAN the government off of our money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

What’s worse is that the federal law is more “draconian” than AZ’s law . . . but the feds don’t enforce those laws.


3 posted on 04/01/2012 1:33:29 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

SueAz2


4 posted on 04/01/2012 1:35:26 PM PDT by FrankR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09
I wish a liberal could be forced to answer the question "Just what can we do to enforce laws against illegal immigration?" If we can't enact legislation in the states, and federal law is being ignored, what can we do? It's clear that their real problem is not how any law is being enforced, it's that it's being enforced at all. They of course want this county overrun with more democrat entitlement voters and foot soldiers in the war for marxism and the extinction of whites (except their "elite" selves running the show). How'd that work out for South Africa? The black government there doesn't care how much you "cried for the beloved country" (the wife of the author high-tailed it back to England), they still sing "kill the Boer". Mugabe doesn't care if most of "his people" starve as long as the whites are persecuted. Liberals, their present is your future.
5 posted on 04/01/2012 1:35:44 PM PDT by mrsmel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

I worked in downtown Seattle when they had that huge illegal alien march and it was very impressive. The cops should have had buses waiting at the end with enough gas and food to make it to mexico.

But this article, that event, etc., is why I so enjoy my new home in central Kentucky. I feel almost as if I wasted those 45 years in Seattle.


6 posted on 04/01/2012 1:43:55 PM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

The Seattle Times is a dried out, tired liberal rag, and the editorial board has never met a socialist cause it didn’t like.

Fortunately, they are going broke so fast that the bleats it publishes seem more like the cries of the Wicked Witch of the West than editorials. “I’m melting...melting...”

Good riddance.


7 posted on 04/01/2012 1:46:49 PM PDT by M1911A1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

west coast state drug laws also conflict with federal laws...

the dept of just-us should immediately file suits against the governors of those states with ‘medical marijuana’ provisions and arrest all state, county and local law enforcement that participated in undermining federal authority

oh, sorry... does this not jive with the emotional narrative of the author? my bad


8 posted on 04/01/2012 1:47:48 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

Who cares what the Skittles Times has to say.


9 posted on 04/01/2012 1:50:08 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Shut up and drill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09
Either Bull Kagan or the Wise Latina this past week reminded the other justices that when challenged, federal laws must be initially considered constitutional.

I disagree, but it is clear the federal lower courts consider any state law to be prima facie unconstitutional. In doing so, they are destroying federalism without a constitutional convention.

The only candidate who recognizes this dual threat is Newt.

10 posted on 04/01/2012 1:54:00 PM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

11 posted on 04/01/2012 1:59:00 PM PDT by Zakeet (Obozo is to competent as an Etch-A-Sketch is to art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09; Liz; SandRat; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; Impy; GOPsterinMA; randita; ...

No they shouldn’t.


12 posted on 04/01/2012 2:05:54 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (A chameleon belongs in a pet store, not the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

Funny how they included the word “illegal” in the banner.All this time I thought that were nothing more than “undocumented”.


13 posted on 04/01/2012 2:06:20 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Jimmy Carter Is No Longer The Worst President To Have Served In My Lifetime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09
How 'bout the Republican candidate promising to indict those elected and appointed individuals of the previous regime who DELIBERATELY CHOSE NOT TO ENFORCE THE FEDERAL LAWS THEY SWORE TO UPHOLD?

Wouldn't that be an interesting campaign promise?

If we can't impeach the Frauds, maybe we threaten to lock the lying slime balls up.

14 posted on 04/01/2012 2:09:42 PM PDT by jonascord (Ask any Democrat. He's firmly convinced that he's brighter than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel

The fundamental problem is that the Federal government is lawless. If only the Federal government can enforce immigration laws and the Federal government chooses not only to ignore those laws, but actually facilitate lawlessness, that forces the states to contemplate just what to do when the national government has become the enemy.


15 posted on 04/01/2012 2:10:03 PM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
Excellent! I love the sign.

Christy is trying to dress up his resume for the VP slot that Romney will hand him. Nothing more. We are in real trouble if Romney takes the nomination prior to the Convention. The Convention is our only hope now! Santorum just stunk the nomination process up with his insistence that he is the only Conservative. He learned a great deal from Mr. Newt, but also left a great deal on the table that he did not learn. I cannot even watch him anymore. Can you imagine what 4 years of Santorum would be like? Can you imagine what 4 years of Romney would be like?

I can certainly imagine what 4 years of Mr. Newt would be like...major change and major reform and a massive heart attack for the establishment. Can't you just see those bozos in Washington doing the Washington two-step to keep Mr. Newt out? It would be sweet just watching them react to Mr. Newt getting the nod from WE THE PEOPLE and not from them. I can't wait! It must happen!

16 posted on 04/01/2012 2:10:40 PM PDT by Bobbisox (All American Conservative Mama Grizzly (MR. NEWT - 2012)(MS. SARAH - 2020))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09
The folks who wrote the editorial have a very limited understanding of Federal Immigration Law........probably have not even looked at it.......relying on others to tell them what is or isn't in the law........

8:}

17 posted on 04/01/2012 2:12:09 PM PDT by AwesomePossum (I have never looked this forward to a November II........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09
On Friday, April 23, 2010 Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. Let’s look at the major criticisms individually:

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them.

It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said, “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.

Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling.

Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.  

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license.

Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter.

While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Supreme Court on May 26, 2011.

Conclusion

In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties. And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?

18 posted on 04/01/2012 2:13:07 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M1911A1

The same Seattle Times whose editorial board celebrated when Cheney underwent surgery? At least they were not as worse as the Seattle PI who folded but available online. They were in your face liberals..


19 posted on 04/01/2012 2:15:48 PM PDT by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

This Republic needs to decide if we are, in fact, a Nation of Laws or of Anarchy. Then act accordingly.


20 posted on 04/01/2012 2:41:47 PM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

We need to protect our southern border as zealously as we protect the South Korean border, with troops, landmines and razor wire.


21 posted on 04/01/2012 2:58:06 PM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

The constant rain up there softens their brains. Makes them soggy.

Then, again, it was the home to the wobblies.


22 posted on 04/01/2012 3:01:22 PM PDT by x1stcav (There's a bunch of us out here spoiling for a fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

This is the one thing that pissed me off about George W. He didn’t close the borders. He listened to his Daddy, Mommy and wife who are all liberals.


23 posted on 04/01/2012 3:07:10 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

Ninth Circus always gets overruled.


24 posted on 04/01/2012 3:23:31 PM PDT by CPT Clay (Pick up your weapon and follow me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Here from FR is statement made by Wise Latina

“What percentage of the American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and that child was turned away because the parent didn’t have insurance,” asked Sotomayor, “... do you think there’s a large percentage of the American population that would stand for the death of that child — (who) had an allergic reaction and a simple shot would have saved the child?”

I have a precise answer for Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The percentage of American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and were turned away because the parent didn’t have insurance is exactly zero.

No person, whether American or not, is ever turned away from an emergency room for lack of health insurance. Ever.

This simply does not happen.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2866694/posts


25 posted on 04/01/2012 3:33:09 PM PDT by moonshinner_09
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

Throughout history when the citizens of a nation find that they can not and will not be accorded either justice or redress from those, Judges, bureaucrats, or politicians, tasked with administering justice and or redress, the citizens find they must correct these miscreants, quite often violently, by hanging, guillotine, or simply shooting.

From watching what is happening in our nation, a correct observation would be that judges, bureaucrats, and politicians, have failed to study or acquire any knowledge of such history.
Are you paying attention 9th circuit?


26 posted on 04/01/2012 4:59:00 PM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Obama is Romney lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: W. W. SMITH

kabar
, how do you see American in about 30 years from now ? I have a feeling this country will be very 3rd world. We have so much corruption in gov, Obama is not making things any better, nor are his circle of friends.They are slowly flushing us down the toilet as they have put country in self destruction mode.


27 posted on 04/01/2012 6:19:33 PM PDT by moonshinner_09
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

kabar
, how do you see American in about 30 years from now ? I have a feeling this country will be very 3rd world. We have so much corruption in gov, Obama is not making things any better, nor are his circle of friends.They are slowly flushing us down the toilet as they have put country in self destruction mode.


28 posted on 04/01/2012 6:19:58 PM PDT by moonshinner_09
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

In thirty years I would be 93 if still alive and still hunting the a—holes that got us to that status.
The trigger that puts me over the edge is not far of. Don’t know what that trigger is just yet but it’s close.


29 posted on 04/01/2012 6:59:59 PM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Obama is Romney lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bobbisox

“It would be sweet just watching them react to Mr. Newt.....”

We're you around in 1996 when Newt was elected Speaker?

That was not sweet.

Pelosi filed more than 100 bogus ethics charges against him.

The Hard Left MSM rioted and pillaged Conservatism for four years.

Newt - then as now - had no strategy to counter the MSM and Democratic Party onslaught.

By 1998 Newt imploded and was forced to resign.

30 posted on 04/01/2012 10:40:12 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

Error.....

I wrote 1996.

Correct is 1994.


31 posted on 04/01/2012 10:46:59 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson