Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court declines to revive Arizona immigration law
Reuters ^ | Mon Apr 21, 2014 | Lawrence Hurley

Posted on 04/21/2014 12:33:30 PM PDT by Coronal

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a provision in an Arizona law that sought to criminalize the harboring and transportation of illegal immigrants.

The court's decision not to hear the state's appeal leaves intact an October 2013 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that found in part that the provision was trumped by federal immigration law.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: aliens

1 posted on 04/21/2014 12:33:30 PM PDT by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coronal

Expect no help from the Roberts court.

2 posted on 04/21/2014 12:34:59 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal; BuckeyeTexan

The Court did not decide the case; they simply refused to hear it (as they refuse more than 90% of the appeals filed with them). That leaves the Ninth Circuit’s decision untouched, but sets no precedent in other Circuits.

3 posted on 04/21/2014 12:36:35 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

I wish InTrade was still around and that we could make bets on SC decisions. I would always bet on the decision that would make the Founders weep, and I’d always be right.

4 posted on 04/21/2014 12:40:08 PM PDT by jiggyboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal
It is already a Federal offense.

Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

5 posted on 04/21/2014 12:46:42 PM PDT by Theoria (End Socialism : No more GOP and Dem candidates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

So there’s no problem with a state law that reinforces Federal law.

Right now we have states making laws allowing illegal aliens eligible for all sorts of citizenship based privileges: like in-state tuition.

How is that possible when they are simultaneously claiming that a state cannot make a law that penalizes people based on their “immigration status”?

Can’t have it both ways. But that’s what the court is allowing.

As we have seen with “Justice” Stevens, they don’t do law...they do politics.

6 posted on 04/21/2014 12:51:24 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
I know. I have long wanted the Feds to prosecute colleges, .gov officials, .gov workers, and other form of government worker who has aided or helped illegals, either through laws or other forms of aid.
7 posted on 04/21/2014 12:54:08 PM PDT by Theoria (End Socialism : No more GOP and Dem candidates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Those AZ laws must not be merely a tax, like zer0care

8 posted on 04/21/2014 12:56:50 PM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coronal
Thank you for referencing that article Coronal. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

... the provision was trumped by federal immigration law.

Never accept the premise of your opponent's argument.

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Since corrupt Congress isn't going to do it, patriots need to check every federal law that they hear about against the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, particularly those listed in Section 8 of Article I. And in the case of immigration issues it turns out that, regardless of the immigration-sounding uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause, Clause 4 of Section 8, the word immigration doesn't appear in the Constituiton.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson had clarified, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the Founding States had not delegated to the feds, via the Constitution, the specific power to legislatively address immigration issues, the states reserving such power uniquely to themselves.

“4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force (emphasis added).” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.

But also note that when activist justices threw out part of Arizona's immigration law that "wolf-in-sheep's-clothing," Harvard Law School-indoctrinated Justice Scalia referenced Jefferson's writing, but omitted the part about the 10th Amendment, treating the excerpt as Jefferson's personal opinion.

Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions insisted “that alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are [and] that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citi­ zens.”--Justice Scalia, Arizona v. United States, page 34 (page numbered with a 5).

9 posted on 04/21/2014 1:19:29 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; Salvation; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

10 posted on 04/21/2014 5:18:40 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Coronal; LucyT; BuckeyeTexan
old thread, but I came across this today...

Set/Reset Hearings 10/01/2013
Change of Plea Hearing 09/25/2013

USA v James Thomas Wilkey

(1) 8:1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(1)(B)(ii) Transportation of Illegal Aliens for Profit

Who is James Wilkey?
1 John Newton WILKEY b: 15 FEB 1853 d: 28 JUN 1921
    2 Willis Wilson WILKEY b: 24 OCT 1877 d: 11 NOV 1937
        3 Ada Mae WILKEY b: 22 FEB 1904 d: 3 MAR 1989
            4 Sandra DAY O'Connor b: 6 MAR 1930
    2 Blanton Taylor WILKEY b: 13 AUG 1895 d: 23 OCT 1969
        3 James Thomas WILKEY b: Nov 23, 1949

Wilkey acquitted in rip-off killing
Tucson Daily Citizen, Saturday, June 12, 1976, Page 1

A Superior Court jury late last night acquitted James T. Wilkey of first-degree murder charges, refuting prosecution attempts to place him at the center of an alleged drug smuggling and rip-off gang. After deliberating only about 4 hours following an 11-day trial, the 10-man, two-woman jury returned its verdict about 10:30 last night, acquitting Wilkey of first-degree murder and armed burglary. Wilkey broke into tears at the verdict, as did several of his friends in the courtroom. Wilkey went on trial following numerous plea bargaining agreements with other defendants in the case in an attempt to convict Wilkey of the Aug. 11 slaying of pilot William "Bayou Billy" Graham. Even though Wilkey was not at the scene of the murder, the prosecution maintained that Wilkey ordered Graham's killers to go to a North Side home in search of $100,000 in profits from marijuana sales. In his closing arguments to the jury yesterday, Deputy County Ally. Donald Becker stressed that Wilkey was the main target for prosecution in the killing. Wilkey was accused of hiring Ronald J. Juarez, 21, Manuel Martinez, 33, Robert J. Lisalda, 19, Richard H. Lower, 41, and Timothy L. O'Neill, 26, to "do" the 6660 N. Alvernqn Way home of convicted contraband smugglers Michael and Marc Norman. In exchange for their testimony against Wilkey, Juarez -- who admitted he fired the fatal shots -- Lower and O'Neill were allowed to plead guilty to a reduced charge of second- degree murder and are serving sentences in Arizona State Prison. Lisalda was sentenced to one year in Pima County Jail and five years probation after pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter and Martinez is awaiting trial after pleading innocent. But the hard-won testimony of Wilkey's co-defendants probably was one of the main reasons for his acquittal. Juarez, Lower, O'Neill and Lisalda all swore that Wilkey knew about the raid but refused to join. Lower, O'Neill and Lisalda said they felt Juarez was the strategist, but Juarez blamed Wilkey for plotting the rip-off from start to finish.

More charges filed
Kingman Daily Miner, Aug 9, 1978

A Tucson Man man already awaiting trial in connection with a drug and cash ripoff ring has been charged with an additional five counts in an indictment issued by a federal grand jury.

The five-count indictment issued Tuesday charges James T. Wilkey with conspiracy to import 3,060 pounds of marijuana in 1975, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute.

Four Pima County indictments issued earlier have named Wilkey in 14 counts on charges including armed robbery, armed burglary and conspiracy to commit armed burglary.

Ex-Tucsonan on trial in death
Tucson Citizen, June 21, 1996

James Wilkey is charged in the 1987 murder of Elsa Benitez, a girlfriend who was leaving him.

Pima County Prosecutor Rick Unklesbay conceded that charges of first-degree murder and kidnapping are based solely on circumstantial evidence as the trial opened this week against a former Tucson man arrested in the death of his girlfriend.

In November 1987, a hiker found the nude body of 25-year-old Elsa Benitez in a shallow grave on the far East Side.

Nine years later in Superior Court here, the state is trying to prove James Thomas Wilkey, 45, killed her.

Kidnapper acquitted of murder
Tucson Citizen, June 28, 1996

A man accused of killing his girlfriend in 1987 was acquitted of her murder, but convicted of kidnapping her yesterday by a Tucson jury.

He could face a sentence of up to four years, or up to 12 years if a judge determines there are prior felony convictions against him.

Man sentenced to 12 years in abduction
Tucson Citizen, Aug 27, 1996

A man who was acquitted of killing his girlfriend was sentenced yesterday to 12 years in prison for kidnapping her in 1987.

James Thomas Wilkey, 45, was acquitted of killing Elsa Benitez, 25, whose nude body was buried in a shallow grave on the far East Side.

But the same Tucson jury that cleared him of murder in late June convicted him of kidnapping Benitez.

In 1978, Wilkey was sentenced to eight years in prison on federal charges of marijuana conspiracy and on state charges of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. He was suspected as a key member of a gang that stole $1 million worth of marijuana and $1.5 million in cash from drug dealers here in the early 1970s, prosecutors said.

Wilkey is serving a nine-year prison sentence for a federal weapons violation.
11 posted on 04/25/2015 12:32:47 AM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | 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
Topics · Post Article

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