Skip to comments.Supreme Court declines to revive Arizona immigration law
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 reuters.com ...
Expect no help from the Roberts court.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Those AZ laws must not be merely a tax, like zer0care
... the provision was trumped by federal immigration law.
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.
Jeffersons 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).
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.