Skip to comments.SCOTUS decision thread for Monday, June 25th, 2012 (10am EDT)
Posted on 06/25/2012 3:10:01 AM PDT by Perdogg
1. Az Immigration Case
2. Stolen Valor Act
3. ObamaCare Mandate
4. ObamaCare Severability
I like it! I wonder if Arizona could solicit contributions like those to build a border fence or pay Sheriff Joe's legal fees?
They'll give some lip service to "finding a comprehensive solution," but attacking the problem directly simply won't happen. The hispanics are in too great a number and their political impact is too powerful now.
“Under the provision, Arizona law enforcement officers may arrest lawfully present immigrants for crimes committed outside the state”
Huge problems with section 6.
I thought you said this was about controlling illegal immigrants, not legal ones. AZ can arrest legal immigrants for breaking their own laws. TX can arrest legal immigrants for breaking TX laws.
I disagree with you that 6 was a core component. It doesn’t even touch illegal immigrants whatsoever. It does however, grant AZ unconstitutional powers over naturalization.
If the federal government were to uphold AZ setting its own laws, then other states would follow suit, and likely as not, laws which would provide them with visa waivers, cards, etc.
Section 3 was meant to enforce existing federal immigration law. It is a giant leap that other states could issue visa waviers, cards, etc, which are in direct conflict with existing federal immigration law. States are expressly prohibited from doing such things by the Constitution.
AZ would turn over those apprehended to federal immigration authorities for their disposal. AZ is not setting its own laws, but mirroring federal law just like states do with kidnapping, bank robberies, etc.
These immigrants would now be legal and AZ couldnt enforce their own provisions to deport them.
AZ 1070 doesn't authorize the deportation of anyone. Just like every other state, they are handed over to ICE, which then makes that determination thru federal immigration courts. You are misrepresenting what is in AZ 1070.
Just ship them there. It’s been done before to highlight the problem. The core problem is lack of federal enforcement. Anything AZ does to put the spotlight on Reid and Obama is going to put the attention where it belongs.
What do you think Obama is going to do when he sees newspaper headlines, “Arizona ships illegal immigrants to DC”?
In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alienregistration document if the person is in violation of 8
It is beyond question that a State may make violation of federal law a violation of state law as well. We have held that to be so even when the interest protected is a distinctively federal interest, such as protection of the dignity of the national flag, see Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U. S. 34 (1907), or protection of the Federal Governments ability to recruit soldiers, Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U. S. 325 (1920). [T]he State is not inhibited from making the nationalpurposes its own purposes to the extent of exerting its police power to prevent its own citizens from obstructingthe accomplishment of such purposes. Id., at 331 (internal quotation marks omitted). Much more is that so when, as here, the State is protecting its own interest, the integrity of its borders. And we have said that explicitly with regard to illegal immigration: Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nations borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without any power to deter the influxof persons entering the United States against federal law,and whose numbers might have a discernible impact ontraditional state concerns. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 228, n. 23 (1982).
The Courts opinion relies upon Hines v. Davidowitz, supra. Ante, at 910. But that case did not, as the Court believes, establish a field preemption that implicitlyeliminates the States sovereign power to exclude thosewhom federal law excludes. It held that the States are not permitted to establish additional or auxiliary registration requirements for aliens. 312 U. S., at 6667. But §3does not establish additional or auxiliary registrationrequirements. It merely makes a violation of state law the very same failure to register and failure to carry evidenceof registration that are violations of federal law. Hines does not prevent the State from relying on the federal registration system as an available aid in the enforcement of a number of statutes of the state applicable to aliens whose constitutional validity has not been questioned. Id., at 7576 (Stone, J., dissenting).
One such statute is Arizonas law forbidding illegal aliens to collect unemployment benefits, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23781(B) (West 2012). To enforce that and other laws that validly turn on alien status, Arizona has, in Justice Stones words, an interest in knowing the number and whereabouts of aliens within the state and in having a means of their identification, 312 U. S., at 75. And it can punish the aliens failure to comply with the provisions of federal law that make that knowledge and identification possible.
In some areas of uniquely federal concerne.g., fraud in a federal administrative process (Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Comm., 531 U. S. 341 (2001)) or perjury in violation of a federally required oath (In re Loney, 134 U. S. 372 (1890))this Court has held that a State has no legitimate interest in enforcing a federal scheme. But the federal alien registration system is certainly not of uniquelyfederal interest. States, private entities, and individuals rely on the federal registration system (including the E-Verify program) on a regular basis. Arizonas legitimate interest in protecting (among other things) its unemploymentbenefits system is an entirely adequate basis for making the violation of federal registration and carry requirements a violation of state law as well.
The Court points out, however, ante, at 11, that in some respects the state law exceeds the punishments prescribedby federal law: It rules out probation and pardon, whichare available under federal law. The answer is that it makes no difference. Illegal immigrants who violate §3 violate Arizona law. It is one thing to say that the Supremacy Clause prevents Arizona law from excludingthose whom federal law admits. It is quite something elseto say that a violation of Arizona law cannot be punished more severely than a violation of federal law. Especiallywhere (as here) the State is defending its own sovereign interests, there is no precedent for such a limitation. The sale of illegal drugs, for example, ordinarily violates statelaw as well as federal law, and no one thinks that the state penalties cannot exceed the federal. As I have discussed, moreover, field preemption cannot establish aprohibition of additional state penalties in the area of immigration.
Finally, the Government also suggests that §3 poses an obstacle to the administration of federal immigration law,see Brief for United States 3133, but there is no conflict in terms, and no possibility of such conflict, [if] the state statute makes federal law its own, California v. Zook, 336 U. S. 725, 735 (1949).
It holds no fear for me, as it does for the Court, that [w]ere §3 to come into force, the State would have thepower to bring criminal charges against individuals for violating a federal law even in circumstances where fed- eral officials in charge of the comprehensive scheme determine that prosecution would frustrate federal policies. Ante, at 11. That seems to me entirely appropriate when the State uses the federal law (as it must) as the criterion for the exercise of its own power, and the implementation of its own policies of excluding those who do not belong there. What I do fearand what Arizona and the States that support it fearis that federal policies of nonenforcement will leave the States helpless before those evileffects of illegal immigration that the Courts opinion dutifully recites in its prologue (ante, at 6) but leavesunremedied in its disposition. §5(C)
“Section 3 was meant to enforce existing federal immigration law.”
That’s what section 2 does.
Section 3 is AZ stating, we believe that all illegal immigrants caught in AZ should receive a punishment of X from AZ. Why? Because they want to enforce their own law, not that of the federal government. Which is why SCOTUS went so far to say, “The federal government says the law is Y. This law changes AZ law to X”. There cannot be a uniform immigration law if this section of the bill were upheld.
“which are in direct conflict with existing federal immigration law.”
Why not? Arizona is trying to pass a law that is in direct conflict with existing federal immigration law. That’s section 3.
“AZ is not setting its own laws”
They do in section 3.
On another note, if we win both chambers in Nov and the presidency why can't they just repeal it?
“that in some respects the state law exceeds the punishments prescribedby federal law: It rules out probation and pardon, whichare available under federal law. The answer is that it makes no difference.”
This is judicial activism. Stating that the constitution does not matter, and the fact that AZ law does not coincide with what the federal law states on immigration does matter.
If the states are permitted to set their own laws over and above what the federal government does, what is stopping them from passing laws on the opposite end? If it’s the states that decide, then the consequence is exactly as I’ve stated.
I respectfully disagree with Scalia and his dissent here.
Wrong. Everything was preempted except for the check of the legal status, and the court said that the ruling did NOT preclude further challenge to that provision in the future. They only held that the court shouldn’t have enjoined that provision yet.
Unconstitutional powers over naturalization? Where did you come up with this nonsense? Here is what Section 6 of AZ SB 1070 says:
This section authorizes state and local police officers to arrest immigrants without a warrant where probable cause exists that they committed a public offense making them removable from the United States. (Note: probable cause means having enough evidence of unlawful activity to obtain a warrant or make an arrest.) Under the provision, Arizona law enforcement officers may arrest lawfully present immigrants for crimes committed outside the state, or for crimes for which they were previously incarcerated, if the commission of such a crime is grounds for deportation.
From Kennedy's opinion "Section 6 of S. B. 1070 provides that a state officer,without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe . . . [the person] has committed any public offense that makes [him] removable from theUnited States. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §133883(A)(5) (West Supp. 2011). The United States argues that arrests authorized by this statute would be an obstacle to the removal system Congress created.
As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. See INS v. Lopez16 ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES Opinion of the Court Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1038 (1984). If the police stopsomeone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent. When an alien is suspected of being removable, a federal officialissues an administrative document called a Notice to Appear. See 8 U. S. C. §1229(a); 8 CFR §239.1(a) (2012).The form does not authorize an arrest. Instead, it givesthe alien information about the proceedings, including the time and date of the removal hearing. See 8 U. S. C. §1229(a)(1). If an alien fails to appear, an in absentia order may direct removal. §1229a(5)(A).
The federal statutory structure instructs when it is appropriate to arrest an alien during the removal process. For example, the Attorney General can exercise discretion to issue a warrant for an aliens arrest and detention pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removedfrom the United States. 8 U. S. C. §1226(a); see Memorandum from John Morton, Director, ICE, to All Field Office Directors et al., Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities
Can you show me anywhere what this has to do with naturalization? FYI: I have issued immigrant visas and my wife is a naturalized citizen.
“that they committed a public offense making them removable from the United States.”
This right here. Who decides if a public offense committed warrants deportation? AZ or the Feds?
Under federal law, anyone here illegally is subject to deportation. Obama has unilaterally decided that he can arbitrarially determine who can and cannot be deported. He is also issuing work permits to illegal aliens, another violation of our laws.
I had decided not to point out to Laz that I’m a male, since he might say that he’d “hit that” anyways, but now I can’t just lay low anymore. Thanks a bunch, SotC. : )
Unfortunatly section 6 gives AZ the power to determine what are deportable offenses, and infringes on the power of the federal government. Which is why it’s been struck down.
Basically the Feds are saying that the local police are wasting their time by reporting illegals:
Not quite; the problem is that the other options would make people go weak in the knees.
All a State [like AZ] has to do is declare a state of invasion, deploying its national guard and calling up its militias with shoot-to-kill authorization.
Furthermore, when the state does this it should further demand that the Federal government send aid; it is required to do so via Art 4, Sec 4 of the Constitution.
This puts them [the feds] in a bind, as they have three options:
The most interesting is, of course, the third option. There are three ways in which the opposition to the state could come:
What's most interesting about all of those options is that they fall fairly nicely into the "giving aid and comfort" clause of the definition of Treason. Therefore, an entire branch's head could in one fell swoop, make it supremely easy to remove it's corruption.
Sadly though, people will reject the very idea of "going to war" straight out of hand.