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

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 3threadswithnothing; fooledyouagain; justjokingagain; negativenaybobsofneg; notbreakingnews; notreallybreaking; perdogg; ruling; sb1070; scotus; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-403 next last
To: apillar

“So in joining with the majority he got Arizona 1/4 of a loaf, which I suppose is better than nothing.”


I wouldn’t go that far. Had Roberts voted with the conservatives to allow the entire AZ law to stand, there would indeed have been a 4-4 split on striking down 3 of the law’s sections, so the 9th Circuit’s upholding of such sections would have stood. However, a Kennedy 4-vote plurality opinion (sans Roberts) would have gotten 8 votes for upholding the section of the law that permits cops to inquire as to the immigration status of persons they arrest, so the 9th Circuit would have been overturned on that aspect of its opinion. Thus, the result would have been exactly the same irrespective of how Roberts would have voted.

That being said, as I indicated in my post #323, there might be other tactical reasons for Roberts to have voted with Kennedy, and I think that it portends well for a favorable disposition of the Obamacare case.


351 posted on 06/25/2012 8:41:06 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

There is no “us”. Commentators worldwide widely predicted the Arizona law would be upheld. Conservatives were giddy about it. “Everyone thought” is a common expression, obviously it does not literally include “everyone”. And I hereby officially exempt you from it.

Are you seriously stating that prior to this decision the majority of folks on Free Republic thought the law would be struck down?

Nonsense. And speaking only for myself, I have less hope of the mandate being struck down. Unfortunately.

BTW, “everyone” thinks the mandate will be struck down.


352 posted on 06/25/2012 8:43:02 AM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; JCBreckenridge; PA-RIVER; PhilosopherStone1000
As I said, the essence of the ruling comes down to one sentence in the ruling:

“As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States.”

A lot of us think an illegal immigrant is...well, illegal!

As painful as I find this ruling, I think it is legally correct. The Congress has passed laws, and under those laws "illegal immigrants" don't exist. They are, in the words of the US Supreme Court, "removable alien[s]".

I strongly suggest all Freepers drop the term "illegal alien" and use, instead, the correct term: "removable alien". A lot of co-workers or family may be puzzled by this, but you can point out that the US Supreme Court, analyzing Federal Law, says the correct term is "removable alien" - and that the Federal Government alone has the right to decide if removal is appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

My guess is that a lot of folks will feel very uncomfortable with the idea of "removable aliens", since many of us think that it is supposed to be illegal.

I also like PA-RIVER's idea:

"So if Arizona gave every illegal immigrant a bus ticket to NYC and a promise of a Debit card for 100 dollars as they get on the bus to NYC, that would be legal. Let Chucky Schummer explain why he's an Anti Mexican bigot when he wants them to stop. Let the streets of Manhattan become a crowded Mexican slum."

My only adjustment would be to send them to Washington DC, and offer them $100/month for 6 months if they stay in DC and collect their check from an office Arizona would open in DC - the "Office of Removable Alien Support".

353 posted on 06/25/2012 8:43:34 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Here are the issues as described by the Standing with AZ website prior to the decision. They got most of it right, 3 out of 4.

How We Got Here

The Supreme Court decision will include the following provisons of S.B. 1070 which were blocked by Federal District Judge Susan Bolton in July 2010. Below we analyze the sections, and provide our prediction of how the Court is likely to act. Even if just those two provisions we expect are upheld, it will unleash an effort to extend similar provisions to states across America…

• Section 2(B) – Check Immigration Status Based Upon “Reasonable Suspicion”

This section requires state and local police officers to attempt to determine the immigration status of any person stopped under state or local law if “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. (Note: “reasonable suspicion” means having a valid reason to suspect unlawful activity, but not enough evidence to make an arrest.) This section also requires state and local authorities to determine the immigration status of any person placed under arrest, regardless of whether the person is suspected of being in the country unlawfully.

NOTES: This is the most critical provision. Despite numerous lower court arguments and endless news and blog disputes, “reasonable suspicion” has long been settled law. In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court clearly stated that it does not violate the 4th Amendment.Also, the U.S. Solictor General Donald Verilli himself had to concede that law enforcement officers in Arizona could ask about people’s legal immigration status even before this law passed. Once you concede that, the fight becomes simply whether the state can direct its officers how to exercise their discretion. And that is clearly permissible.

SWA expects the Court to uphold this Section.

• Section 3 – Illegal immigration a State Crime This provision makes it a crime under Arizona law for unauthorized immigrants to violate the provisions of federal law requiring them to apply for “registration” with the federal government and to carry a registration card if one has been issued to them. Violations of this provision are punishable by up to 20 days in jail for a first violation and 30 days in jail for subsequent violations. NOTES: The Administration’s argument against this provision is that Federal law proscribes only a civil violation for such offenses, whereas Arizona makes the act of being in the state illegally a criminal offense. Comments by justices including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito, show that there is less than a consensus to uphold this Section. However this provision takes on new importance in light of Obama’s recent amnesty decree for so-called “Dreamers”, which would outrageously extend to well over 2 million illegal aliens. If the Court leaves this Section intact, those individuals would still be subject to jail time in Arizona, despite Obama’s edict.

SWA believes the Court is more likely than not to overturn this Section.

• Section 5(C) – Day laborers solicitation This section makes it a crime under Arizona law for immigrants who are not authorized to work in the United States to apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work within the state’s borders. The term “solicit” means any form of communication, including a gesture or nod, indicating that a person is willing to be employed. Violations of this provision are punishable by up to six months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

NOTES: This is the least important provision of S.B. 1070 to Arizona. That said, it is also quite problematic, mostly because it is the subject of litigation elsewhere, including a Redondo Beach, California provision that was first upheld and then blocked by a Federal appeals court, and an appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court. In addition, Justice Susan Bolton recently blocked this provision in Arizona’s S.B. 1070 as well, due to a separate lawsuit – asserting that it violates the First Amendment protect of ”commercial speech” (which seems ludicrous to SWA, since illegal aliens could never legally register as commercial entities, such as sole proprietors or LLCs). The justices may be content to let this case work its way up to them and be decided separately. Or, they could uphold the provision, which would surprise us and many Court observers. One issues which could be a wildcard is the Court’s ruling in favor of Arizona’s E-Verify law and employer sanctions in 2010 – which might lean Kennedy towards support of Section 5(C).

SWA believes the the Court is likely to reject this provision.

• Section 6 – “Probable Cause” Arrests of Illegal Aliens 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.

NOTES: This is another critical “must have” section, which contributed greatly to the exodus of 100,000 illegal aliens from Arizona after the passage of S.B. 1070. It is a huge deterrent, since they would perpetually be under threat of arrest and removal. And based on the arguments before the court, many similar to the arguments over Section 2(B), the justices did not see any Federal preemption applicable in this Section. In addition, this section is perfectly compatible with the Immigration Reform Acts of 1996 establishing 287(g) Federal-State cooperation in enforcement of immigration laws.

SWA expects the Court to uphold this section.

The gist of the Obama Administration’s argument against the above provisions is that they preempted by federal law, meaning they are in conflict with federal law because federal law takes precedence as the law of the land. The basis of this argument is the Constitutional Article I, section 8, clause 4:

“The Congress shall have Power…To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization….”

The Administration has also argued that Arizona’s law impedes the United States’ ability to interface with foreign nations by interfering with foreign nationals, a bizarre claim butressed by Mexico’s filing of an amicus curiae against S.B. 1070.

Of course the Administration did not go anywhere near the Constitutional section that – if honored – would make the Arizona law completely unneccessary, Article IV, Section 4:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion….”

We hope that five justices see through the hypocrisy of the Administration’s position against Arizona, and uphold most of 1070, if not all of it.

AZ never expressed a desire or attempt to preempt federal law. Or to rewrite federal immigration law--just enforce it.

My biggest disappointment is the failure to uphold Section 6. It doesn't make sense since states work with the federal government all of the time enforcing federal immigration laws, e.g., the 287 g program, the Secure Communities program, etc.

I don't understand how you could extrapolate from upholding the AZ law that other states like CA could write their own immigration laws. That is pure nonsense.

354 posted on 06/25/2012 8:44:01 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
THIS needs to become a major Republican compaign issue.

Rubio brought it up in his interview with Hannity--unfortunately that interview was pre-empted by the breaking news on the Sandusky verdict.

I really like Rubio--he's thoughtful and articulate, not full of the usual "bombast" so many politicians sesem to enjoy throwing around. Don't know if I'd rather see him stay in the Senate, or join Romney on the ticket.

But whatever, this country needs his thoughtfulness and courage!

355 posted on 06/25/2012 8:48:21 AM PDT by milagro (There is no peace in appeasement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Removable alien includes both legal and illegal aliens. We have around 15 million green card holders. They remain in a probationary status in the sense that if they commit a felony, they can be deported and have their permanent legal resident status revoked.


356 posted on 06/25/2012 8:49:31 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Removable alien includes both legal and illegal aliens. We have around 15 million green card holders. They remain in a probationary status in the sense that if they commit a felony, they can be deported and have their permanent legal resident status revoked.


357 posted on 06/25/2012 8:50:55 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“I don’t understand how you could extrapolate from upholding the AZ law that other states like CA could write their own immigration laws. That is pure nonsense.”

Section 3. AZ is setting a criminal punishment for those found to be illegally in AZ. Under what grounds? AZ saying that is what they believe to be appropriate.

If the federal government were to uphold AZ setting it’s own laws, then other states would follow suit, and likely as not, laws which would provide them with visa waivers, cards, etc.

These immigrants would now be legal and AZ couldn’t enforce their own provisions to deport them.

Whereas, by upholding in part, AZ can enforce federal law by recording everyone who is found without documentation, and sending them to the feds.

The court gave AZ what you are saying they asked for, the ability to enforce federal law, not the ability to set their own law over and above federal law.


358 posted on 06/25/2012 8:55:04 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too createsan obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, it is not a crime for aremovable alien to remain in the United States. The federal scheme instructs when it is appropriate to arrest an alien during the removal process. The Attorney General in some circumstances will issue awarrant for trained federal immigration officers to execute. If no federal warrant has been issued, these officers have more limited authority. They may arrest an alien for being “in the United States inviolation of any [immigration] law or regulation,” for example, but only where the alien “is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.” §1357(a)(2).

Section 6 attempts to provide state officers with even greater arrest authority, which they could exercise with no instruction from the Federal Government. This is not the system Congress created. Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform an immigration officer’s functions. This includes instances where the Attorney General has granted that authority in a formal agreement with a state or local government. See, e.g., §1357(g)(1). Although federal law permits state officers to “cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the UnitedStates,” §1357(g)(10)(B), this does not encompass the unilateral decision to detain authorized by §6. Pp. 15–19

359 posted on 06/25/2012 8:55:48 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; AuH2ORepublican

I’d be worried if I was you Au H2O. But I love your legal analysis too!


360 posted on 06/25/2012 8:57:01 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
"My only adjustment would be to send them to Washington DC, and offer them $100/month for 6 months if they stay in DC and collect their check from an office Arizona would open in DC - the "Office of Removable Alien Support"."

I like it! I wonder if Arizona could solicit contributions like those to build a border fence or pay Sheriff Joe's legal fees?

361 posted on 06/25/2012 8:58:05 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: milagro
THIS needs to become a major Republican compaign issue.

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.

362 posted on 06/25/2012 8:58:29 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“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.


363 posted on 06/25/2012 8:59:24 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Section 3. AZ is setting a criminal punishment for those found to be illegally in AZ. Under what grounds? AZ saying that is what they believe to be appropriate.

If the federal government were to uphold AZ setting it’s 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 couldn’t 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.

364 posted on 06/25/2012 9:06:16 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

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”?


365 posted on 06/25/2012 9:09:06 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
From Scalia on §3

“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 Government’s 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 Nation’s 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 Court’s opinion relies upon Hines v. Davidowitz, supra. Ante, at 9–10. 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 66–67. 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 75–76 (Stone, J., dissenting).

One such statute is Arizona’s law forbidding illegal aliens to collect unemployment benefits, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23–781(B) (West 2012). To enforce that and other laws that validly turn on alien status, Arizona has, in Justice Stone’s 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 concern—e.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. Arizona’s 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 31–33, 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 fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that “federal policies” of nonenforcement will leave the States helpless before those evileffects of illegal immigration that the Court’s opinion dutifully recites in its prologue (ante, at 6) but leavesunremedied in its disposition. §5(C)

366 posted on 06/25/2012 9:14:29 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“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.


367 posted on 06/25/2012 9:14:48 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
Kennedy said he will not retire until Obama is gone which leads me to believe he does not side with O......we'll see

On another note, if we win both chambers in Nov and the presidency why can't they just repeal it?

368 posted on 06/25/2012 9:17:04 AM PDT by estrogen (sick of the racist rants from the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“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.


369 posted on 06/25/2012 9:20:36 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

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.


370 posted on 06/25/2012 9:29:02 AM PDT by George189
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: estrogen
On another note, if we win both chambers in Nov and the presidency why can't they just repeal it?

1. The Senate Dems can filibuster anything if the Republicans have less than 60 senators.



2. Susan Collins, Mark Kirk, Scott Brown, Lindsay Graham, Lamar Alexander and some others always make a hard won majority negotiable.

3. Even the not so completely awful RINOs might be tempted to compromise on the "more popular" sections of the law, and create Son of Obamacare, with special Romney Additives.

4. The law as written is completely UNconstitutional irrespective of whether we like the contents or end results, and so should be rueld so as a matter of justice. If the Federal Government can make you buy health insurance tehy can compel you to do anything except stop an abortion.
371 posted on 06/25/2012 9:30:59 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("You forget, it isn't who you claim, but instead, who claims you. We don't claim you!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
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.

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. §13–3883(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 alien’s 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.

372 posted on 06/25/2012 9:33:40 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: George189
But it allows the continued use of the most important provision of the law.... and instructs AZ legislature how to recreate other segments constitutionally.
373 posted on 06/25/2012 9:38:21 AM PDT by MindBender26 (America can survive 4 years of Romney. She cannot survive another 4 years of an unfettered Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“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?


374 posted on 06/25/2012 9:39:02 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
The states don't have the authority to deport anyone nor was AZ ever asserting such a right. The Feds have always had that authority and no one is challenging them on it. The states can and have reported the apprehension of illegal aliens to the Feds. Depending on the offense, the feds pick up the illegals for deportation. The feds have claimed that they have limited detention facilities and resources to pick up the illegals.

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.

375 posted on 06/25/2012 10:21:00 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Fox judge Napolitano says the heart and soul of the Arizona law was struck down.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer hails the SB 1070 decision as "a victory for the rule of law" ... Brewer says "the heart" of the law has been upheld.

376 posted on 06/25/2012 10:23:29 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross; Lazamataz

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. : )


377 posted on 06/25/2012 10:39:03 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: kabar

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.


378 posted on 06/25/2012 11:38:01 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Basically the Feds are saying that the local police are wasting their time by reporting illegals:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2899280/posts


379 posted on 06/25/2012 11:40:10 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Overall, I’d call this ruling a disaster for state policing of illegal immigration. It means we have to trust Dingy Harry & Barry Obama to control the flood of Mexicans crossing our border and living here.

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:

  1. Send help; highly unlikely because it opposes the open borders they love so much.
  2. Drag their feet/refuse; in which case the rest of the nation will see exactly how much the feds will do. -- Politically disastrous; most likely.
  3. Move against the state. -- Probably more likely than we would like.

The most interesting is, of course, the third option. There are three ways in which the opposition to the state could come:

  1. Executive; they send the army, air force, marines to fire on US Citizens.
  2. Judicial; the courts literally ruling that a State cannot defend itself.
  3. Legislative; the Congress making laws targeting that state, or perhaps cutting all funding thereunto.

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.

380 posted on 06/25/2012 11:48:08 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
Imagine a President declaring that the feds would not enforce drug laws,

Bad choice. The drug laws are contrary the Constitution; hell even by the lawyer's sacred cow of precedent the 18th Amendment was needed for federal regulation of Alcohol. No such amendment was ever passed with respect to drugs.

and that the states could not arrest anybody caught transporting drugs across a state border because regulation of interstate commerce is a federal function.

Heehee -- That would be amusing.

381 posted on 06/25/2012 12:08:01 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: estrogen

Heard on the radio today, before the decision came out, Kennedy has voted 75% of the time with the conservative arm of the court.....Doesn’t swing VERY often.


382 posted on 06/25/2012 12:11:30 PM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: NeverEVERKerry
Justice Scalia is not only dissenting from the bench, but he has produced a written copy of the bench statement for the press. It is 7 pages long.

If anyone finds a link to this, I'd be interested in reading it.

383 posted on 06/25/2012 12:19:18 PM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Not so. I suggest you read both the decision and SB 1070. FYI: Being in the country illegally is a deportable offense.

The Federal government has sole authority over deportation. The section was not struck down for the reason you cited,

Section 6 authorizes officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.” §13–3883(A)(5). The United States argues that arrestsauthorized 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 stop someone 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 official issues 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 alien’s 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 of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens (June 17, 2011) (hereinafter 2011 ICEMemorandum) (describing factors informing this and related decisions). And if an alien is ordered removed after a hearing, the Attorney General will issue a warrant. See 8 CFR §241.2(a)(1). In both instances, the warrants are executed by federal officers who have received training in the enforcement of immigration law. See §§241.2(b), 287.5(e)(3). If no federal warrant has been issued, those officers have more limited authority. See 8 U. S. C. §1357(a). They may arrest an alien for being “in the United States in violation of any [immigration] law or regula- tion,” for example, but only where the alien “is likely toescape before a warrant can be obtained.” §1357(a)(2).

Section 6 attempts to provide state officers even greater ability than Congress has given to trained federal immigration officers. Under state law, officers who believe an alien is removable by reason of some “public offense” would have the power to conduct an arrest on that basis regardless of whether a federal warrant has issued or the alien is likely to escape. This state authority could be exercised without any input from the Federal Government about whether an arrest is warranted in a particular case. This would allow the State to achieve its own immigration policy. The result could be unnecessary harassmentof some aliens (for instance, a veteran, college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation) whom federal officials determine should not be removed.

This is not the system Congress created. Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform the functions of an immigration officer. A principal example is when the Attorney General has granted that authority to specific officers in a formal agreement with a state or local government. See §1357(g)(1); see also§1103(a)(10) (authority may be extended in the event of an“imminent mass influx of aliens off the coast of the United States”); §1252c (authority to arrest in specific circumstance after consultation with the Federal Government);§1324(c) (authority to arrest for bringing in and harboring certain aliens). Officers covered by these agreements aresubject to the Attorney General’s direction and supervision. §1357(g)(3). There are significant complexitiesinvolved in enforcing federal immigration law, including the determination whether a person is removable. See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2010) (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 4–7). As a result, the agreements reached with the Attorney General must contain written certification that officers have received adequate training to carry out the duties of an immigration officer. See §1357(g)(2); cf. 8 CFR §§287.5(c) (arrest power contingent on training), 287.1(g)

FYI: Today, the Obama administration pulled 287 g authority away from AZ. They did it because they did not like the SCOTUS ruling. In essence, they have taken away AZ's ability to enforce immigration laws even with trained personnel. This is a travesty and is dispicable.

384 posted on 06/25/2012 1:34:48 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“would allow the State to achieve its own immigration policy.”

Is this not exactly what I said was the problem with section 6? Yes, I read the court decision. No state has ever had control over immigration. Immigration is an enumerated power of the federal government, per the constitution, not the states. The 10th only applies to enumerated powers, and immigration is an enumerated power.

“Today, the Obama administration pulled 287 g authority away from AZ. They did it because they did not like the SCOTUS ruling. In essence, they have taken away AZ’s ability to enforce immigration laws even with trained personnel. This is a travesty and is dispicable.”

SCOTUS has already upheld the ability of the state of AZ to not only document, but enforce federal immigration law within the boundary of the state.

The Obama administration can do whatever they want, but they cannot abrogate the decision of the supreme court of the united states.

AZ should defy the administration and ramp up efforts to document all the illegal immigrants that they do encounter under reasonable suspicion. None of what the Obama administration does to hamper AZ in this has any legal force whatsoever.


385 posted on 06/25/2012 1:43:21 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Williams

No, I simply said that I was convinced that it was unconstitutional and would be declared unconstitional when it was first announced. I said nothing about polling FR. What FR believed as a whole I cannot say, but I can say that I believed it was unconstitutional.


386 posted on 06/25/2012 1:45:57 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
That's Kennedy's interpretation. Scalia writes a much better dissent desribing the issue at stake.

When AZ arrests someone under that circumstance, they turn the person over to the Feds for final disposition and determination just like they do with people caught under the 287 (g) program.

SCOTUS has already upheld the ability of the state of AZ to not only document, but enforce federal immigration law within the boundary of the state.

Not so. Where are you getting this nonsense from? SCOTUS did uphold AZ's E-Verify law, but that doesn't mean carte blanche authority to enforce all federal immigration laws. The 289 (g) program requires state and local police to be trained by ICE to enforce to a limited degree immigration law. Now, ICE has taken away AZ's 287 (g) authority. Under the Secure Communities program, which is not supposed to be voluntary, the police are supposed to forward the fingerprints of suspected and artested illegal aliens to DHS.

We also have the SAVE progam that enables state and local authorities to access ICE data bases to determine eligibility for welfare benefits. Law enforcement has that same ability under 287 (g).

The Obama administration can do whatever they want, but they cannot abrogate the decision of the supreme court of the united states.

They are effectively doing that by declaring war on AZ and depriving law enforcement of the needed tools to deal with an out of control illegal immigration problem that is bankrupting the state. Here is what Scalia had to say about Obama's "Dream Act:

The brief for the Government in this case asserted that “the Executive Branch’s ability to exercise discretion and set priorities is particularly important because of the needto allocate scarce enforcement resources wisely.” Brief for United States 21. Of course there is no reason why the Federal Executive’s need to allocate its scarce enforcement resources should disable Arizona from devoting its resources to illegal immigration in Arizona that in its view the Federal Executive has given short shrift. DespiteCongress’s prescription that “the immigration laws of theUnited States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly,” IRCA §115, 100 Stat. 3384, Arizona asserts without contradiction and with supporting citations: “[I]n the last decade federal enforcement efforts havefocused primarily on areas in California and Texas, leaving Arizona’s border to suffer from comparativeneglect. The result has been the funneling of an increasing tide of illegal border crossings into Arizona. Indeed, over the past decade, over a third of the Nation’s illegal border crossings occurred in Arizona.” Brief for Petitioners 2–3 (footnote omitted).

Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to thereality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding?

But leave that aside. It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate “scarce enforcement resources”—is not the problem here. After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of HomelandSecurity announced a program exempting from immi- gration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30.4 If an individual unlawfully presentin the United States

“• came to the United States under the age of sixteen;

“• has continuously resided in the United States for at least five years . . . ,

“• is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran . . . ,

“• has not been convicted of a [serious crime]; and

“• is not above the age of thirty,”5 then U. S. immigration officials have been directed to “defe[r] action” against such individual “for a period of two years, subject to renewal.”6 The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the nonenforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thingto do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7 Perhapsit is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror—“[i]f §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every Statecould give itself independent authority to prosecute fed- eral registration violations,” ante, at 10—seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration lawsas written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at themercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?

A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding?

Today’sjudgment surely fails that test. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates contended with “the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.” 1Records of the Federal Convention 19 (M. Farrand ed.1911) (statement of Edmund Randolph). Through ratification of the fundamental charter that the Convention produced, the States ceded much of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. But much of it remained jealously guarded—as reflected in the innumerable proposals thatnever left Independence Hall. Now, imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.

As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment.

Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not incontradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.

Scalia gets it; you don't.

387 posted on 06/25/2012 2:28:09 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Parts of the law are unconstitutional, not the entire law.


388 posted on 06/25/2012 2:29:30 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“Not so. Where are you getting this nonsense from?”

From the actual court decision? You are mistaken if you believe that the AZ law as passed is equivalent to the federal immigration law. It’s not, and that’s the bone of contention that you seem unwilling to address.

The AZ law is not a ‘carbon copy’ of the federal immigration law. The parts that were not found in the federal law were dismissed. The part that was, was upheld.

“The 289 (g) program requires state and local police to be trained by ICE to enforce to a limited degree immigration law. Now, ICE has taken away AZ’s 287 (g) authority.”

And what does that have to do with SCOTUS? Nothing. That has to do with Napolitano and the Obama administration.

“Under the Secure Communities program, which is not supposed to be voluntary, the police are supposed to forward the fingerprints of suspected and artested illegal aliens to DHS.”

Which is contrary to this SCOTUS ruling. Obama’s said he’s going to ‘selectively enforce the law’ which violates the equal protection clause. Arizona has standing now to sue the Feds for selective enforcement. Obama can’t simply ignore the cases it doesn’t want to deal with - it has to deal with any and all reports of illegal immigrants that are caught.

“They are effectively doing that by declaring war on AZ and depriving law enforcement of the needed tools to deal with an out of control illegal immigration problem that is bankrupting the state.”

Then that still doesn’t abrogate the right of the state to enforce federal immigration laws in AZ, as this decision handed down. AZ has a few legal remedies they ought to file them now and establish evidence of Obama’s stonewalling and refusal to enforce federal immigration laws.

“if §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every Statecould give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations,”

Scalia himself admits what I have continued to say concerning section 3.

“seems to me not so horrible and even less looming.”

Entirely his opinion and not based on fact.

“Scalia gets it; you don’t.”

Oh, I get Scalia’s dissent. He believes that it’s unimportant that the AZ law was not a carbon copy of the federal immigration laws. I see zero constructionist opinions.

Where is the opinion of Scalia that the states ought to have control of their own immigration based on the actual constitution? It’s a very weak dissent, and not up to his usual standards.


389 posted on 06/25/2012 2:53:53 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; All
Looks like all we can do in AZ is check their papers, and then tell the feds so & so is living here without documentation.

So, do they have Constitutional rights, or are they subject to Mexican law?

Why not generate an "Illegal Alien Registry" an online listing of these criminals, so citizens can find out if any of the alien riff-raff is living in the vicinity.

390 posted on 06/25/2012 3:07:57 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Oh, I get Scalia’s dissent. He believes that it’s unimportant that the AZ law was not a carbon copy of the federal immigration laws.

A Border Control Agent called into Rush today, very angry with the SCOTUS decision, since he believes that AZ law is in fact a carbon copy of the federal immigration laws. He referenced Title 8 of the United States Code section 1304 small e, everybody go look it up, says that if you're here illegally and you're not a citizen, you have to carry proof of that with you. The law's already on the books.

My honest question, since I don't know, is what do you see as the parts of the AZ law that are not a "carbon copy" of the federal law since it seems the Border Control Agent thinks the pertinent part is directly from federal law.

391 posted on 06/25/2012 3:09:12 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Yes I believe you are very new here yet you lectured me about those of “us” who predicted the decision? Whatever.


392 posted on 06/25/2012 3:36:45 PM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Speak for yourself, not for others.


393 posted on 06/25/2012 3:40:01 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

“My honest question, since I don’t know, is what do you see as the parts of the AZ law that are not a “carbon copy” of the federal law since it seems the Border Control Agent thinks the pertinent part is directly from federal law.”

Section three:

Criminal charges as opposed to civil charges, no access to appeals, and the big one - having the state try the charges and not the federal government.

Section four: the entirety.

Section five: the entirety.

Section six: Arizona trying charges against legal aliens for crimes committed in other states. Arizona’s determinations as to what offenses conducted by legal aliens constitute deportable offenses.

There’s quite a bit in the AZ law that goes well beyond that of the federal law. Calling it a carbon copy is quite a misnomer. It’s not, and nor was it intended to be a copy. It was intended to give Arizona the tools that they believed they needed to control their border.


394 posted on 06/25/2012 3:45:15 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

From the actual court decision? You are mistaken if you believe that the AZ law as passed is equivalent to the federal immigration law. It’s not, and that’s the bone of contention that you seem unwilling to address.

The AZ law is not a ‘carbon copy’ of the federal immigration law. The parts that were not found in the federal law were dismissed. The part that was, was upheld.

You couldn't be more wrong. I know Kris Kobach who drafted the law and have discussed it with him. The issue involved here in preemption and the impact of the Supremacy clause in the Constitution. Nothing in the AZ law is against federal law. The states are either entitites with rights as specified in the 9th and 10th Amendments or they are just administrative units of the federal government.

The Federal goverment is limited to enumerated powers. The states have rights as well, including enforcing federal immigration law. The AZ law does not violate or conflict with any federal laws. In virtually every aspect, AZ mirrors federal law.

And what does that have to do with SCOTUS? Nothing. That has to do with Napolitano and the Obama administration.

It has a lot to do with SCOTUS and the rationale used to justify the majority decision if you have read it. States have a role in enforcing federal immigration law. Immigration is not the sole province of the federal government. The states bear most of the costs of illegal immigration whether it is education, law enforcement, or welfare. The federal government is not doing its job. The 287(g) program was supposed to leverage state, local, and federal law enforcment resources. There are only 7,000 ICE agents. We have 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. There are an estimated 2 million criminal aliens.

Which is contrary to this SCOTUS ruling. Obama’s said he’s going to ‘selectively enforce the law’ which violates the equal protection clause. Arizona has standing now to sue the Feds for selective enforcement. Obama can’t simply ignore the cases it doesn’t want to deal with - it has to deal with any and all reports of illegal immigrants that are caught.

Obama has been violating federal law with impunity. He started a back door amnesty involving 300,000 immigration cases. This was before the Dream Act. In 2010 and 2011 the Border Patrol union issued unanimously a no-confidence edict against Morton and his deputy. Why?

"This action reflects the growing dissatisfaction and concern among ICE employees and Union leaders that Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven have abandoned the Agency's core mission of enforcing United States Immigration Laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty and the creation of a special detention system for foreign nationals that exceeds the care and services provided to most United States citizens similarly incarcerated.

It is the desire of our union within ICE and our employees to publicly separate ourselves from the actions of Director Morton and Assistant Director Coven and publicly state that ICE officers and employees do not SUppOI1 Morton or Coven, or their misguided and reckless initiatives, which could ultimately put many in America at risk.

So who is going to hold Obama accountable? Certainly not Congress.

Scalia wrote a first class dissent. I suggest you read it in its entirety. What was weak was the majority opinion. It is frightening. Our Constitution is being shredded and we have idiots defending it. If the same thing happens with Obamacare, you can kiss the Constitution good-bye. There is nothing the federal government can't do. There is no Rule of Law.

395 posted on 06/25/2012 3:50:58 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“You couldn’t be more wrong. I know Kris Kobach who drafted the law and have discussed it with him. The issue involved here in preemption and the impact of the Supremacy clause in the Constitution. Nothing in the AZ law is against federal law. The states are either entitites with rights as specified in the 9th and 10th Amendments or they are just administrative units of the federal government.”

Couple things here.

If Kris Kobach was so careful, why’s he getting hit up on ticky tack stuff like criminal charges vs civil? Was he not aware of the present federal immigration laws when he drafted the legislation? Or did he just not care?

Two, 10th applies to powers not enumerated of the federal government. Immigration has always been the federal purview and the constitution provides them with the power to regulate immigration into America.

The states have never had the authority to control immigration into their state. Not before the Civil war, nor after. It has always been a federal concern.

“The AZ law does not violate or conflict with any federal laws.”

Yes it does. Which is why most of this particular law was struck down. All the parts in conflict with federal law are gone now.

“It has a lot to do with SCOTUS and the rationale used to justify the majority decision if you have read it.”

SCOTUS isn’t responsible for Napolitano. You’re conflating two different things here.

“States have a role in enforcing federal immigration law.”

And their role is to enforce the federal immigration law as it stands, not to make it more stringent and enforce their own law.

“The states bear most of the costs of illegal immigration whether it is education, law enforcement, or welfare.”

Yes, and I don’t see a constitutional requirement for either state control of education or welfare. If a state is finding welfare and education burdonsome, then they ought to revert to constitutional rather than unconstitutional governance.

“The federal government is not doing its job.”

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Now, the onus is on the federal government, since this ruling has established that it is their reponsibility, not the states. If Obama fails to enforce federal law, then that is a proper rationale for impeachment.

“The 287(g) program was supposed to leverage state, local, and federal law enforcment resources. There are only 7,000 ICE agents. We have 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. There are an estimated 2 million criminal aliens.”

I understand. Obama figures he can win this by cutting AZ off of the resources for which they are entitled to enforce the laws. I guess my question is what is AZ going to do about it? Are they going to sit and twiddle their thumbs until Obama leaves? Or are they going to continue to fight?

“Obama has been violating federal law with impunity. He started a back door amnesty involving 300,000 immigration cases. This was before the Dream Act. In 2010 and 2011 the Border Patrol union issued unanimously a no-confidence edict against Morton and his deputy. Why?”

Because he doesn’t believe in the constitution and believes that he can destroy the American republic. He’s succeeding pretty well so far. He’s managed to earn a successful re-election, and in all likelihood, some modified form of Obamacare.

The thing everyone should have been concerned about was back last February where we were choosing the man who was supposed to fight Obama. Romney is the pick, and we all know he’s soft on immigration enforcement, supported Obamacare, etc.

I don’t really see the point in either candidate to protect the freedoms of Americans.

“So who is going to hold Obama accountable? Certainly not Congress.”

That’s the job of congress, is it not? Checks and balances.

“Scalia wrote a first class dissent.”

I’ve seen him write some really first class ones. This was not one of them. Lawrence vs Texas was prescient, you read that today and you get a sense that there were 11 men on the bench and Scalia who saw what was really going on.


396 posted on 06/25/2012 4:16:28 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

edit 8 of 9.


397 posted on 06/25/2012 4:19:15 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Get off it pal, I used a common expression that didn’t include you. On the other hand you told me not to speak for “Us”. Who the hell is “us”?


398 posted on 06/25/2012 5:03:53 PM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Williams

You said, “we believed in X”, well sir, speak for yourself because I have never believed X to be true.


399 posted on 06/25/2012 10:12:02 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Obviously you are a jackass or a wise ass whichever it is trouble me no more.


400 posted on 06/25/2012 10:35:36 PM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-403 next last

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