FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/25/2012 7:50:07 AM PDT by TonyInOhio
The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough immigration law but struck down others as intrusions on federal sovereignty, in a ruling that gave both sides something to cheer in advance of November elections where immigration is a major issue.
The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Does not bode well for the decision on Obamacare.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The Maj Decision is fairly easy to read, any where the AZ law touches a section of fed law the fed law shall have precedence this is fairly strict const.
Since Fed law stated that contact with ICE would be 24/7 and it was to be used by local LEO’s etc.. then the provision to contact and ascertain the legal status of persons arrested and held was upheld.
now when AZ has 10,000 or so contacts and EVERY TIME ICE does nothing... then it can be used as a political issue.
That 'bout sums it up.
I’m sorry to see Roberts side with the liberal majorit.
I love Scalia’s comment that if Arizon is not allowed to enforce its territory, we should stop calling it a sovereign state.
Well Antonin, these separate states have not been sovereign perhaps as far back as 1865. The certainly are not now. The US Central government has trod up state sovereignty for so long now, few even recognized the seperate states should be sovereign.
I know many conservatives who have no clue of the histories or purposes for the electoral college and the 10th amendment. They are good solid conservatives, just ignorant of these fundamental ideals.
Same thing they did here in 2000 Bush/Gore debacle. Same difference.
Isn't it actually the case that it is still illegal to be an illegal alien per federal law, but the ruling says a state cannot make and enforce the same law because of federal supremacy in this area?
It is still illegal to be an illegal alien, but the current (and several previous administrations) refuse to enforce those particular federal laws.
Until Obama and/or Romney are out...
I have the solution. Don’t call INS in these matters instead purchase suspect illegal immigrants a bus ticket to D.C. with the address of a congressmen or senator they can lodge with.
I'm not so sure. The ruling said that immigration policy is set only by the Federal government. First, I believe this is in agreement with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Second, had the ruling gone the other way, the individual states would have been able to create their own unique immigration laws. Would you *really* want that? Can you imagine the immigration policy of states like California or Massachusetts?
What makes you think that Romney will improve things? Everything he has said or refused to say on the issue indicates that he welcomes illegal immigration and is not at all averse to amnesty and a fairly rapid transition to permanent One Party Democrat Government that will be occasioned by all the new Democrat/Socialist voting citizens.
Little barry bastard commie moved to enact his own rule toward a profiled segment of Latino illegals, and the pirate Roberts now sies with this approach to unConstitutional establishment of law via this very oath busting ruling.
Little barry bastard commie moved to enact his own rule toward a profiled segment of Latino illegals, and the pirate Roberts now sides with this approach to unConstitutional establishment of law via this very oath busting ruling.
As a rabid border enforcement supporter, and an avowed enemy of the idea of illegal immigrants staying here, I am not as inclined to view these rulings to be as entirely negative as folks might expect me to be.
On the surface it seems the SCOTUS ruled that states are not allowed to set immigration policy. Even so, it seems the SCOTUS did uphold the idea that states can help enforce federal immigration laws.
Laws already exist to cover the employment of illegals. This and other duplications are probably unnecessary. What the court did uphold, is the plan to require officers to ask people they think to be illegal immigrants, for their papers.
If under further review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, this is upheld, what is to stop states from doing work-place raids, at establishments they think to be employing illegals?
If I were the governor or a member of the Legislature in Arizona, I would be proposing work place enforcement within hours. Determining a work-place to be hiring illegals, the federal government would be forced to take legal action against that establishment.
Very good!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/21/1101935/-Romney-Will-Deport-Children
Now, will he? I don’t know, but I do know that with Obama in, nothing changes. Guaranteed.
But who was the last president to actually enforce immigration law? Clinton didn't. Neither Bush did. I'm not sure about Reagan, or Carter or Johnson or Kennedy. We know Eisenhower did enforce the law.
And, I put huge blame on the two Bushes for the problem we now have. GHWB was the first full term after the 1986 amnesty and he did not enforce the law, and all presidents since have followed suit.
Your forgetting “national defense” (which “border patrol” arguably is) is also exclusively of FED purview.
Attack Dumb0 all you want for not enforcing immigration laws, but at least respect SCOTUS for trying to uphold federalism in the face Dumbo’s total illegality.
As another poster wrote me up thread, maybe Scalia’s dissent will push a coalition of states to petition the court for relief from that illegality. We can hope.
Ginxberg and Sotomeyor voted with the majority.
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.