The Supreme Court has upheld the major clause of the Arizona law which allowed law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status on those who they stop. This is a victory for those of us who believe that ILLEGAL immigration is wrong but that we need LEGAL immigration.
We are sure that the White House and other "feel good" organizations will condemn the Court for doing the wrong thing, however, thinking people will applaud the decision as one based on the rule of law rather than emotion. We need more Court rulings like this one.
Conservative Tom
We are sure that the White House and other "feel good" organizations will condemn the Court for doing the wrong thing, however, thinking people will applaud the decision as one based on the rule of law rather than emotion. We need more Court rulings like this one.
Conservative Tom
In case anybody doesn't know, the other 75% of the law was ruled unconstitutional. The part of the law you are talking about is already legal and there is a large federal organization that state police can call to check on immigration status. The only other point is that the Supreme Court said that the constitutionality depends on applying the procedure evenly without any racial profiling. I think this was the correct constitutional ruling on all four parts of the law under review. Predictably, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas went against it.
ReplyDelete--David
David, you need to re-read the ruling. the 75% that you say was held unconstitutional was already covered by Federal Law and that the State Law superseded it. I thought we had state's rights especially in the case when the Federal Government is NOT doing its job.
ReplyDeleteThe part that was upheld was that police (State and Local) had the right to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they stopped. This was the part of the law that Obama said was unconstitutional and that his Justice Department had filed suit against the State of Arizona. It was upheld by 100% of the Justices. Obama is wrong.
So now we have a law that allows police to determine the immigration status of the ILLEGAL immigrants, it was a win regardless of the minor losses.
The Montana case was overshadowed by the Arizona case, but I wanted to get your opinion on that one as a "states rights" issue. I find it interesting that Scalia, Thomas, Alito will uphold the states rights position for Arizona but not for Montana. They (with Roberts) overturned a Montana law that had been on the books literally for 100 years that was upheld by the Montana state Supreme Court post-Citizens United. In a small state like Montana, it is very easy for big-money to overwhelm the media markets. That is why they have had this law in force for a century.
ReplyDelete--David
Fact-checking…
ReplyDelete"The justices parted ways on three other provisions, with the majority rejecting measures that would have subjected illegal immigrants to criminal penalties for activities like seeking work."'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/supreme-court-rejects-part-of-arizona-immigration-law.html?_r=1
The Supreme Court reviewed 4 provisions of the Arizona law, and found 3 of them unconstitutional. As for the one you are talking about, the Court ruled that it will wait to see whether it is enforced in ways that violate constitutional rights. Of the parts that were rejected outright, the two I find most offensive is making it a crime for an immigrant to not carry the papers on their person at all times. This is like Soviet Union! You and I do not have to always carry an I.D. , and neither should immigrants. The other one -- the warrantless arrest of any Mexican they think MIGHT be illegal -- is a clear violation of 4th Amendment rights. That is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of a majority of the Supreme Court (minus Scalia, Alito, and Thomas, of course).
--David