Monday's Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's immigration law was at first reported as something of a mixed bag—the court struck down part of the law, but upheld another part. And Arizona's Republican governor Jan Brewer even tried to claim an outright victory, telling reporters that the court upheld "the heart" of the law.
We've already explained that's way off the mark. The court struck down most of the law, and said it couldn't yet rule on one provision requiring police to ask about people's immigration status because it hasn't gone into effect yet.
And on The Last Word Monday, Julian Epstein, a former chief counsel to the House Judiciary committee, went further, telling Lawrence O'Donnell that in fact, the court's ruling was an almost complete victory for opponents of the law.
"It's very important to understand that this was not a split decision," said Epstein, a Democrat. "This was an old-fashioned slap-down by a conservative court against the Arizona law, and a conservative movement on immigration."
Epstein added: "This was a huge victory for the Obama administration."
On The Ed Show earlier Monday, Rep. Raul Grijalva called Brewer "delusional."
Leave a Comment:
What nonsense! The core of the Arizona Law that the Obama Justice Department challenged was that police could inquire and apprehend anyone they came across in the investigation of a crime if they suspected that they were not in the country and their state legally. That means if one is driving a minibus full of "undocument workers" on I-10 on one's way to San Diego, CA, or Denver, CO, or Las Vegas, NV from Nogales, AZ (or Mexico) by way of Pheonix, for example, and one is stopped for speeding, don't have a valid drivers license, all will be arrested and suspect to investigation on their status in the country.
On receiving that judgement from the Supreme Court, the Obama administration went into tantrum mode, and the Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced today that if Arizona state or local police notify Immigration and Naturalization Services that they have an illegal immigrants being held on criminal charges, they WILL ONLY TAKE THEM INTO CUSTODY IF THEY ARE ACCUSED OF COMMITTING A FELONY! In other words, they don't intend to pursue fully protecting the country or the state of Arizona from incursions by illegal immigrants.
This might be thought to be good election year politics gaining a larger share of the Hispanic voters, but I'm thinking we are about to see the loss of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada as states as possible for the Obama electoral college votes, assuredly the loss of Texas, and possibly North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and central Mid Western swing states who have had to wrestle with the social costs and legal problems with illegal immigrants being shipped up from their points of entry into the country. No wonder why Romney is leading Obama's 30s only percentage range by capturing 58% of the blue collar male workers voters support in the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll!
It's not about the interest groups, stupid; it's about the Economy and the contuing lack of Jobs!
Not true. LEOs have always had the right to check immigration status if they suspected the person was in the country illegally. SB1070 requires that they do so, and that's the basic difference.
But even implementing that part of the law, what is the LEO supposed to do with that person after checking status? If ICE doesn't get back to them immediately, there's nothing that can be done. If ICE doesn't choose to take custody of the illegal, the state can't detain them on its own solely for being in the country illegally. The court struck down those parts that created state laws making it a state law violation for being in the country illegally. That belongs to the federal government, not the state.
The court ruling also said a person may not be arrested or detained solely on suspicion that he or she is in the country illegally. The ruling suggests prolonged stops simply while awaiting determination on immigration status would also raise constitutionality issues.
The SCOTUS struck down three out of four of the provisions to 1070, and left the door open for the fourth one also being declared unconstitutional, depending upon how it's implemented.
This was not a victory for Arizona. It was certainly not a victory for states' rights. Immigration law resides strictly with the federal government, and a state may not make its own laws regarding immigration.
And if you think about it, how would dealing with 50 different immigration laws help the situation at all? This was a good decision, and surprisingly sane.
Another blog said Jan Brewer's head was spinning and she was confused. No, she wasn't confused. But she was dizzy from the MAJOR spin she had to put on this story to try to make it sound like a victory. Little TOO dizzy there, huh Jan. Not gonna help you stay in office.
We'll see in November who is leaving their office, Mr. D J.
If what was once optional enforcement of a specific part of existing Arizona state immigration law is now mandatory and has a limit on detention, was there a less strict limit on detention when optional? It seems the mandatory enforcement might be actually weaker than before in that respect.
Rules About Carrying Immigration Papers
By Shari Caudill,
eHow Contributor
Under its Senate Bill 1070, law enforcement offers can require an individual to prove he has legal status. Legal immigrants are also required to carry identification under federal laws.
Title 8, Chapter 12, Section 1304 of the U.S. Code requires every alien age 18 or older to carry the certificate or registration receipt at all times.
Under federal laws, immigrants at least 18 years of age must carry a valid Permanent Resident Card at all times.
You must produce the card when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer or government agent. The card, often called a "green card," serves as proof of legal status and qualifies you for work
SB1070 required immigrants to carry “green cards” the size of a Social Security care and not a brief case of documents. “Show me your papers” can be a “green card” or a legal “drivers license” which one has to show proof of birth to get.