SCOTUS Strikes Down Most of AZ. Immigration Law

Clean

Clean

5,000+ Posts
The Supremes struck down 3 out of 4 provisions of Arizona immigration law.

Surprisingly they let stand the one that allows cops stopping people for other reasons to question people about immigration status.

But aliens:
1) Don't have to carry immigration documents,
2) It's not a crime for illegals to apply for work.
3) No arrests without warrants.

Sadly, a big win for BO and Holder.


The Link
 
It appears the Arizona case is largely a victory for the feds and Obama. However, the ability of state and local police to check the immigration "papers" of people suspected of nefarious activities is upheld.

Here is a link to the opinion:

The Link

So when Obamacare goes down, everyone should remember that these decisions do go both ways.
 
Mojo, I like your comment on how everyone should take heed to recognize that the SC rules for and against each party's stances in the political arena. However, we all know the media will forget that the moment that Obamacare is overturned. They've already taken Obama's bait about a vote against upholding the ACA as being judicial interference. According to the White House, there is no double-edged knife, and the media will comment lock-step with this flawed logic. If the SC votes down the healthcare act, I hope that it's a heavily-lopsided vote, so the SC can help to mitigate the blame game that the media will trot out.
 
I have to say this was the right verdict. I hate the idea of giving law enforcement officials such intrusive powers simply because the Feds have completely failed at securing the border.
 
I don't necessarily agree with the complete ruling but the court has spoken so we live with the results. The good news is that the law does get to remain on the books, despite being neutered. This is still a step on the path toward border protection.

This is not the victory that Arizona residents wanted, but a portion of SB1070 was proven to be constitutional so I wouldn't count this as a win for Holder either.

I expect the same for Obamacare. Parts found unconstitutional, other parts can remain in tact. The unfortunate situation will likely be that the republicans will want to keep all the goodies, like insurance for kids until they are 26, which cannot be paid for without the mandate. Thus higher healthcare costs. We just can't seem to understand that we cannot afford everything for everybody.
 
Dh
No
"like insurance for kids until they are 26, "
All this means is the kids stay on a parent's existing policy. The gov't doesn't pay any part of that
And the premium is likely to be higher than if the parents went out and bought a hospitalization policy
Most of the parents plans likely include co pays etc and kids under 26 usually don't need it. also 34 states already had that policy. most until 25 but some . like NY until 30

back to SB70
It won't be long before some citizen deliberately tries to get arrested and gets asked for legal immigration docs
then sues for profiling.
 
Scalia for the win:

"If Arizona can't secure its territory from illegal immigration we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State."
 
I personally don't consider this a major defeat in fighting illegal immigration, nor do I consider it a major victory for the Administration. First, the biggest criticism of the bill was the provision requiring police to determine a person's immigration status during a stop. That's the provision that people said would lead to racial profiling, etc., and it's what the Administration trumpeted as the worst part of the bill. It was upheld.

Second, it's important to understand that the Court didn't hold any of the law to be unconstitutional. It held that provisions were preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Why does that distinction matter? Because if Congress would grow a pair, it could amend IRCA's preemption language (much easier than amending the Constitution), effectively nullifying the Court's opinion.

Some don't like this opinion and understandably so, but it could have been MUCH worse.
 
mrD
Thank you for clarifying this.
'Second, it's important to understand that the Court didn't hold any of the law to be unconstitutional. It held that provisions were preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). "

I did not understand the difference
 
Don't act like this border issue just sprung up after 2008. Its been around for many years. But I wouldn't expect honesty from your ilk. So blame it all on Obama
 
Illegal immigration is down under the Obama admin.

Hook'em!!!
texasflag.gif
 
Oh, I almost forgot:

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally."

~ Ronald Reagan (in debate with Walter Mondale, 10/28/84)

You know that about 2.9 million illegals were given amnesty when RR signed the 1986 immigration act, right?
 
I would agree that at least from what I can tell, the Obama administration has actually made improvements in enforcing borders - granted, it's kind of like moving a chair over to block the big hole in the wall where the water's gushing in, but still, he does seem to be at least making an effort.

The irony of it is that he can't (or won't) tout this accomplishment very loudly. He mentions it in passing when it comes up but you won't see him campaigning on it, because if he does, La Raza gets mad at him, and it's more important for him to feel loved by the militant hispanic community than it is to appeal to a wider range of Americans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top