Court rules against Arizona immigration law

[Nic_Driver]

PHOENIX — A federal appeals court on Monday refused to lift a stay blocking major parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect and said the federal government is likely to be able to prove the controversial law is unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down an appeal filed by Gov. Jan Brewer. She had asked the appeals court to lift an injunction imposed by a federal judge in Phoenix the day before the law was to take effect on July 29, 2010.

The U.S Justice Department sued to block the law, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution because enforcing immigration law is a federal issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
Enforcement

State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient. Immigration officers and police must have a valid warrant or valid employer's consent to enter workplaces or residences. Any vehicle used to transport or harbor illegal aliens, or used as a substantial part of an activity that encourages illegal aliens to come to or reside in the U.S. may be seized by an immigration officer and is subject to forfeiture. The forfeiture power covers any conveyances used within the U.S.


What part of SB1070 differs from this?

Odd that you can use Google to find this blog opinion piece but fail to find the verbiage from court’s ruling...oh well, no matter...

“By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government’s authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement. . . As a result, Section 2(B) interferes with Congress’ delegation of discretion to the Executive branch in enforcing the INA.” Where the federal government has called for discretion, many of SB 1070’s provisions are mandatory, and therefore clearly in conflict with the INA. States are allowed to participate in immigration enforcement “only under the close supervision of the Attorney General.”

More here http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/04/11/10-16645.pdf

 

[SFC Ollie]

GOOD! It should never be a crime just to be of a certain ethnicity. Nobody should be stopped and made to prove their innocence just because of their skin color or how they are dressed, in a land where you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Yes we need immigration reform and illegal immigrants should be prosecuted, but not if sacrificing the freedom of legal citizens is the cost.

The law in question does not allow for anyone to get pulled over just to determine if they are legal or not. It requires an officer to check the legal status during other routine police stops and procedures.

 

[brokenarrow]

GOOD! It should never be a crime just to be of a certain ethnicity. Nobody should be stopped and made to prove their innocence just because of their skin color or how they are dressed, in a land where you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Yes we need immigration reform and illegal immigrants should be prosecuted, but not if sacrificing the freedom of legal citizens is the cost.

And yet how many citizens cannot walk their own streets at night because criminal have rights given to them by lawyers who cash in on crime?

 

[MikeGloster]

The reality is Mexican immigrants contribute the economy. They buy groceries, clothes, cars, gas, electronics, cable/Direct TV...etc. The list goes on and on. They are CONSUMERS. Just look at everything in Spanish and English...why. Because corporations know they are consumers. All while doing jobs that Joe the plumber would never take! Any company that has their products or advertisements in Spanish should also be for immigration reform. With the Latino population continuing to grow it won't be long before the people eventually vote these backward laws and politicians out.

Most Latinos do not vote, either due to being illegal or legal immigrants who are not citizens, or to plain old lack of interest. Granted, at some point, they will be a major factor in our politics, but that is still way down the line.

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says, "Yea - states' rights...

Arizona illegal immigrant law backed by Supreme Court
26 May 2011 - The US Supreme Court has upheld a law in the state of Arizona that imposes penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

It rejected the argument made by a coalition of business and civil liberties groups that the 2007 law conflicted with federal policy. Chief Justice John G Roberts said that seven states had recently enacted similar laws. A recent Arizona law widening police powers of search was not considered.

The older law subject to Thursday's ruling, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, was challenged by the Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union, with the backing of the Obama administration.

It was intended to tackle the problem of immigrant smuggling by requiring employers to check the status of new workers through a federal database. Employers found to have violated the law can have their business licenses suspended or revoked. Chief Justice John Roberts said the law "falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states".

Blocked

The implications of the ruling could be felt beyond the borders of Arizona. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said the decision may mean that other states now play a bigger role in immigration issues. The more controversial and recent law governing police powers provoked much criticism, amid concerns it would lead to the racial profiling of Hispanics and force legal immigrants to carry papers. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has blocked enforcement of that law and the case may reach the Supreme Court.

BBC News - Arizona illegal immigrant law backed by Supreme Court

 

[SFC Ollie]

Uncle Ferd says, "Yea - states' rights...

Arizona illegal immigrant law backed by Supreme Court
26 May 2011 - The US Supreme Court has upheld a law in the state of Arizona that imposes penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

It rejected the argument made by a coalition of business and civil liberties groups that the 2007 law conflicted with federal policy. Chief Justice John G Roberts said that seven states had recently enacted similar laws. A recent Arizona law widening police powers of search was not considered.

The older law subject to Thursday's ruling, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, was challenged by the Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union, with the backing of the Obama administration.

It was intended to tackle the problem of immigrant smuggling by requiring employers to check the status of new workers through a federal database. Employers found to have violated the law can have their business licenses suspended or revoked. Chief Justice John Roberts said the law "falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states".

Blocked

The implications of the ruling could be felt beyond the borders of Arizona. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said the decision may mean that other states now play a bigger role in immigration issues. The more controversial and recent law governing police powers provoked much criticism, amid concerns it would lead to the racial profiling of Hispanics and force legal immigrants to carry papers. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has blocked enforcement of that law and the case may reach the Supreme Court.

BBC News - Arizona illegal immigrant law backed by Supreme Court

It's a start.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

To your point, the importance of the Latino vote is a factor:

"Latino voters had grown by one million between 2006 and 2010, the number of Latinos eligible to vote grew much faster, from 17.3 million to 21.3 million." theamericano.com/2011/04/27/importance-latino-vote-future-elections/

“What the Census figures suggest is that the road to White House in 2012 may well go through the Hispanic community"...msnbc.msn.com/id/42236057/ns/politics-decision_2012/t/latino-population-boom-will-have-election-echoes/

 

[Angelhair]

So, it's against the law to want to cleanse your state?

No. It's against the law to try to protect the citizens of the state! So let's allow those criminals who entered illegally to roam free. It would not behoove Washington to get rid of them to protect the citizens. After all, it's not PC. What would Mexico/Central/SoAmerican think of us??? Heaven forbid!!