Anyway, the only people that have United States "constitutional" rights are American citizens . . . LEGAL American citizens. Not to mention, our immigration laws are NOT very tough. There are some countries where you have to meet some very stringent requirements just to live there and even then it's difficult to get citizenship, like Germany, Switzerland, etc. Other countries also have harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.
Remember the states are ----supposed to be ----SOVEREIGN entities . They never gave up the right to control immigration.
Do NOT confuse the power to naturalize which is within the exclusive authority of the federal government.
.
Well, apparently they have . . .
involuntarily anyway. I remember when the gov of Arizona was trying to crack down on illegal immigration. The state was sued by the federal government.
I do not remember that the issue was before the court. But It would not surprise me if that is another power that has been usurped.
.
Ninth Circuit opinion and way to Supreme Court decision[edit]
On November 1, 2010, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in the case. The three-judge panel was composed of Judges
Richard Paez,
Carlos Bea, and
John T. Noonan.
[22] On April 11, 2011, the Ninth Circuit panel upheld the district court's ban on parts of the law taking effect, thus ruling in favor of the Obama administration and against Arizona. Judge
Richard Paez gave the majority opinion, in which Judge
John T. Noonan, Jr. joined; Judge
Carlos Bea dissented in part.
[23][24] Paez agreed with the administration's view that the state had intruded upon federal prerogatives. Noonan wrote in his concurrence: "The Arizona statute before us has become a symbol. For those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States, it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt."
[24]
On May 9, 2011, Governor Brewer announced that Arizona would appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court rather than request a hearing
en banc before the Ninth Circuit;
[25] that appeal was filed on August 10, 2011.
[26] In response, the Justice Department requested that the Supreme Court stay out of the case, saying that the lower courts actions were appropriate.
[27] Observers thought it likely that the Supreme Court would take up the matter,
[26] but if it declined to step in, the case most likely would be returned to the trial judge in the District Court to review the case on its merits and determine whether the temporary injunction that blocked the law's most controversial provisions should become permanent.
[28] The Supreme Court announced in December 2011 that it would review
Arizona's
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,
[29][30] and oral arguments took place on April 25, 2012.
[31][32]
On December 12, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari to hear the case. The court heard oral arguments for this case on April 25, 2012. Justice
Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because while she was the United States Solicitor General, she defended the federal government's position in this case under the Obama administration.
[33]
On June 25, 2012, the Court struck down three of the four provisions of S.B. 1070. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor.
[34] Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each concurred in part and dissented in part in separate opinions joined by no other justice.
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion held that Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 were preempted by federal law.
[34][35][36] The three provisions struck down: required legal immigrants to carry registration documents at all times; allowed state police to arrest any individual for suspicion of being an illegal immigrant; and made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to search for a job (or to hold one) in the state.
[37][38][39]
All justices agreed to uphold the provision of the law allowing Arizona state police to investigate the immigration status of an individual stopped, detained, or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that individual is in the country illegally. However, Justice Kennedy specified in the majority opinion that state police may not detain the individual for a prolonged amount of time for not carrying immigration documents; and that cases of racial profiling are allowed to proceed through the courts, if such cases happen to arise later on.
[33]
