The Supreme Court will soon rule on Arizona's controversial immigration law

[Wolfmoon]

SCOTUS to rule on AZ immigration law
http://www.kold.com/story/16304991/ap-scotus-to-hear-az-immigration-law?clienttype=printable


Dec 12, 2011

The Supreme Court will soon rule on Arizona's controversial immigration law. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has called illegal immigration a national problem. (Source: CNN)


WASHINGTON (RNN) - The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Arizona's controversial immigration law.
In total, the court will review four portions of the law enjoined by a federal appeals court in April.

[Click here to view the Ninth Circuit's ruling.]
One of those provisions requires police to determine the immigration status of the individuals they detain.

Justice Elena Kagan, former solicitor in the Obama administration, recused herself from the decision to grant the writ of certiorari in the case.

[Click here to view the Supreme Court's order list.]

Speculation of Monday morning's announcement began after the court considered Arizona v. U.S. during its Friday conference, according to media outlets.

 

[Angelhair]

You can bet they will rule AGAINST AZ. I hope not but.........it seems that is the way this country is going of late. The illegal organizations seem to be winning most battles. Will they win the war? We will soon know.

 

[Angelhair]

Correction: PRO-illegal organizations.

 

[waltky]

Granny says dey'll pro'bly end up decidin' to let illegals contribute to political campaigns...

US Supreme Court to Review Immigration Law
April 20, 2012 - The United States Supreme Court on Wednesday will review a restrictive immigration law from the southwestern state of Arizona. The law requires police to check a person's immigration status during routine traffic stops or other actions. The Arizona statute has brought immigration laws to the forefront on a state and federal level.

Alhassanne Foungounou plays his guitar and sings of liberation on YouTube. Foungounou requested asylum in the United States when his Tuareg protest songs angered the Niger government. But Foungounou returned home to Niger after Arizona passed a tough immigration law and he was nearly arrested. We asked him about it on Skype. "I like the United States a lot but the Arizona law is not good. The vender asked me for my ID [identification] and I gave her my work permit. Soon after that the police came. It was like I killed someone," said Foungounou.

Foungounou was in the U.S. legally, but he did what Arizona officials hope to accomplish with the law. Arizona shares a border with Mexico. Governor Jan Brewer said she wanted to make conditions so uncomfortable that illegal immigrants would voluntarily leave her state. The law requires legal immigrants to carry documentation with them at all times or be jailed. It also requires police to check a person's immigration status if the officer suspects the individual is in the country illegally.

The law was to end years of frustration over Arizona's estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants. After several court challenges, its future is up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Michael McLaughlin said the law is refreshing and should be upheld. His wife is a German immigrant who followed the legal path to citizenship 42 years ago. He and other volunteers are trying to get strict laws in all 50 states. They plan to demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court. "We have about 8 million illegal aliens in the United States, 7 million of whom are working in non-agricultural jobs at the same time that we have 22 million Americans looking for full-time employment," said McLaughlin.

If the Supreme Court upholds the law, individual states could enact their own immigration rules. Kristina Campbell is a law professor at the University of the District of Columbia. "They really are opening up a can of worms if you believe in the principle of federalism - that we are several states, but one nation. We have the same laws at the federal level. Then, I think turning around and saying, 'Well you guys can do whatever you want on this particular issue' is problematic."

Ali Noorani of the National Immigration Forum opposes the law, but he sees the benefit of getting the nation to address immigration. "You know what? We've got to get our act together. We've got to figure this out. Whether it is Arizona or Alabama, the country is losing because we have a dysfunctional immigration system," said Noorani. The justices are expected to have a decision in June.

Source

 

[Sweet Willy]

The Court has a conservative slant these days but even that won't help this case, I don't think. Too much room for brutal errors. There are just far too many natural born Americans who would be subject to get caught up in this thing. We are free to travel, it's a right, guaranteed in the constitution. We are free from illegal searches, again, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. There is just no way to steer clear of the Constitution with a law that requires people to carry papers when they travel and then produce them when asked, regardless of reasonable suspicion of a crime.

The law fails the most casual inspection of Constitutional muster.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Court has a conservative slant these days but even that won't help this case, I don't think. Too much room for brutal errors. There are just far too many natural born Americans who would be subject to get caught up in this thing. We are free to travel, it's a right, guaranteed in the constitution. We are free from illegal searches, again, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. There is just no way to steer clear of the Constitution with a law that requires people to carry papers when they travel and then produce them when asked, regardless of reasonable suspicion of a crime.

The law fails the most casual inspection of Constitutional muster.

Although civil rights violations are a concern, and likely to occur under 1070, it will be the issue of implied preemption which will be subject to judicial review, where states may not enact legislation that violates, conflicts, or otherwise undermines Federal law:

Arizona’s legislature, it is clear, does not want [undocumented immigrants] to move to other states; it wants them to return to their home countries, and, while they are in the state, to be restrained by tight controls on many aspects of their daily lives. Those features of S.B. 1070 are what has drawn the firm opposition of the federal government. The Justice Department is treating the state law as an intrusion on federal policy toward immigrants while they are in the U.S., and as a state-specific deportation measure conflicting with the federal government’s sole power to decide who can stay in the country.

Argument preview: Who controls immigrants’ lives? : SCOTUSblog

 

[Sweet Willy]

The Court has a conservative slant these days but even that won't help this case, I don't think. Too much room for brutal errors. There are just far too many natural born Americans who would be subject to get caught up in this thing. We are free to travel, it's a right, guaranteed in the constitution. We are free from illegal searches, again, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. There is just no way to steer clear of the Constitution with a law that requires people to carry papers when they travel and then produce them when asked, regardless of reasonable suspicion of a crime.

The law fails the most casual inspection of Constitutional muster.

Although civil rights violations are a concern, and likely to occur under 1070, it will be the issue of implied preemption which will be subject to judicial review, where states may not enact legislation that violates, conflicts, or otherwise undermines Federal law:

Arizona’s legislature, it is clear, does not want [undocumented immigrants] to move to other states; it wants them to return to their home countries, and, while they are in the state, to be restrained by tight controls on many aspects of their daily lives. Those features of S.B. 1070 are what has drawn the firm opposition of the federal government. The Justice Department is treating the state law as an intrusion on federal policy toward immigrants while they are in the U.S., and as a state-specific deportation measure conflicting with the federal government’s sole power to decide who can stay in the country.

Argument preview: Who controls immigrants’ lives? : SCOTUSblog

I would bet on freedom of travel, the 4th amendment and Hiibel to be cited in the decision.