googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
June 25, 2012 11:15 AMArizona Tightrope
While the ACA decision did not come down, another highly anticipated ruling did: on a 5-3 vote (Justice Kagan recused herself as having been involved in the case as Solicitor General), in an opinion written by Justice Kennedy, three of the four challenged provisions of the infamous and influential Arizona immigration law, S.B. 1070, were struck down as having been preempted by federal law. Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor concurred. In separate dissents, Scalia and Thomas said the entire law should have been upheld, and in another partial dissent, Alito agreed with the majority in invalidating just one provision.
As explained in an insta-analysis by SCOTUSblog’s Kevin Russell, the invalidated provisions of S.B. 1070 were those creating a separate state crime for immigration law violations; making it illegal to be employed in the state without proper immigration documentation; and authorizing warrantless arrests of people suspected of committing a crime that would under federal law justify deportation.
The most notorious provision of S.B. 1070, the “show your papers” authorization of police checks for immigration documentation, survived at least temporarily, but only pending its implementation by Arizona and separate litigation over the “racial profiling” issue.
All in all, this was a win for opponents of S.B. 1070 and for the Obama administration. It’s interesting that in his dissent, Scalia took a shot at the administration’s recent executive order providing limited and conditional immunity from prosecution for young people brought into the country illegally but subsequently obtaining a high school diploma or performing military service.
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
Ah, yess, and in a TYPICAL immature act from this administration of THREE YEAR OLDS, now that Arizona Law Enforcement can CHECK for immigration status, the Feds have pulled arrest rights for immigration from the three LEO's that had it, and made it clear that they will be slow to respond to requests for arresting illegals.
What a bunch of BABIES.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
They have declined to extend a program of cooperation. Totally within their rights. When Arizona created this law, it was about their rights. The administration feels a certain way about the program, and is acting accordingly, I disagree with their choice, but not their right to make it. One thing this decision should do is show America that the court made their decision on how they see the law, and not the legendary partisan lines that get talked about so often. When the big decision comes out on Thursday, it should be pretty clear that it is based on how the law is viewed, and not personal ideaologies.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
The Feds sued on the basis that it is THEIR job to enforce immigration. Now that Arizona has the right to CHECK for immigration status, the Feds have decided that they are going to REDUCE their enforcement of the law.
Its petty bullsh!t by the feds. Either ENFORCE the law, or GET THE FVCK OUT OF THE WAY so someone ELSE can.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
I do not agree with their decision to suspend cooperation, and I also disagree with the way the law is enforced. So now Arizona can sue them to actually do their job, just like people sue the government over benefits, entitlements, and every other thing that is written into law. Of course they are not "not" enforcing the law, they are just "reallocating: resources....
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
Like I said, its a THREE YEAR OLD move. The Feds are saying, "Oh yeah, you THINK you won in court, well FVCK YOU< we ain't taking the illegals..."
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Ah, yess, and in a TYPICAL immature act from this administration of THREE YEAR OLDS, now that Arizona Law Enforcement can CHECK for immigration status, the Feds have pulled arrest rights for immigration from the three LEO's that had it, and made it clear that they will be slow to respond to requests for arresting illegals.
What a bunch of BABIES.
>>>>>>>> Maybe that's because the DHS is shutting down the program due to lack of interest .
From Feb 2012
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have trained local officers around the country to act as their agencies' immigration officers. Working either in jails or in the field, the officers can check the immigration status of suspects and place immigration holds on them.
The program, known as 287(g), reached its peak under President George W. Bush, when 60 local agencies signed contracts with ICE to implement it. But that trend slowed significantly under President Obama— only eight agencies have signed up since he took office, and none has done so since August 2010.
Now, in their proposed budget for the upcoming year, Department of Homeland Security officials say they will not sign new contracts for 287(g) officers working in the field and will terminate the "least productive" of those agreements — saving an estimated $17 million. All the contracts between ICE and local police agencies run for three years, so that portion of the program could be finished by November when the last contract for field officers expires.
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
This may be a little different than letting contracts expire and not renewing them. That was the plan back in Feb, but they have suspended this contract with Arizona. I guess it would be ironic if Arizona sued them for suspending a legal contract....
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
But this decision goes against the justices voting along party or ideaological lines, especially since Justice Kagan recused herself from this case. Seems they are not partisan after all.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Apparently they have the right to terminate " the least productive contracts " . So let Brewer sue away , well , that's if she can understand what's going on .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
