Supremes overturn much of Arizona immigration law
Reading the Supreme Court’s decision largely overturning the Arizona immigration law, which served as the model for much of Georgia’s immigration law as well….
Court notes that “Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.” That suggests President Obama was well within his constitutional powers with his mini-DREAM act order last week.
The majority opinion states:
“It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States….
Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service.”
The Court tossed an Arizona provision making it a state crime to be in Arizona in violation of federal immigration law. It also threw out a provision making it illegal for an illegal immigrant to seek work in Arizona.
It also tossed Section 6 of the Arizona law, which as Justice Kennedy notes in his majority opinion “authorizes officers to arrest without a warrant a person ‘the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States,’” or in other words is here illegally.
“If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent,” Kennedy writes. “… This would allow the state to achieve its own immigration policy. The result could be unnecessary harassment
of some aliens (for instance, a veteran, college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation) whom federal officials determine should not be removed.”
The sole surviving section of the law requires state law enforcement to check the immigration status of everybody it takes into custody. And that part of the law may stand only for the time being. The justices want to see how that part of the law actually works in practice, but they made it clear that they are dubious that it will withstand future constitutional scrutiny.
For example, Kennedy notes the case of someone who is stopped for a jaywalking violation. If that person is detained in jail while his or her immigration status is checked — something that would not happen for a simple jaywalking case — such prolonged detention would violate the Constitution.
It was a 5-3 decision, with Justice Kagan recusing herself because she was involved in the case in her previous job as solicitor general. The three justices in the minority were Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
Scalia’s dissent is quite broad to the point of radical. He begins by complaining that the majority opinion “deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there,” in effect endorsing the novel concept that states have a constitutional right to their own immigration policies independent of that of the federal government.
“Even in its international relations, the federal government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent states, who have their own sovereign powers,” Scalia writes.
Just as remarkably, Scalia takes the opportunity to attack Obama’s announcement last week that illegal immigrants brought here as children will not be deported, a topic not at issue in this case.
“The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non-enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement.”
Neither Thomas nor Alito embrace Scalia’s extremism in their own dissents.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
487 comments Add your comment
carlosgvv
June 25th, 2012
12:20 pm
Doggone/GA – 12:17
That is NOT what you said. Another Court, composed of nine equally qualified lawyers, might give an entirely different ruling.
Paul
June 25th, 2012
12:20 pm
Rickster
“It will be interesting if Kagan recuses herself from the ACA decision as well.”
Justice recuse themselves before the case is heard, not after.
Brosephus
This month has four full weeks and a partial week less than three days long, so added to the other criteria, yes, I am.
Until the criteria change again.
hiram
June 25th, 2012
12:21 pm
@Joseph
Yeah, I live in the community that was once Dalton, but I won’t be here much longer. My hometown was bartered away, unilaterally, by the principals of the carpet mills, in exchange for cheap labor.
The irony of it all is that in the end the carpet mills, in a reverse of fortune, will be the ones under duress, in a town contolled politically by the cheap labor by they recruited.
larry
June 25th, 2012
12:21 pm
Funny how a person is called a liberal hypocrite because she won’t step down on ACA. But they won’t ask if Thomas will step down . I guess he’s a conservative hypocrite.
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 25th, 2012
12:21 pm
I don’t know why everyone assumes all the undocumented workers are Mexican. Most of the ones that are in my area are Guatemalan’s.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
12:22 pm
“The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is”
Yes, since the Marbury ruling in 1803 in which the SCOTUS accorded itself the right to judicial review, two years after the Senate indicated it would not impeach a justice except for an indictable offense. As I have said, it is always possible for the Senate to change their minds – but that will not happen in a divided electorate.
Brosephus™
June 25th, 2012
12:22 pm
josef @ 12:17
Now, the test will be if Doom calls that poster racist for saying that in the same manner that he blasted me.
————-
Paul
EOI is like kudzu, we never die!!!
josef
June 25th, 2012
12:23 pm
PAUL
EOIs present and accounted for! I miss Bosch but I’m glad he’s not here for the reasons he’s not…
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
12:24 pm
Rickster
Roberts stated sometime back that Kagen nor Thomas need to remove themselves…………
Why no mention of Thomas?
hmmmmmmm
Paul
June 25th, 2012
12:24 pm
209 more days
“So now that Arizona can’t do their job of protecting their citizens from illegals,”
Sure they can. Why do you think otherwise?
It’s like saying “now that the Court has ruled the Constitution does indeed say police can’t break into your house and toss it looking for stuff without a warrant, the police are no longer able to protect people.”
Mr_B
June 25th, 2012
12:25 pm
All those folks who own stock in those private prison companies that ALECed these laws through the AZ, AL, and GA legislatures are really gonna be disappointed in this ruling.
DeShaun Sanders
June 25th, 2012
12:25 pm
President Obama’s executive order enforcing the DREAM act…despite the fact that it’s not the law…was a brilliant political move. It sews up just about all the Latino vote, and it’s not going to cost him anything. The people most hurt by this order will be unskilled laborers, who are predominantly African-Americans…but we’re going to vote for him anyway, just because of race.
Brilliant move by the President. Obama 2012!
Recon 0311 2533
June 25th, 2012
12:26 pm
It answers the question about whether or not states have constitutional authority to take charge of crafting and enforcing immigration laws. The Supremes ruled that the federal government has sole responsibility for immigration laws. The unanswered question is can a president and his DoJ determine which federal laws to enforce and which ones to ignore? If a president assumes that power it usurps the role of the legislative branch. I’m not sure what recourse the Congress has in circumstances whereby a sitting president decides not to enforce certain duly passed existing laws but doing so certainly undermines the United States Congress.
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
12:28 pm
Recon
With the number of illegals in our country, the number of employers employing them, etc, haven’t numerous Presidents and DoJs already been making those decisions?
skipper
June 25th, 2012
12:28 pm
Many places do NOT border Mexico, so they have no idea what Arizona goes through. This is sort of equivilent of a 98% white town in a 90+ % white state offering its opinion on solving racial problems; they are talking about something they know nothing about and do not have experience with. Arizona, as opposed to some Northern State, gets overrun and Jay, even you know the Feds have done a CRAPPY job! I realize you gotta be decent, but exactly what are these folks supposed to do????? If our folks take off to Mexico (read about) their laws are much more strictly enforced.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
12:29 pm
“I’m not sure what recourse the Congress has in circumstances whereby a sitting president decides not to enforce certain duly passed existing laws but doing so certainly undermines the United States Congress.”
Outside of impeachment, not much I would say.
RB from Gwinnett
June 25th, 2012
12:29 pm
Let the vote buying focus group pandering continue…
josef
June 25th, 2012
12:29 pm
HIRAM
That answers the question. Thanks.
BROSEPHUS
Doom is on vacation…did he delegate the R card responsibilities to anyone?
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
12:29 pm
do their job of protecting their citizens from illegals
if you actually think this crap-ass AZ law was about protecting *anything* besides the careers of the likes of Jan Brewer and Sheriff Joe Ara##hole, I’ve a nice bridge linking an outer borough to sell you.
Peadawg
June 25th, 2012
12:29 pm
“President Obama’s executive order enforcing the DREAM act”
Lie
Obama executive order was a short-term solution to buy votes for November. It’s nothing like the DREAM Act.
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
12:30 pm
“That is NOT what you said. Another Court, composed of nine equally qualified lawyers, might give an entirely different ruling”
Maybe, but THIS court did what I said: affirmed what the Consitution says
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
12:30 pm
josef @ 12:23
Now that was funny
JamVet
June 25th, 2012
12:30 pm
Mitt reminds me of the worst of the GOP’s candidates – Tricky Dick, Saint Ronnie and George of the Bungle.
And outdated old white guy on his “Every Millionaire Counts Tour” completely out of touch with the reality of working class families.
And you faux conservatives are gonna pretend – even to yourselves – that he is a great “severely conservative” (LOL!) candidate with your best interests at heart. Instead of wall Streets.
After watching him closely for over a year now, I can safely say that he stinks to high heaven. John McCain was an infinitely better human being and candidate. And you all know that.
And for these five words alone, he may be the worst GOP candidate in a generation:
Corporations are people, my friend.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
12:30 pm
“With the number of illegals in our country, the number of employers employing them, etc, haven’t numerous Presidents and DoJs already been making those decisions?”
In fairness, I think the answer would be yes.
Butch Cassidy
June 25th, 2012
12:31 pm
RB from Gwinnett – “Let the vote buying focus group pandering continue…”
It has to, without it, we’d have no electoral process at all.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 25th, 2012
12:32 pm
Hmmmm… an Obama executive order on the DREAM ACT? No such thing exists.
Paul
June 25th, 2012
12:32 pm
Recon
“The unanswered question is can a president and his DoJ determine which federal laws to enforce and which ones to ignore?”
The Court did in fact decide that. It appears the difficulty in understanding is what the Right calls ‘choose with laws to ignore” the Court calls “discretion in the enforcement of… law”
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
12:32 pm
RB: “Let the vote buying focus group pandering continue…”
Now why on earth would you call out Romney for changing his stance on abortion (at the time his campaign was gearing up) in efforts to pander to social conservatives?
Give Romney a break, man. Give him a break
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
12:32 pm
Steve USA — “Preach it!”
Far from preaching it, he seems to have shut his yap since I posted some direct refutation for him.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 25th, 2012
12:33 pm
This is a good thing to be sure.
AND, btw 209 more days, they can protect ALL the citizens.
getalife
June 25th, 2012
12:34 pm
Krugman raises the red flag again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/krugman-the-great-abdication.html?_r=1&hp
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
12:35 pm
“Maybe, but THIS court did what I said: affirmed what the Consitution says”
They only thing they “affirmed” was your opinion that they should have ruled the way they did. Would you say they “affirmed” the Constitution twice in their diametrically opposed rulings on segregation? Rather, should we not say they “interpreted” the Constitution to mean such and such and applied that interpretation to the case at hand?
Brosephus™
June 25th, 2012
12:35 pm
josef
I don’t know whether he delegated authority or not.
—————
Towncrier
Is it an impeachable offense to prioritize enforcement based on available assets?
Paul
June 25th, 2012
12:36 pm
stands for decibels
“if you actually think this crap-ass AZ law was about protecting *anything* besides the careers of the likes of Jan Brewer and Sheriff Joe Ara##hole, I’ve a nice bridge linking an outer borough to sell you.”
Well, one of the London bridges IS in Arizona…..
So they’ve already bought it!
getalife
June 25th, 2012
12:36 pm
Our President wants congress to do immigration reform.
That will not happen unless he is reelected with a new house.
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 25th, 2012
12:37 pm
“Far from preaching it, he seems to have shut his yap since I posted some direct refutation for him.”
Don’t assume everyone spends all day here.
BTW – Funny line you had in the other thread about “pharmaceutical testing volunteers”.
Jay
June 25th, 2012
12:37 pm
Skipper, if Arizona was so supportive of this law, why did voters there recall the chief architect of the legislation, Russell Pearce? It was a heavily Republican district, no Arizona legislator had ever been recalled before, Pearce outspent his novice opponent 3-1 and was also endorsed by Arpaio.
Yet he still lost, and by a significant margin.
Recon 0311 2533
June 25th, 2012
12:38 pm
TBS,
The question is, should any administration have that power to act alone or should changing or modifying federal law be by Congressional authority in conjunction with that of the administrative branch.
John Birch
June 25th, 2012
12:38 pm
Steve – You’re right, only 62% are Mexican, although probably 80-85% Latino. While I’m hoping I’ll like the Obamacare ruling a litle more, that’s really not the point. Basically 2 people (5-3 decision) cetermine the law for 300+ million. I think that sounds more like a monarchy-oligarchy than a democracy. And the only recourse is constitutional amendment, a very difficult process. Or wait for a different SCOTUS. Nowadays it’s all judicial activism.
Obamacare is a great example. The elected representatives enact legislature that today’s polls indicate is against the will of about 2/3 of the people, and then nine appointed justices ultimately determine what is law.
Williebkind
June 25th, 2012
12:38 pm
Brosephus™
June 25th, 2012
12:16 pm
I am the chief of police and sheriff, “I simply wont enforce that law!”. Learned that from Obama and Holder.
RB from Gwinnett
June 25th, 2012
12:39 pm
What other federal laws are we the people willing to let the current administration (R or D) ignore? Can the next R administration ignore tax collection from millionaire? Ignore equal rights law enforcement? Stop letting women vote? Where is the limit? Feds won’t enforce and won’t let states enforce sounds like a recipe for disaster. Feds were never supposed to have that much power over states for good reason.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
12:40 pm
Steve — “Don’t assume everyone spends all day here.”
I’m not. And you and your friend shouldn’t assume that all liberals are in favor of unrestrained illegal immigration.
You know, *you* could go read what I said and see for yourself, pal. You pretty clearly need to be corrected on the issue as much as he did.
“BTW – Funny line you had in the other thread about “pharmaceutical testing volunteers”.
Michael
June 25th, 2012
12:40 pm
I didn’t welcome the 8 illegal immigrants into my house; I welcomed them to the top of my house where they replaced the roof. I understood at the time that 30% of all roofers in Atlanta were illegal; although the contractor was legal. Of course that was during the housing boom, when we needed the labor.
I still don’t understand the local police checking documentation. There are many US territories and possessions which provide legal documentation, but I doubt that the local police will have the training to separate the legals from the illegals.
Paul
June 25th, 2012
12:41 pm
JamVet
“Mitt reminds me of the worst of the GOP’s candidates – Tricky Dick, Saint Ronnie and George of the Bungle.”
I’ve mentioned before there are several LDS in my neighborhood. Last night I was talking to two LDS guys – both indicated they were not disposed to vote for Romney, for many of the reasons we’ve read here.
I think they were disappointed. They said how they can understand how a Republican presidential candidate has to sell out to make it past the extremists, but once he’s in, they expected him to repudiate them. Maybe not harshly, but move away from them nonetheless. They thought he’d had ample time to do so.
I found them well able to separate religion affiliation from politics.
That Black Guy
June 25th, 2012
12:41 pm
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
12:04 pm
Paul, so you libs
Anyone else here smile whenever our Paul is lumped in with “you libs”?
____________________________________________________
More like shake my head and do the faceplamie thing.
getalife
June 25th, 2012
12:41 pm
Israel is rounding up Africans and sending them home.
Adam
June 25th, 2012
12:41 pm
Only one mention of Montana this entire thread. Did everyone miss that one? Corporations can spend unlimited amounts in campaigns, even if state law would seek to forbid that.
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
12:41 pm
“The question is, should any administration have that power to act alone or should changing or modifying federal law be by Congressional authority in conjunction with that of the administrative branch”
I suggest you look into the use of “signing statements” as used by past and present Presidents.
Curious
June 25th, 2012
12:41 pm
illegal immigration follows the Law of Supply and Demand; eliminate or decrease the demand and the supply will decrease accordingly.
Still trying to decide if Romney reminds me more of the snake-oil salesman in “The Outlaw Josey Wales” or Reverend Ike.
Both promised a sip of their elixer would cure anything.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
12:42 pm
Williebkind — “I am the chief of police and sheriff, “I simply wont enforce that law!”. Learned that from Obama and Holder.”
I learned it on Law and Order, 20 years ago. The DA chooses whether or not to prosecute cases all the time.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
12:42 pm
“Is it an impeachable offense to prioritize enforcement based on available assets?”
I would say not if that is truly the motivation, and not simply a smokescreen. But I have always felt it is a dereliction of duty to, say, not prosecute a crime when you should and are able to (like might have happened in the south some decades past). That is perhaps one of the potential problems I see for Holder and the DOJ with respect to the FaF “operation”: since they prosecuted “gunwalking” carried out with the Wide Receiver “operation”, they have no excuse for taking immediate action over that activity in FaF if they truly knew about it.
Paul
June 25th, 2012
12:44 pm
Keep Up
“Hmmmm… an Obama executive order on the DREAM ACT? No such thing exists.”
I was wondering who’d point that out.
Then again, many in the media did not help accurate discussion with their early characterization.
Curious
June 25th, 2012
12:44 pm
If Sheriff Arpaio is such a great sheriff, why does his county have a crime problem?
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
12:44 pm
Paul — “I think they were disappointed. They said how they can understand how a Republican presidential candidate has to sell out to make it past the extremists, but once he’s in, they expected him to repudiate them. Maybe not harshly, but move away from them nonetheless. They thought he’d had ample time to do so.”
Did they mention who they would *rather* have as a candidate? Perhaps Huntsman?
Also, did they indicate how they planned to vote?
iTiSi
June 25th, 2012
12:44 pm
Bookman just had a “warm and fuzzy feeling” running down his leg like the idiot on MSNBC did when hears Obama speak. Only difference is that this time JB PP’d on himself.
getalife
June 25th, 2012
12:44 pm
Adam,
I posted it earlier.
citizen united is the law of the land until a new generation changes it.
That Black Guy
June 25th, 2012
12:45 pm
Thomas
June 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
…period under our Code Pink pillow…
______________________________________
If you have to use a “Code Pink pillow” for your period, you may want to see a doctor.
Just sayin’…
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
12:45 pm
“I found them well able to separate religion affiliation from politics.”
As have, apparently, a lot of people when it comes to issues like abortions of convenience.
josef
June 25th, 2012
12:45 pm
BOTH
I am considering sponsoring you for membership in the EOI. Of course, you have to have the assent of Paul and Brosephus…the CEO and Membership Chair respectively…
ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT
June 25th, 2012
12:45 pm
Liberal means Free . Losers
josef
June 25th, 2012
12:46 pm
IMAM
On the update…d*mn, looks like Scalia’s been reading Judah P!
Williebkind
June 25th, 2012
12:46 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
12:42 pm
Nice try JHM but the prosecuter is far removed from POTUS and AG.
Mr_B
June 25th, 2012
12:46 pm
“Like I already said (try to pay attention) you libs are celebrating defeat of all attempts to curb illegal immigration. To then assert that you really are opposed to illegal immigration is either disinguous or down right stupid, no matter how you try to spin it.”
Much as all you folks who oppose judicial amputation of hands have to be in favor of theft.
I don’t care how you spin it.
Peadawg
June 25th, 2012
12:46 pm
“Only one mention of Montana this entire thread. ”
blogspot is ready when you are, sport.
But seriously, what’s happened in Montana? Got a link?
ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT
June 25th, 2012
12:47 pm
Free to think for yourself, not be a kool aid drinking A-clown Rep. tool
Williebkind
June 25th, 2012
12:47 pm
“Much as all you folks who oppose judicial amputation of hands have to be in favor of theft.
I don’t care how you spin it.”
Now that is just plain ignorant.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 25th, 2012
12:47 pm
Paul, always glad to help!
One of these days some may get it right….very few.
Jay
June 25th, 2012
12:48 pm
My thought as well, Josef.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 25th, 2012
12:48 pm
Did I miss all the GOP bitchin’ when the DOJ used discretion not to prosecute members of the previous administration?
MMMMM
Recon 0311 2533
June 25th, 2012
12:48 pm
Paul,
I don’t think this ruling addressed that question it only focused the federal governments authority over the state’s authority to control and enforce immigration laws. It didn’t address the issue of a sitting president bypassing the legislative branch and failing to enforce existing laws. That consideration wasn’t before them.
TGT
June 25th, 2012
12:48 pm
The bottom line here is that THE most significant portion of this law was upheld 8 to 0. Sure, the court left the door open for future challenges, but the overall constitutionality of “Show me your papers” is no longer in question. It was this provision that had liberal’s panties in a wad.
Jimmy62
June 25th, 2012
12:49 pm
I mostly agree, states shouldn’t be making laws that go against federal laws. On the other hand, if the federal government is abrogating its responsibility to enforce those laws, what is a state supposed to do?
Williebkind
June 25th, 2012
12:50 pm
Well does this mean illegal immigrants can vote? NO? Then what exactly have liberals accomplished except to cost taxpayers millions of dollars.?
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
12:50 pm
Williebkind — “Nice try JHM but the prosecuter is far removed from POTUS and AG.”
And for the third time, President Obama is merely formalizing what has *already* been policy at DHS/ICE for at least the last year.
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf
This would be like Governor Brewer giving her approval to Sheriff Arpaio’s methods. And I’m pretty sure you’re in favor of that.
Adam
June 25th, 2012
12:50 pm
Peadawg: No, not as such. But it’s about a Montana law that would limit corporate money in state elections, overturned today by the SCOTUS. I would bet there is something on scotus blog.
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 25th, 2012
12:50 pm
JHM –
Just going for lunch and a visit to the river, I read your previous post and you had some valid points.
I might stop by the corner gas station and see some of my Guatemalan buddies and tell them you have their back.
I have gotten to be friends with some of the the day workers and I love it when they call me “Mr. Steve”.
skipper
June 25th, 2012
12:50 pm
@Jay,
Ain’t sure….maybe there were OTHER qualities lacking, I don’t know. But, what do folks do? Nobody will answer that part when the Feds are doing the worst job in history! Arizona is a border state. People who are not, or pretty close even are uniquely qualified to need extra attention……
Brosephus™
June 25th, 2012
12:50 pm
Towncrier
No argument from me there. I think the biggest obstacle is proving what was known in a court of law.
Paul
June 25th, 2012
12:51 pm
“, if Arizona was so supportive of this law, why did voters there recall the chief architect of the legislation, Russell Pearce? It was a heavily Republican district, no Arizona legislator had ever been recalled before, Pearce outspent his novice opponent 3-1 and was also endorsed by Arpaio.”
That triggered something and upon review, it is that Mesa is 34% LDS, many of those who voted against Pearce thought he had character shortcomings and local LDS (Washington Post characterized it as an effort by the Mormon church, which is, I think inaccurate) thought Pearce’s views conflicted with what they viewed as their teachings on helping one’s fellow man, as well as hurting their missionary efforts in Central and South America.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
12:51 pm
Just curious: any liberal here want to explain or rationalize the 30 year age limit in Obama’s executive order? Why 30 and not 25 or 18 or 40 or 50?
Native Atlantan
June 25th, 2012
12:51 pm
@Towncrier 12:06 — relevance?
Williebkind
June 25th, 2012
12:51 pm
Granny Godzilla – Union Thugette
June 25th, 2012
12:48 pm
No I dont remember could you nudge my memory?
Paul
June 25th, 2012
12:52 pm
Recon
“The question is, should any administration have that power to act alone or should changing or modifying federal law be by Congressional authority in conjunction with that of the administrative branch.”
Court decided that.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
12:53 pm
Jimmy62 — “I mostly agree, states shouldn’t be making laws that go against federal laws. On the other hand, if the federal government is abrogating its responsibility to enforce those laws, what is a state supposed to do?”
If a state doesn’t Constitutionally have the authority to regulate immmigration, then are you actually advocating that the state should ASSUME those powers unilaterally?
Why you old statist you.
It’s pretty simple. The Constitution makes immigration a Federal matter. States have no say in it. The SCOTUS upheld that. States are thereby limited in what they can legally do about it.
I’d suggest an honest and vigorous discussion at the Federal level on the topic of what to do, not a unilateral power grab by one or more states.
JohnnyReb
June 25th, 2012
12:53 pm
Here’s what should be learned from the ruling.
It’s not surprising most of the AZ law was struck down. This is one of few mutual interests where the federal government is needed for consistency.
Under no circumstance or liberal mind swing should one believe what is taking place now is acceptable. If the Federal Government was upholding existing law there would not have been a need for AZ to attempt a separate law.
The idea as Jay puts forward that the ruling suggests Obama’s fiat on the mini-dream act is justifiable and constitutional is ridiculous. Such thoughts are wishful thinking to satisfy a political idiology and to defend Obama. It’s nonsense. It’s really amazing.
There are several challenges with solving illegal immigration. At the top is the federal government’s failure to uphold existing law. The law must be upheld, then decide what to do with the illgegals that are here.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
12:54 pm
Brosephus™
“No argument from me there. I think the biggest obstacle is proving what was known in a court of law.”
Agreed. But this present “age of information” makes the task a bit less daunting.
JamVet
June 25th, 2012
12:54 pm
Paul, in some ways I find him more reprehensible that the cast of idiots that he beat out for the nomination. At least with Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum, one knew that these people were mental midgets, inveterate liars and complete sell outs.
Willard is a corporate shill of the worst kind. The man simply has no backbone. Or guts. He is the only politician that I have ever seen that has drastically changed his mind so many times on so many issues that he makes John Kerry look like the Rock of Gibraltar.
He is the very antithesis of moral courage and will ANYTHING to get votes.
And that is why he is the neocon candidate this time around…
Paul
June 25th, 2012
12:55 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
They didn’t indicate to me who they planned to vote for. They were open to seeing changes but didn’t seem hopeful. As I said, very disappointed in Romney. I couldn’t tell if they’d vote Obama or just not vote. One guy offered he’d voted for Obama last time but was disappointed in him, too. We’d discussed Huntsman during the primary – liked him, but said given how the Republican Party was, didn’t give him a snowball’s chance.
Adam
June 25th, 2012
12:56 pm
Towncrier: Honestly I didn’t think that much about the age limit exactly, seems like it was somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps the thinking is if you’re over 30 you have had enough time to get your own citizenship?
Williebkind
June 25th, 2012
12:57 pm
“And for the third time, President Obama is merely formalizing what has *already* been policy at DHS/ICE for at least the last year.”
Whose policy was that? It is dated 2011. Did he take the oath to uphold ALL the laws of the land? Or is Obama just different?
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
12:57 pm
Steve – USA — “Just going for lunch and a visit to the river, I read your previous post and you had some valid points.”
Thank you; that’s kind of you to say. Perhaps we can discuss some of those points later.
“I might stop by the corner gas station and see some of my Guatemalan buddies and tell them you have their back. I have gotten to be friends with some of the the day workers and I love it when they call me “Mr. Steve”.
My wife is Hispanic (born here), and I just don’t like the notion that we can solve the immigration issue by slagging on poor, hardworking immigrants. I think that someone who’s willing to slog through the desert on foot for three days, avoiding snakes and gila monsters JUST so he can lay masonry or hang doorframes is the kind of worker we WANT in America. So instead of dissing illegosos, let’s figure out some common-sense solutions that don’t involve automatically picking on brown folk.
Hopefully, we can find some common ground there. And tell those guys I said “si, se puede.”
Jay
June 25th, 2012
12:59 pm
but the overall constitutionality of “Show me your papers” is no longer in question. It was this provision that had liberal’s panties in a wad.
No, that is absolutely wrong. The court threw out the provision in Arizona law that required aliens to carry alien registration documents with them. It also made it quite clear that if Arizona attempts to enforce the remaining part of its law the way that you and others clearly want support, that too will be tossed out as unconstitutional.
For example, Arizona law enforcement will not be able to detain someone longer than normal just to check their immigration status. If they’re stopped for speeding, for example, they can detain them only as long as it would take to write out the ticket.
Peadawg
June 25th, 2012
12:59 pm
“But it’s about a Montana law that would limit corporate money in state elections, overturned today by the SCOTUS.”
Oh, ok. Meh…I’ve said before that I don’t have a problem w/ how much money is donated to candidates.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
12:59 pm
Towncrier — “Just curious: any liberal here want to explain or rationalize the 30 year age limit in Obama’s executive order? Why 30 and not 25 or 18 or 40 or 50?”
I don’t think it really matters, given than no one’s getting immunity. I think they’re saying that they’re going to focus enforcement efforts on older illegosos.
Recon 0311 2533
June 25th, 2012
1:01 pm
Paul,
Once again I don’t see where the court made that decision. That was not the issue before them. The issue of preventing a sitting president from undermining Congressional authority rests within the Congress and with the American people.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
1:01 pm
Native Atlantan
“@Towncrier 12:06 — relevance?”
There was a news report last Friday about some gay visitors to the WH taking pictures of themselves flipping the bird at portraits of Reagan by which I was mystified. Then Jay and a few other intimated it was because of his inactivity on AIDS that gays so hated him. And I went online to investigate this and found that indeed this was their perception. And so I investigated if that perception was warranted. Then I thought I’d share my thoughts here the next news day.
Paul
June 25th, 2012
1:01 pm
Recon
I addressed your question from the viewpoint that what I read as “can the Executive branch decide which laws to enforce” as being the same as what the Court referred to as ‘discretion’ in this case.
TGT
June 25th, 2012
1:04 pm
No I’m not: From CBS:
The court did not throw out the state provision requiring police to check the immigration status of someone they suspect is not in the United States legally. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges.
The decision upholds the “show me your papers” requirement for the moment.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
1:05 pm
Williebkind — “Whose policy was that? It is dated 2011.”
It’s right there on the first page; John Morton, a Director at ICE. And I TOLD you that the President was merely formalizing what had already been ICE policy for at least a year.
“Did he take the oath to uphold ALL the laws of the land? Or is Obama just different?”
You pretty clearly didn’t read the document. Go back and read it.
The Director is pretty clearly saying ‘we can’t catch every undocumented immigrant, so here’s how we’re going to prioritize our efforts.’ Nothing in there says that undocumented immigrants are going to get any kind of pass — just that they’re going to focus their scarce resources on certain specific kinds of undocumented immigrants.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
1:05 pm
“I don’t think it really matters, given than no one’s getting immunity. I think they’re saying that they’re going to focus enforcement efforts on older illegosos.”
It obviously matters, since the act is directed at children of illegal immigrants and the upper age limit could hardly have been, say, 50. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Obama, it might be because that would cover those who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, I have no idea.