The U.S. Supreme Court could decide as early as Monday whether Arizona will get a chance to begin enforcing its year-old law aimed at illegal immigrants.
On Friday, the justices met behind closed doors to consider a petition by Gov. Jan Brewer to void an injunction issued last year, just days before SB 1070 was set to take effect, prohibiting the state from implementing key provisions. That included one crucial section which directed police to determine the immigration status of those they have stopped if there is reason to believe someone is in this country illegally.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction, leaving Brewer nowhere to go but the nation's high court.
An order Monday in Brewer's favor does not dissolve the injunction. All it means is that at least four of the nine justices want to consider the matter.
But an order denying the governor's request means the injunction remains in place while the legality of the law is decided through a full-blown trial and whatever appeals occur. And that process could take years.
At the core of the complex legal dispute is a simple question: Does federal law preempt Arizona from adopting its own measures designed to help apprehend illegal immigrants?
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, who issued the injunction, said it does. And she also said the law places an undue burden on those who are in the country legally.
Citing that provision about police seeking immigration ID, she pointed out that there are some people in this country who are not citizens but are not required to have visas. Bolton said they could be subject to arrest "in addition to the burden of the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance."
"The federal government has long rejected a system by which aliens' papers are routinely demanded and checked," Bolton wrote.
The judge also said Arizona was treading where it cannot go.
Another section of SB 1070 makes it illegal for anyone who is a citizen of another country to not have federally required documents. That section, in essence, would allow the state to arrest and hold illegal immigrants for violating Arizona law.
Bolton called that "an impermissible attempt by Arizona to regulate alien registration."
She also said the state cannot make it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work in this state.
The judge said Congress never intended to criminalize such conduct but instead intended to focus its penalties on companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers. Bolton said that means the Arizona law "conflicts with a comprehensive federal (immigration) scheme and is preempted."
But Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general hired by Brewer to fight the injunction, told the justices in his legal briefs that Bolton was operating under the erroneous presumption that states can get involved in immigration enforcement only when the federal government gives specific permission. He said that's not the way federalism works.
"The baseline assumptions of our federal system are that states have inherent, plenary police power and that cooperative law enforcement is the norm," he wrote. And Clement said that, in essence, all Arizona is doing with SB 1070 is helping to enforce federal immigration laws.
But the Department of Justice, which sued the state and got Bolton to issue the injunction, is urging the justices to stay out of the legal fray, saying there is no reason for them to intercede, at least not at this point.
"That several states have recently adopted new laws in this important area is not a sufficient reason for this court to grant review," the agency said in its response.
In issuing the injunction, Bolton said she had to weigh the "balance of hardships." She concluded that federal interests would be harmed more by letting the law take effect than any damages to the state by putting it on hold. But Clement, in his brief, said that ignores the fact that there are about 400,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona.
"Arizona spends several hundred million dollars each year incarcerating criminal aliens and providing education and health care to aliens who entered and reside in this country in violation of federal law," Clement wrote. He said the injunction leaves Arizona residents suffering from the problem without any way to deal with it.
"Such a conclusion is irreconcilable with the basic tenets of federalism," Clement said. "Border states should not be placed in such an untenable position."
Dale Whiting posted at 8:15 pm on Fri, Dec 9, 2011.
I'm betting that the injunction stays in place. That will mean that the State will be barred from implementing key provisions including "one crucial section which directed police to determine the immigration status of those they have stopped if there is reason to believe someone is in this country illegally." Even the police do not like having to enforce these provisions. They do not like having their hands tied.
Brittanicus posted at 8:22 pm on Fri, Dec 9, 2011.
E-VERIFY! LAST STAND FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICAN WORKERS?
Illegal Immigration is vastly becoming a war of--THEM and US--which is an invasion of people who came here to steal jobs, with the collusion of nationwide businesses. Every part of this country is saturated with a patchwork of illegal foreign neighborhoods. Scores came here under false pretenses, smuggling unborn babies to take advantage of laws forced upon Americans by the black robe activists in the courts. Judges have mishandled the 14th amendment, by allowing every expectant Mother who lies of their intention to enter our country, whether as a tourist, student or here on a business venture. These fetus carrying females are fully aware that if they can get a foot on to our soil, whatever the reason they have immediate access to free--FREE HEALTH TREATMENTS, WHICH TAXPAYERS HAVE TO PAY. THEN THE CHILD GROWS UP AND BILLIONS OF MORE DOLLARS ARE APPROPRIATED BY THE IRS, TO PAY FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL PARENTS.
This is unerringly the same circumstances on the U.S. Border, that a woman with a child can get free medical care. But for Americans--forget it, you will be hunted forever for unpaid bills, unless you are under the poverty level. But the 20 million, perhaps even 25 million already existing here, don't pay a penny. All the time I hear that these people who slip past agents at the border, or managed to deceive trained inspectors at other ports of entry, including airline arrivals. They get immediate assistance from the welfare departments as they are well versed in law and where to procure forged ID’s.
H.R.140, titled the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, was introduced on Jan 5. 2011, by Rep. Steve King a Republican of Iowa.. As of last month, the bill had 80 co-sponsors. While its companion bill S.723 was read twice in the Senate and referred to the Committee. On April 2011, H.R.140 was referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement; January 24, 2011 where it gather Congressional dust without further action. The bill does not need amendment of the Constitution but rather Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act is to explain those classes of individuals born in the United States who are considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. THIS ISSUE NEEDS THE URGENT PRO-ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, PATRIOTIC AMERICAN ATTENTION, AS THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST COSTLY EXPENSES BORN BY TAXPAYERS. The Birthright Citizenship Act amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.
IN AMENDING THIS CONTROVERSIAL LAW, IT WILL SAVE U.S. TAXPAYERS A GOOD PART OF THE $113 BILLION + OUTLAY OF THE US GOVERNMENT. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT AROUND 500.000 ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO ARE NOT APPREHENDED AND THEN DISAPPEAR INTO THE COUNTRY ANNUALLY.
Lamar Smith's (R-TX) ‘THE LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT' is also a zero-tolerance bill, that if past can outlaw illegal aliens from the workplace. Businesses that are violation of the law will be audited and the owners harshly fined and even sent to prison. It is better recognized by hundreds of thousands of candid companies that E-Verify will red flag illegal aliens, opening payroll jobs for lawful residents and the citizenry. E-Verify is a progressive disincentive that is being continuously upgraded by the Homeland Security and ICE. Just like H.R.140, titled the Birthright Citizenship Act, E-Verify ‘THE LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT', H.R. 2885, is a innovation to stop this travesty of our immigration laws?
Today with the failure of the numerous administrations to construct the real 2006 Secure fence, consisting of two fences with a wide expanse in between for the movement of rapid interdiction of Drug, weapons and the massive influx of illegal migrants. What is already been built is still incomplete and droves of illegal aliens cross, including terrorist who are impersonating Mexican individuals. Neither the 1986 Immigration nor its 1974 version of these laws after enactment were enforced. The 1986 Immigration reform and Control Act was rife with fraud, and both laws have been neglected and abused. One huge lie played on the US taxpayer by politicians, who sold their souls to the huge abhorrent special interest lobbyists and open border radical entities.
Currently it needs serious action by all patriotic Americans. This can be done by the voter contacting Washington 202-224-3121 and giving your name, address to the political aid and insisting your representative in the Senate-House uphold the law and co-sponsor both laws. More and more legislators are moving to co-sponsor both laws, to begin enforcement by Attrition, or self deportation, as jobs being commandeered by illegal aliens are returned to the rightful American workers. The website of NumbersUSA can be Google’d, where you can send free faxes and read in detail about the corruption at the highest levels of federal and state government.
Right now, a bunch of polling firms and news media have used this as a chance to do polls that manipulate questions in a way to seem to show that most Americans want most illegal aliens to stay, showing that pro-amnesty doesn't hurt a candidate and causing rumblings through Congress that maybe it does make sense to reconsider amnesty over the next couple of years, after all. The pollsters are doing this with the Big Trick of never offering voters an option of Attrition through Enforcement (forcing them to choose either mass deportations or mass legalization).
In short, Mr. Gingrich has revived the whole national debate on amnesty which had been essentially dead after you/we defeated the DREAM amnesty last December. Any chance for amnesty votes was essentially dead until Gingrich revived the idea. Whatever you may think of presidential candidate Newt Gingrich or his recently announced legalization plan, the fact that he has broken the 4-year Republican taboo against amnesty has unleashed pro-amnesty efforts everywhere. Any mass amnesty will ignite CHAIN MIGRATION that will be more billions of dollars, taken from your taxes. Gingrich amnesty calculated by ‘The Heritage Foundation’ could cost us $2.3 Trillion dollars, that is not including CHAIN MIGRATION of following family members and further attracting even million more to these shores or through borders—adding even more—POVERTY-- to American low income bread lines we have now. This is Dire Poverty unseen since the Great Depression of 1929? This country is broke, from corruption, attributed to both political parties and we are facing a upward spike in the 15 Trillion dollars we have already.
The pollsters have a single "Big deception" that skews all the results:
The polls don't give voters the option of Attrition through Enforcement.
Instead, they make voters basically choose between mass deportations or mass legalization. In the case of a National Journal poll just released, voters were given a third choice of half-mass deportations and half-mass legalizations (which is essentially the Gingrich Amnesty).
But nowhere do voters hear that there is an “ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT” such as the E-Verify option that doesn't involve mass deportations or mass legalization. What Attrition does do is:
• Quickly (over a couple of years) moves illegal aliens out of their payroll jobs.
• Quickly takes away taxpayer-provided benefits
• Gradually over perhaps 10 year period, will cause illegal aliens to go home.
• The Tens of Millions of TEA PARTY members should not fall for this clever ruse.
Attn: Keep an eye on Democrats as they are intentionally pushing non-citizens to vote in all coming register and immediately vote, using groups like the fraudulent canvassing of the ACORN group, that’s reappeared under another name. Additionally the Left is introducing legislation, so you don't even need a picture ID; this to me is as close to fraud as you can get? Already there has been instances of Voter Fraud, including an Indiana forged signatures registration for Obama before he became president, that is being investigated currently.
In conclusion, insist that Obama and his cronies expedite the ‘Keystone’ pipeline, as it will bring cheap oil into America and less need of petroleum from unfriendly countries. Its installation from Canada to Texas will require the hiring of 20.000 US Workers. Unless the present administration gets its finger out, our Northern neighbor will quite possibly sell this commodity to Communist China. Use the phone number above and tell the Democrats in Washington to do something for Americans.
Masterrogue666 posted at 3:33 pm on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
"the law places an undue burden on those who are in the country legally." because "there are some people in this country who are not citizens but are not required to have visas" -- I'd like to know whom these NON CITIZENS are. Also, I'm quite sure that they have other means to identify themselves. So, in truth, there is no burden.
Also: "She also said the state cannot make it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work in this state." -- WRONG. NEW LAWS are made, that is the nature of our system of government.. So SB1070 CAN BE MADE IS LAW, since it went through the PROPER PROCEDURE to become one
Bolton is nothing more than another PRO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT (or INVADING FOREIGN NATIONAL). The only difference is that she's a judge, and IMHO, not a very good one.....
samkat posted at 8:56 pm on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
There is another way the state can start addressing the problem. We have the authority to tax and since employers are required to collect taxes from every employee as well as workers comp payments that are required to be submitted to ADOR, we can put together a task force to start auditing employers. Audits can be random or specific if there are reasons to audit a specific employer. This eliminates any complaints from the pro illegal organizations.
If the audit should note irregularities, Social Security numbers can be verified and if the employee is found to have fraudulent social security numbers or stolen identity, they can then be prosecuted for tax fraud/evasion. Once convicted of a felony, ICE will have no choice but to start deportation proceedings even if they turn the loose again. If the state is smart, they can give them probation and if the feds turn them loose, it is easy enough to give them some jail time which then forces the feds to revisit their deportation status.
The employer if found to have knowingly hired them can be prosecuted as well.
Where we can hit real pay dirt is to have unmarked vehicles follow gypsy employers to the work site and allow the workers to begin work. The auditor can then nail the employer for tax evasion and the employees can legally be asked for identity and social security numbers. Since they have been caught working without documentation and if their Social Security numbers are bogus or if they have non, then they can be charged and prosecuted for failure to submit required state documents to DOR.
The beauty of this tactic is that the state is within its authority to collect taxes and prosecute anyone not complying.
joelwisch2 posted at 11:46 pm on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
Another section of SB 1070 makes it illegal for anyone who is a citizen of another country to not have federally required documents. That section, in essence, would allow the state to arrest and hold illegal immigrants for violating Arizona law
--------------------------------------------------------------
I would really, really like to see the reasoning on all of this, but basically, the law is a Federal Law, and as is the case in all of this code of conduct for Arizona Police, it instructs law enforcement on what to do if the Federal Law is not complied with.
It is NOT an Arizona Immigration Law.. it IS a Federal Law and the very second the Federal Government begins to enforce that law, the Arizona Code of conduct for law enforcement, which everyone calls an Arizona Law, will be put aside.
The Supreme Court is going to take it.. and they will find for Arizona.
Accuracy posted at 9:09 pm on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
If the U.S. Supreme Court votes to hear the Arizona illegal immigration case, it will determine whether an injunction by a federal judge against certain provisions of the Arizona law should remain in place or be lifted.
If the high court does not turn down Arizona's appeal, it will evaluate the tougher enforcement laws which are strongly opposed by illegal aliens and many Latinos, and evaluate disputes between the states and the federal government.
TeaPartyPatriot posted at 12:51 pm on Mon, Dec 12, 2011.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on Arizona’s controversial law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for an election-year decision on an issue that is already shaping presidential politics.
The justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several tough provisions in the Arizona law. One of those requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person’s immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally.
The Obama administration challenged the Arizona law by arguing that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states. Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah also are facing administration lawsuits. Private groups are suing over immigration measures adopted in Georgia and Indiana.
The court now has three politically charged cases on its election-year calendar. The other two are President Barack Obama‘s health care overhaul and new electoral maps for Texas’ legislature and congressional delegation.
Justice Elena Kagan will not take part in the Arizona case, presumably because of her work on the issue when she served in the Justice Department.
quietgardens posted at 1:24 pm on Mon, Dec 12, 2011.
We have to have identification on us (US citizens) at all times. Why shouldn't illegals?
Our budget is overspent. There is no such thing as "free services". Someone has to pay for them. As a taxpayer, I am tired of paying for people who don't contribute (fully) to the system. Come here through the front door. Do the honorable thing.
Daddyburger posted at 10:01 am on Mon, Dec 26, 2011.
Randy P.
Oh please, I am begging you. Run for Maricopa County Sheriff against Joe. It would be the largest margin of victory for an incumbent in the history of the state. You got the mouth for it, now you just need the guts!