PHOENIX -- Arizona will get its last legal shot this spring to finally enforce all of its 2-year-old immigration law.
On Friday the U.S. Supreme Court set April 25 to hear arguments by attorneys for the state that everything in SB 1070 is both legal and within the state's power to enact. That contention already has been rebuffed twice, once by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton who blocked the state from implementing key provisions of the 2010 law and then by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
It likely will be months before the justices actually rule. But whatever they decide will have nationwide implications, as several states already have copied and enacted similar laws.
Hanging in the balance are several sections of the statute, including:
- Requiring a police officer to make a reasonable attempt to check the immigration status of those they have stopped;
- Forbidding police from releasing anyone they have arrested until that person's immigration status is determined;
- Making it a violation of Arizona law for anyone not a citizen to fail to carry federally issued documentation;
- Allowing police to make warrantless arrests if there is a belief the person has committed an offense that allows them to be removed from the United States;
- Creating a new state crime of trying to secure work while not a legal resident.
In blocking those provisions, the lower court judges agreed with arguments by the Obama administration, which sued to overturn the law, that the state was illegally intruding into areas reserved for the federal government. Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general hired by Gov. Jan Brewer to argue the case, now has the job of convincing at least five justices that is not true.
He contends that all the state is doing is working in cooperation with federal officials to enforce federal law. And Clement said the earlier rulings are based on what he said is an erroneous presumption that states can get involved in immigration enforcement efforts only when the federal government gives specific permission.
"States, unlike federal agencies, are not creatures of the federal Congress and do not depend on federal statutes for authorization,'' he wrote.
Gubernatorial press aide Matthew Benson said his boss is optimistic that the majority of the court will see things that way.
"This is an opportunity for the state to finally get before the highest court in the land and make its argument for why the state of Arizona has a right and an obligation to enforce immigration law, together with the federal government, and defend our citizens,'' he said.
That citizen defense argument is also part of what Clement is hoping sways the high court.
In prior filings, he told the justices Arizona is being harmed by the fact there are about 400,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, with 230,000 of them holding jobs in the state, amounting to 7.4 percent of the total workforce. And more than 17 percent of those locked up in state prisons, at state expense, are in this country illegally.
"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,'' he wrote. He said it was against that backdrop that lawmakers approved and Brewer signed SB 1070.
"The injunction against SB 1070 leaves Arizona and its people to suffer from a serious problem without any realistic legal tools for addressing it," Clement wrote.
Only eight of the justices will be hearing the arguments.
Elena Kagan has recused herself because of her former role as solicitor general in the Obama administration. That means a 4-4 tie would leave intact both Bolton's ruling and the 9th Circuit decision upholding it.
Bolton's ruling did not affect several other sections of SB 1070 which did take effect. But other challenges remain.
For example, one provision makes it a crime to stop a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers, and for day laborers to get into a vehicle if it impedes the normal flow of traffic. When Bolton issued her ruling in 2010, the 9th Circuit had upheld a similar law from California.
Since that time, however, the appellate court reversed its stance and declared that ordinance illegal. That has led to efforts by others who are challenging the law to get Bolton to take a second look.
Accuracy posted at 6:00 pm on Fri, Feb 3, 2012.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s action to rule and decide on the Arizona’s SB 1070 law, that puts “illegal immigration” law enforcement in the hands of state police, will likely be decided at the end of the term in late June, just in time to impact the November election.
Arizona took action to protect its citizens, and the Obama Justice Department sued them for it. And the Supreme Court rules will affect "illegal immigration" laws in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Utah.
Brittanicus posted at 6:43 pm on Fri, Feb 3, 2012.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?
Nevada--has the same problems as the Sanctuary state of California, Arizona that has been overwhelmed by poverty from the large influx of illegal aliens. The only difference is the legislators in California and Nevada disregard their resident’s pleas for help and still pander to foreign nationals. That's why all Governors, Mayors and every official, who supports this never ending plague must be removed from office. Every person who wants the 2006 real double fence, The Legal Workforce bill, recognized as E-Verify and The Citizenship Birthright Act amended should join the Tea Party or other strong advocates on this matter. Illegal immigration costs California $10.5 Billion annually, with Nevada annual fiscal burden of immigration to be approximately $630 million as according to the Heritage Foundation. Powerful interests in the state garner the benefits, while the average legal California family gets handed over nearly $1,200 annually. So what’s the real cost in Alabama, Georgia, Utah, South Carolina or any of the other 43 States?
Fortunately it just goes to show that legal immigrants especially generations of Hispanics are against illegal immigration and are for enforcement, by their positive vote in Florida for Mitt Romney. They too are suffering from the indignation as being blamed from the 500.000 that illegally enters America. Of course Nevada has its own set of problems, for it also has been flooded with illegal aliens. They have infiltrated the service industry, entertainment and worse hit of all—construction. Taking jobs from bonefide US citizens and legal residents, who were rejected as Contractors and sub-contractors could make more money from discount labor. They didn’t have to offer benefits to foreigners, who swarmed into Nevada during the height of the real estate boom. Other then Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, Gingrich and Paul cannot be trusted with their promises to the foreign nationals, as they are against the fence and are calling with a Path to legality--that is not what the general public want?
In one of the latest polls State of Maine voters were asked about their views on legal immigration. A substantial majority of respondents, 59 percent, judge that overall levels "are too high and should be reduced," while only 6 percent believe immigration should be increased.
Among the key findings of the poll:
65% believe that illegal immigration negatively affects Maine.
78% oppose in-state tuition subsidies and/or admission of illegal aliens to public universities.
65% support state involvement in immigration enforcement, similar to policies enacted in Arizona and other states.
43% believe illegal immigrants take jobs from American workers, while only 32% believe they fill jobs Americans will not do.
59% support reducing overall immigration to the U.S., while only 6% support increasing immigration.
I'm thinking we should take a leaf out of the British Islands immigration book, that makes a lot of sense:
Immigration Minister Damian Green has outlined the principles behind the Government's new ''selective'' immigration policy that will give preferential treatment to investors, entrepreneurs and world-class artists, dancers, musicians and academics.The Minister said, “We want people who can benefit Britain, not just benefit from Britain?
In California and Nevada millions of jobs that should be in the hands of citizens, instead have been stolen by people from across the globe. Huge amounts of expenditures have been growing, because of careless use of Taxpayers’ dollars by politicians. Specific to Border States is the spiraling high cost of millions of illegal aliens pouring in, demanding equal rights to US citizens. 22 million Americans are out of work and President Obama has passed executive orders, so hundreds of thousands of unlawful migrants and immigrants without a criminal record can stay here. Farmers want the cheap labor, as they remain exempt for paying their medical issues or even their children's schooling. Many farmers even charge their workers rent for the room and board they live in on the property, which is illegal. The Guest Worker programs are a subject of fraud by the agricultural community, specifically by recruiters who represent the farmers. These people are often hired thinking they are going to award a Green Card, but are eventually told this is temporarily employment?
Democrats will look the other way in all elections, as illegal aliens are voting and will again through 2012. These are two unfunded mandates that the US government pays nothing towards, and state compliance laws is mandatory and forced upon Americans by the courts. The low estimate for paying for all these unfunded mandates annually is $113 billion dollars. Except to stay here, you have to have food, medical care and for their children and education. Staying here it means you have to commit a felony, as to find employment you must possess a legitimate Social Security number, unless the employer is committing an illegal act themselves. Therefore using some persons SSN is a victim of identity theft and that is a –FELONY.
As a patriotic American people we cannot afford to stop pursuing full, mandated “THE LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT” or mandated nationwide E-Verify. Without it our countries businesses will be overrun by illegal workers in every sector of industry. The circumstances have now become so critical, owing to the millions of jobless citizens, legal residents that our government needs to insist full operation of the computer based application. E-Verify is a valuable tool that has expanded to a growing number of honest businesses that have participated in the removal of foreign nationals.
There is toxicity amongst the Democrats and Republicans, who have an irrational view and are eager to destroy any immigration enforcement at our undermanned border or tourists who overstay deliberately. As it stands a path to citizenship, espoused as Immigration reform wants to legalize all those already here. Can anybody imagine if foreign countries supported their citizens that America would not be suffering the problems of foreign workers and their families crowding the emergency rooms of major cities, educating their children and feeding off the limited benefits afforded the US population? E-verify must not be undermined or thrown into the waste pit of good immigration bills?
Phone 202-224-3121 is the Washington center switchboard, to express your infuriated feelings and anguish at Senators and Representatives of both parties. Obamacare for all Americans will be inundated with illegal immigrants and will just drive more of them into our nation. They keep declaring no health care treatment for any illegal people, but unl ess the mandated federal bill such as E-Verify is operational, then how can we distinguish from the legal population and those who have broken immigration laws? Under such a Congressional law, the long trek home will begin if illegal workers cannot find a job. Those business owners who fail to comply could end up in prison or fined millions of dollars? All immigration bills need to be passed before Obama tries to pass another failed amnesty, as in 1986.
DON’T WAIT, MILLIONS HAVE NOT?
YOUR VOTE IS THE MOST INFLUENTIAL OPINION AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION? SEE
THROUGH THE LIES AT NUMBERSUSA, JUDICIALWATCH.
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:33 pm on Fri, Feb 3, 2012.
I always knew the Supreme court would have the final say.
Rational Human posted at 11:11 am on Mon, Feb 6, 2012.
Dale said there was no possibility that the Supreme Court would hear this case. How bout that Dale? Any comment from the peanut gallery Dale?
Rational Human posted at 3:44 pm on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
And the peanut gallery was silent.
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:08 pm on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
THUD! That was my jaw hitting the ground! No comment from DALE?