AZ Immigration Law Partially Struck Down, But Section 2B Stands for Now
The US Supreme Court today struck down most of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law, but upheld section 2B, which allows police to check an arrestee’s immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that that person is in the country illegally. The other sections struck down were found to be trumped by already existing federal law. Here is the court’s opinion.
As for section 2B of the law, the Supreme Court handed it back to the 9th Circuit, which had struck that provision down. Writing in dissent, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia would have upheld Arizona’s law entirely. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion.
The Arizona ruling was today’s last ruling, so we’ll have to wait for the ObamaCare ruling on Thursday.
More: Today’s decision leaves the most controversial provision of SB 1070 in place, which is the section empowering local police to inquire about immigration status. That is the section that other Georgia and Alabama and other states have emulated in their immigration laws. The sections struck down had to do with banning illegal aliens from seeking work, mandating immigrants to carry their visas with them at all times, and penalizing employers of illegal aliens. The court ruled that existing federal laws already deal with those issues. The vote to uphold Section 2B was 8-0 with Kagan recusing herself.
Related: Gallup: Registered Hispanic Voters Put Other Issues Ahead of Immigration Policy
Could use a little more coverage, for us duffers what *is* the rest of the law?
State made registration necessary, … glancing at the opinion, it stinks. Discussion says where feds have no law, states may legislate. It then says that the feds having no law was their choice, so states may NOT legislate. ARE THEY KIDDING?
SCOTUS is obsolete. Too many of the judges are senile. They are protecting the interest of the government against the people, even of the federal government against the states. They are grossly misintepreting both the content of the Constitution and jurisprudence most generally. It is absurd.
Here’s the gist of their ruling:
Constitution Article I, Section 8: “Congress shall have Power …To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”
Constitution Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
To the extent that the Arizona law created new immigration policies that Congress did not authorize, it’s unconstitutional under these two provisions of the Constitution.
AFAIK, Congress never passed any law that bans an illegal alien from seeking employment. Therefore, no state can do so either.
OTOH, Arizona’s checking a suspect’s immigration status is consistent with the Federal Government’s own policy. Therefore, that passed the Supreme Court’s muster.
The bit I struggle with is the distinction between immigration (can you come/stay here?) and naturalization (what do you have to do to be a citizen?).
No question, naturalization is an enumerated power, but the Constitution is silent on immigration (outside of, if I recall, some provisions dealing mostly with importing slaves).
SCOTUS apparently decided that this distinction doesn’t matter, and that Congress also has an implied enumerated power (yes, that is an oxymoron) over immigration as well.
I’m not a constitutional expert–but given that we have a two century long tradition of implied as well as express powers, then it seems logical to me that if naturalization is expressly provided for, and foreign policy is expressly provided for, than immigration policy is an implied power of the naturalization and foreign policy powers.
After all, naturalization involves defining who citizens of other countries are; and deportation of illegal aliens requires the cooperation of their host countries; these are all part of foreign policy. (If we’re going to deport millions of illegal aliens to Mexico, we had better negotiate with Mexico first.)
I’m not a constitutional expert–
No kidding? And you you keep pretending to know what you’re talking about.
given that we have a two century long tradition of implied as well as express powers, then it seems logical to me that if naturalization is expressly provided for, and foreign policy is expressly provided for, than immigration policy is an implied power of the naturalization and foreign policy powers.
That’s the sort of thinking which says “We have a commerce clause, right? So it must be a federal power to mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance!”
But this is an immigration issue, yes?
Not a naturalization issue.
So my understanding is that the authority to determine immigration requirements rests with each state.
Didn’t several different east coast states have different immigration restrictions during the Euro-influx of late 1890′s-1920′s?
So why didn’t the S.C. read the Constitution and rule that the federal government has no say in Arizona’s immigration policy?
“Congress shall have Power …To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”
Nobody is stopping Congress from establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. Congress has the power to say that “All illegals are now US Citizens”, if it wants to.
Congress does NOT have the power to defy the laws which it itself has passed. Congress does not have the power to compel the states, or us as individuals, to treat illegals as legals. If it desires that goal (and it clearly does) then it should go ahead and “naturalize” those illegals. And pay the political price for doing so.
Josh — this may satisfy your need for the relevant quotes in dissent.
The discussion goes beyong whether the Feds can pre-empt a State where there is no Fed law to start with. It goes to the argument that even in the case of existing federal law, the Executive can dictate policy to ignore that law & it still trumps the State. An Executive policy is more powerful than law? Talk about an Imperial Presidency.
http://plbirnamwood.blogspot.com/2012/06/supreme-court-rules-on-arizona.html
It IS absurd, piecemealing everything into utter confusion.
So WHAT if the Feds “already have a law”. They’re NOT enforcing their law, thus making it a joke.
I’m sure the Obamacare decision will be equally piecemeal, equally confusing, equally useless.
An Préachán
The fact that the Federal Government consistently screws up foreign policy does not give a state the right to conduct its own foreign policy, does it?
The fact that Obama has turned his back on Israel on a number of occasions, does not give any state the right to sign its own mutual-assistance treaty with Israel.
States don’t have the right to take over the Federal Government’s job, even if the Federal Government is screwing it up. Go read Article VI of the Constitution.
Those are poor examples.
States don’t have the right to take over the Federal Government’s job
It is not “the Federal Governments job” to prosecute illegal immigrants.
“Associate Justice Antonin Scalia would have upheld Arizona’s law entirely…”
Of course he would have. For him, the State can never have enough power to destroy people’s lives. Yet, somehow he is a conservative hero? Another list on the reasons I became libertarian instead of Republican.
I-L-L-E-G-A-L!!!!! The last time that I studied US history I was taught that we were a REPUBLIC….which means that we are a NATION OF LAWS!!!! What don’t these foolish Supreme Court “judges” understand!!!! For anyone that argued against SB1070, I would tell them to try going to any other country outside of the United States, go to the country’s capital, stand outside the legislative building and ask for the following and tell me how that works for you:
1. free food (food stamps)
2. free housing
3. free utilities
4. no official papers necessary (i.e. no passport, no identity verification whatso ever).
5. free public education (all inclusive, 3 meals a day, free books, free school supplies, free counseling, free English lessons)
6. demand that everyone that you come in contact with speak your native language and refuse to learn the native language of that country.
7. tax exemption.
8. free pass at obeying all of the laws in that country (sell/buy as many drugs and illeagal fire arms as you want to)
9. driverse licence (no need to purchace auto insurance)
10. free public transportation
11. a guaranteed job with a guaranteed wage (or a wellfare check if you do not feel like working)
12. discounted or free college education
13. free health care
14. free medication
15. free child daycare (i.e. the public schools)
16. free birth control
THIS IS REDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!! I have worked my butt off since I was 15 years old. I am a public school teacher (and a closet conservative, registerd republican, and a devout catholic) and I see on a DAILY basis how the race, class, and illegal alen warfare is inpacting my school, parents, community, and students in a negative manner. Most of the LEGAL latino immagrants that are teachers and small business owners are VERY upset and appauled. They left EVERYTHING to come to this country LEGALLY and NEVER asked for ANY handouts!!! They EARNED EVERYTHING that they have. NO EXCUSES!!!!! I am 30 years old now and my salary, property/car taxes, etc. is going to be used to fund this INSANITY!!!!! I am paying off my student loans, my house, my car, and I have asked NO ONE to pay for those things!!! When you are an adult and you borrow money, you pay it back…PERIOD!! I only have 1 more year to go on my student loan payments and three more car payments to go. WHAT don’t these people understand!!!
I also worked and went to school full time, paying off my loans as I went. I am currently under a federal grant to get my masters degree in special education and I am paying off the loan money as I go. Half of my tution is from a grant/scholarship that I have EARNED (I have maintained a 4.0 GPA throughout my graduate school experience). Under the terms and contiditions for this grant is I am required to maintain a 3.0 GPA and work in my state for 5 consecutive years as a teacher in the special education field. I have VERY high standards set for my special needs students and I NEVER treat them as “victims.” The parents that I work with understand this. Yes I understand they have special needs, but they need to become self-reliant in a world that does not think the exact same way that their child thinks. THIS is my job. To give them the academic, critical thinking, and occupational skills to be productive citizens. The parents will not be able to “shelter” this child for the rest of his/her life.
It also angers me that everyone goes to college. What is the point of the SAT/ACT if we just let anyone in? An even then, the professors in the major college and universities use the pulpit and a medium to spout their policical/moral beliefs in a non-politically related class (Please watch the documentary Indoctrinate U on you tube and you will see what I mean). I am fortunate enough to be in a small university for my masters that does not practice this. All of my classes have been geared to teaching methods…in other words actually creating solutions rather than complaining about the issues.
This entitled youth has not made our jobs as educators any easier. We have kids raising kids and being taught (in college) by kids. I encourage any conservative who is thinking about going into education to PLEASE DO SO!!! I NEED all of the help in this fight that I can get!! There is no longer ANY respect for adults. Parents are demanding that their child is assigned to a teacher of the same race as their child. I thought segrigatiuon was OVER in this country!!!!
Sorry that I am ranting, but I NEEDED to get all of this out. I am praying that ObamaCare is struck down and that those Fast and Furious Documents come out. If these crybaby libreals could only see the genoside (of a “minority race” that is occuring in Mexico thanks to our powerhungry federal government, I think they would think twice before allowing the federal government to become their mommy and daddy.
“driverse licence” [should be "driver's licence"]
“REDICULOUS” [should be "ridiculous"]
“registerd republican” [should be "registered Republican"]
“illegal alen warfare” [should be "illegal alien warfare"]
“inpacting my school” [should be "impacting my school"]
“immagrants” [should be "immigrants"]
“policical/moral beliefs” [should be "political/moral beliefs"]
“segrigatiuon” [should be "segregation"]
“libreals” [should be "liberals"]
“genoside” [should be "genocide"]
While the points you make are important and passionately-stated, it’s hard to take you seriously as a college graduate with spelling like that….
You are correct on what you said. Unfortunately, I hit the submit comment button by mistake before I had the chance to correct my typos. I usually write something and then go back and proofread my work. I will be much more carefull next time. But thank you for pointing this out and have a great day. Thank you again for reading my post.
R, I read your post too. Surely Snarky is kidding! It is obvious you are articulate and passionate about our Nation. I enjoyed the post, and was particularly struck by your urging ‘other conservatives to go into teaching’. You need the help….well, the Nation needs the help. Thank you for your post, and thank you for standing up. I agree with most of your points, and am frankly not happy with this SCOTUS opinion. Our Federal Government in NOT doing the job on a border that is not secure. I find it outrageous that OUR Federal Government is not suspending their cooperation with Arizona in apprehending illegals, unless they are felons (as I appreciate it). November cannot come fast and furiously enough for me, so that we can rid ourselves of an incompetent and ideologically driven POTUS, and corrupt AG.
Thank you for what you do with children, your job is of utmost importance, I appreciate your effort and passion. Semper Fi.
Really, where did you get your information?? A viral email?
Because you have no flippin’ idea what you are talking about when you say immigrants (legal OR illegal) get things like free public transportation, don’t have to get a driver’s license or car insurance if they want to drive, and free utilities.
See, I am married to a legal immigrant who just passed his citizenship test. He has been here in America for 8 years, and a green card holder for 5 years. We are waiting to get notice of his official naturalization ceremony (sometime in the next 60 days).
He’s been PAYING for all of those things that you mention, and, in all likelihood, YOUR salary through the taxes coming out of his paychecks (no guaranteed income, and he had to go persuade his employers to hire him without help from Uncle Sam.) In fact, he still has a few more quarters to go before he can get Social Security benefits, and I am still legally bound for two more years to reimburse the government should he apply for welfare benefits (as his sponsor, I had to promise to do that for ten years, even if we split up). So much for ridin’ that benefits gravy train, eh?
I can’t think of a better example of why I refuse to enroll our kids in public schools. If you can’t get your facts straight about immigration, what other errors are you cramming down your students’ throats on a daily basis?
you have no flippin’ idea what you are talking about when you say immigrants (legal OR illegal) get things like free public transportation, don’t have to get a driver’s license or car insurance if they want to drive, and free utilities.
Illegal immigrants do not have to get a drivers license or car insurance in order to drive. Strictly speaking, nobody needs to do these things in order to drive. But if a person who is illegally in this country gets caught doing these things, the law allows them to get away with it.
Nice try. But not quite.
The legislators have dictated to the cops that they will issue only a traffic ticket in most cases, and as long as the illegal promises to show up for their court date, he/she gets to walk once they sign the ticket.
We all know how well THAT works.
Except, of course, your average legislator.
“and penalizing employers of illegal aliens. The court ruled that existing federal laws already deal with those issues.”
This means state-level hate crimes laws are not proper either if Federal laws exist, yes?
the difference would be (according to the decision) that Congress has expressed intent to make immigration the exclusive purview of the Federal government, whereas they have not demonstrated that intent for hate crimes.
The problem is that the idea of a domain that the Federal Government may exercise is just too vague. No actual state law can exist because of what the Federal Government might decide to do.
A potential conflict is not a conflict.
This is a case of “Live by the sword, die by the sword.”
We conservatives rightly revere the Constitution and the thought that went into it.
But when the Constitution requires something that we might regard as bad policy, we have to go with the Constitution. We can’t start acting like liberals and start bending and twisting the meaning of the Constitution into a policy we would like better.
I also want a strong policy to stop this flood of illegal aliens. But it has to be constitutional. And the Constitution is clear: If you want to change immigration policy, you have to do it at the Federal level, not state by state.
the Constitution is clear: If you want to change immigration policy, you have to do it at the Federal level, not state by state.
Which Constitution are you talking about? The US Constitution says nothing of the sort. I defy you to cite the “clear” text of the constitution which states that immigration policy is the sole provenance of the federal government.
We can’t start acting like liberals and start bending and twisting the meaning of the Constitution into a policy we would like better.
Then stop doing that.
In simple terms, this seems to be a good ruling. It says that just because the federal government does not do its job, the states can not become surrogate feds. We have too many laws which are applicative because some pol got elected, by sticking it to another faction. The ruling delineates federal and state authorities. It also says that the local police can investigate the immigration status of a person based on probable cause. This is huge, because it is reasonable to expect tons of arrests and transfers to a Homeland Security Department which will become the butt of late night jokes about an inept bureaucracy. This was the big fight. Abu Ghraib became infamous for the same reason, inept, dysfunctional management.
It is not over. We face years of racial profiling law suits, e.g. Yeah he is illegal but you had no right to stop and ask him.
It is now blatantly obvious that other nations, primarily Mexico, illegal immigrants, illegal employers, the federal government and many in Congress, really do not want a solution. Like hogs they prefer to wallow in this fetid mess. But fat hogs get slaughtered, normally in early November.
The squealing begins.
this decision is horrible for state soverignty and our federal system. The federal government has unlimited power and I bet this ruling which expands federal power is a leading indicator of their position on healthcare. My bet now is that they will uphold this piece of crap Obama care law. In which case we will need a massive turnout in Novemer and elect people who will rip this law out of our midst by the roots. Secondly put a president in who will elect new justices to restore some sanity to the supremes who are becoming an embarassment with this politicized decision.
Does this set the stage for the S.C. severing the individual mandate but letting the rest of obamacare stand?
I sure hope not. Legislation is either Constitutional or not. You can point to different parts to support your ruling of Constitutional or not, but by severing one part of the legislation and letting the new altered legislation stand you are now creating new legislation.
Wrong branch of the federal government for that.
Of course, the S.C. should have read the Constitution and declare the federal government has no say in Arizona’s immigration laws, but they didn’t.
OBAMA’S NIGHTMARE MONTH
The worst month of Barack Obama’s collapsing presidency has just gotten worse with the Supreme Court upholding on an 8-0 vote the “stop and check (paper please)” requirement of SB 1070-the most hated so-called “anti-immigrant” provision of the bill. With five days left in June what new defeats and setbacks await the leftist loser in chief?
Im wondering about the striking down of the Arizona requirement that foreign nationals carry official documentation of their status (visas/passports) at all times. That is in line with the Federal law….so there should be no conflict.
Dear Lili:
” and I am still legally bound for two more years to reimburse the government should he apply for welfare benefits (as his sponsor, I had to promise to do that for ten years, even if we split up). So much for ridin’ that benefits gravy train, eh?”
Oh do please explain how the enforcement mechanism works on that “legally bound” promise you made?
I’ll wait…
What’s that, I-864′s have no way to be enforced?!
That’s what I thought. Save you sanctimony for a different issue please.
Cordially,
KDD
Cupcake, I don’t think the courts agree with your interpretation of the law. Just sayin’. Here’s how it is enforceable, and how it has been enforced in the past.
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/c0d731e03de9828d852574580042ae7a/2cbe6a52e76636f28525763b00661a63!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,*
Last two sentences in the conclusion…..”Sponsors may be liable not only to the intending immigrant but also to third parties who seek reimbursement. Moreover, the sponsor’s obligations may not be altered by an agreement between the sponsor and the immigrant.”
I do admit that I made an error when I stated it would be in effect for 10 years, no matter what. Once my husband is officially naturalized, he racks up 40 quarters worth of work credit, or he leaves the US, my obligation is over.
But yeah….it is enforceable.
(BTW, I don’t want my order supersized, and I want a damn Diet Coke instead of the Sprite this time. Thanks.)
This is disgusting, more judicial activism run amok. Everyone knows that illegals aliens caused the mess we are in today and as soon as we get rid of all of them, all our problems will be solved. It will be “Morning in America” again, with good Americans picking our crops, cutting our lawns, and cleaning our bathrooms. God bless and go forward!
Dear Lili:
Nice try. No Diet Coke for you! The case you cited refers to enforcement of the I-864 against a spouse in divroce proceedings….and, ummm…I believe you were implying above (oh so sanctimoniously) that there was a mechanism in place at the federal level that you could recover any welfare benefits paid to an immigrant who was previously sponsored on an affidavit of support. Wasn’t that your point dear Lili?
Still waiting to hear how this magical enforcement works. I’ll save you the trouble and concede that it appears to have the power do so on paper, but as one who administers such paperwork on a daily basis, it just ain’t so! Since state welfare offices have no way to check to see if beneficiaries even have an affidavit of support, there is no way it can be, and if fact, it isn’t, enforced.
Point, set, match!
Sprite tatstes good!
Cordially,
KDD
“I believe you were implying above (oh so sanctimoniously) that there was a mechanism in place at the federal level that you could recover any welfare benefits paid to an immigrant who was previously sponsored on an affidavit of support…..Since state welfare offices have no way to check to see if beneficiaries even have an affidavit of support, there is no way it can be, and if fact, it isn’t, enforced.”
Please note, paragraph (a)(1) applies to agencies seeking reimbursement from a sponsor for means-tested benefits. It spells out the specific steps needed to lawfully obtain reimbursement by agencies….like, yours.
Paragraph (a)(3) illustrates how USCIS and/or DHS can assist an agency in determining whether or not a I-864 exists and is currently enforceable. The information can be accessed via subpoena or through the SAVE Program (which does not require a subpoena).
I understand why you may be unfamiliar with this process, KDD. It has only been in effect in its current form since approximately 1997 or so. Ok, parts got amended in 2006, but the basic procedure dates back to around then.
http://tinyurl.com/uscis-i-864-enforcement
Get my Diet Coke, please. And leave out the lemon, heaven knows how long THAT thing has been lying around…..
Cordially,
Lili
Dear Lili:
You’re the best! Full disclosure, 10 years with USCIS. (I think you assumed I worked for a state welfare agency…no, just a federal one, heh, inside joke.)
Oh, we can ASSIST a state welfare agency with determining if an affidavit of support exists? Yeah, that sounds great. I’ll send you a note WITH your Diet Coke (no lemon!) when that happens. Sigh…but its been 10 years and no calls yet. Hard to believe..but true. OK, sarcasm off. The point of yours I have been laboring to refute is whether in fact, and I mean in actual practice, not just on paper, there is any enforcement of the I-864 by state welfare agencies seeking to recoup benefits paid when the sponsor is supposed to be supporting the sponsored alien and they apply for, and receive state welfare benefits in violation of that contract. IT DOESN’T HAPPEN. Wish it were otherwise so that your sanctimony could be justified, I really do.
I’m not trying to be snotty, just puttin’ you some knowledge about the real world, not what’s on paper.
WE can debate all day about WHY it doesn’t happen…but it just doesn’t. Maybe the question is, what’s the motivation to do so? Can you imagine some overworked, underpaid state welfare worker really going through the trouble? Neither can I. (I actually think we would respond if we ever WERE contacted, cuz its just that frustrating to see it happen when the alien comes in for his/her natz interview and lo and behold, they are on welfare!) In fact, many times they even have the filing fee for the N-400 waived BECAUSE they are on state assistance! Truth is stranger than fiction, I know!
So, your point is taken and conceded, FWIW, at least as to paper. You are determined, I’ll give you that. But experience trumps paper knowledge any day and twice on Sunday. You are welcome to spread the word that if aliens take benefits when they shouldn’t, as they are being sponsored with an affidavit of support, a mechanism exists on paper for the state to recoup that money. As I cautioned you, just don’t get too sanctimonious about it because it ain’t happening in the real world. That’s it. Point made. I do applaud you and your hubby for going through the process the right way and your obvious diligence in abiding by the law. Congrats to your hubby at his natz ceremony!
Now, I need a Sprite.
Cordially,
KDD
Dear KDD,
Thanks for the kind words regarding my hubby’s citizenship saga. Glad it’s almost over, no offense intended. Trying to keep all our ducks in a row has been frustrating and annoying at times, but it’s been worth it.
But….full disclosure works both ways. (9 years with a large law enforcement agency in Arizona, 1 year with the State in a social service capacity.) I’m not surprised at all that you have never gotten a call about benefits and reimbursement.
Honestly, we’d get a metric ton from some politically minded weasel higher up the food chain if we tried something like that on a regular basis. Maybe you could get away with it once. So the question becomes….when is it worth months of irritation and possible career suicide to give USCIS a call for something short of a major felony?
You certainly don’t want to piss off the assistant chief with an illegal alien girlfriend on the side. (He was kinda sensitive about immigration issues, especially after his honey got busted for trying to smuggle her brothers across the border. Perhaps you had the pleasure of meeting him after he attempted to, shall we say, lodge his own investigation into ICE’s procedures? Sure hope not.) If a badly made “consular ID” was good enough for him to prove someone had the right to be here, it was certainly good enough for the underlings.
Probably not a good idea to annoy someone with big hopes and dreams for a Cabinet position, either. Last thing they would want to have come up during a confirmation hearing is “why were your employees so racist?” because we dared to ask for ID. Bad optics on the telly, you know. Better to just inform the underlings that you are NOT to ask for proof of legal residency under ANY circumstance. It’s racial profiling, and that is NOT allowed.
Don’t think for a minute that we didn’t know what the laws are, or that we didn’t know your phone number. We were just waiting for the right irritant to make the prospective torrent from above worthwhile. You still might get that call. Don’t lose hope. Some short-timer could decide that today’s the day!
Enjoy your Sprite. (I actually prefer Diet Dr Pepper.
)
Take care out there and be safe.
Most cordially,
Lili
Dear Lili:
Shhhhh! Don’t go telling secrets on the internets. Well, since we put ourselves out there this far, I will say I couldn’t have summed it up any better from our side. You’ve nailed it. Don’t we live in interesting times?
The stories we could tell.
Diet Dr. Pepper it is!
Thanks for the kind words, all the best to you and your hubby as well.
See ya around the message boards,
Take care,
KDD
I’ve been wondering if the ruling means that local authorities are not supposed to enforce kidnapping, counterfeiting and bank robbery laws. What was Elliott Spitzer doing enforcing financial regulations?
So maybe the answer is that citizenship is in the Constitution. So is the 2nd Amendment. Does that mean that States can have NO gun laws?
The States created the Federal Government. Perhaps it’s time for the States to re-assert their authority.