Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
The Supreme Court just handed down a decision in Arizona v. US. First the good news: the majority opinion, written by Kennedy upholds the controversial section 2(B), which requires police officers to verify the immigration status of people whom they stop or arrest if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person might be in the U.S. illegally.
But the bad news is that, in all other respects, it appears that the 9th Circus, I mean, Circuit was upheld, meaning that the following sections are struck down on the grounds that they are "pre-empted" by federal law:
- Section 6, which allows a police officer to arrest someone without a warrant if the officer believes that the person committed a crime that could get him deported;
- Section 3, which makes it a crime to be in Arizona without proper immigration papers; and
- Section 5, which makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek or accept employment in Arizona.
It's very unclear to me how the majority reconciles this result - I've yet to read the opinion. Justice Scalia has a strongly worded dissent (that he is now reading from the bench). Scalia would have upheld the entire Ariz. law and so I suspect that he also finds the majority's "split the baby" decision to be incoherent. I'll be back with more as soon as I've had a chance to review the decision.
PS - No decision on ObamaCare today
- Comment (66)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Eventually, states will have the power to design tourism brochures--not much else.
May '10
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
So state police may verify that a person is in the country illegally... and then politely send him on his way?
I hope this ruling isn't as dumb as it sounds.
Dec '10
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
I'm only 5 pages in and it already sounds a lot like Obama had this decision before he made his immigration fiat.
We are a nation of emotions, not laws.
Edited on June 25, 2012 at 4:57pmRe: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
They can make license plates, too.
Jun '12
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
I kinda wonder if there wasn't a little vote-trading going on... i.e. a conservative justice offering to vote with the lefties on this in exchange for a lefty justice voting with the conservatives on ObamaCare.
I'm not a SCOTUS expert so I dunno how plausible that is.
Jan '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
What's really incoherent [not as far a legislation is concerned but in what perverse incentives would be unleashed] is conservatives wanting section 5 of this 'law' -- in the first place -- and simultaneously wanting immigrants to be less of a drain on social services.
Apr '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
The whole point is to make life so unpleasant for them that they go home.
Mar '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
I just read that Roberts joined in striking down the other provisions. That does not bode well for a clean up or down vote on Obamacare. One of the things I'd read about liberal hopes for upholding the law was this notion of Roberts trying to be a moderating influence in the mushy middle. I didn't believe that, but maybe the liberals are on to something there. And that's bad news, if they're correct.
May '10
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
ConservativeWanderer: I kinda wonder if there wasn't a little vote-trading going on... i.e. a conservative justice offering to vote with the lefties on this in exchange for a lefty justice voting with the conservatives on ObamaCare.
I'm not a SCOTUS expert so I dunno how plausible that is.
That would work about as well as Republicans accepting higher taxes today for spending cuts tomorrow.
Jan '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
wmartin
The whole point is to make life so unpleasant for them that they go home. · 23 minutes ago
Is that really the way conservatives should want it?
Did Reagan have it wrong? And the inscription below the Statue of Liberty is also wrong?
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
LowcountryJoe
wmartin
The whole point is to make life so unpleasant for them that they go home. · 23 minutes ago
Is that really the way conservatives should want it?
Did Reagan have it wrong? And the inscription below the Statue of Liberty is also wrong? · 38 minutes ago
I see this as a federalism issue, not one of immigration policy. The wisdom of Arizona's approach is not on trial, but rather, it is whether Arizona has the sovereign right to pass laws that reinforce federal standards.
Jan '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Adam Freedman
LowcountryJoe
wmartin
The whole point is to make life so unpleasant for them that they go home.
Is that really the way conservatives should want it?
Did Reagan have it wrong? And the inscription below the Statue of Liberty is also wrong?
I see this as a federalism issue, not one of immigration policy. The wisdom of Arizona's approach is not on trial, but rather, it is whether Arizona has the sovereign right to pass laws that reinforce federal standards.
I get this, I really do. But please answer the question: do conservatives really want to be seen as advocating this => "The whole point is to make life so unpleasant for them that they go home."
There are two other questions I asked in there as well but you could tackle them as one...or not answer them at all. But they do loom.
Nov '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Quick combination sends GOP to canvas.
Stiff left jab: Obama's issues Dream Act order. GOP immigration stance leaves it open to these shots whenever Dems want to stick one in there. But this one really did hurt . . . . because Obama promised he wouldn't hit us with it.
Looping left hook: While demonstrating fancy foot-shuffling, Romney explains that Obama's order was such an egregious constitutional violation that he might or might not Repeal it until Replacing it with "bipartisan" legislation even more far-reaching . . . and permanent. ("Repeal and Replace" is the "Rope-a-Dope" of politics!)
Booming overhand right: John Roberts joins a 5-3 majority re-affirming that federal law regulating entry and activities of foreign persons, including federal executive scheme to execute that law, supercedes contrary state law. (You couldn't see that punch coming--because you were already asleep on your feet!)
Switching metaphors in mid-stream:
Geological: Over which cliff will demagogued convervatives follow Joe Arpaio next?
Prostitutional: For pimping itself out to the likes of Arpaio, the GOP should expect to spend a lot of time on its back.
Mixed irretrievably: Timbering slowmotion to the canvas, GOP flails comically at invisible immigration demons.
Mar '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
LowcountryJoe
Is that really the way conservatives should want it?
Did Reagan have it wrong? And the inscription below the Statue of Liberty is also wrong? · 42 minutes ago
We have generous immigration policies already, in a country with a population of over 300 million. The pioneer days are over, the country is settled and populated. Unlimited immigration would be a disaster, especially from Mexico, where we're literally attached to the mother country and immigrants don't have to assimilate. Most people have no problem with generous legal immigration. It's illegal immigration they're steamed at. Give us your tired and poor, but damnit, ask before you enter and follow the rules. Where this idea came from that violating our borders and smugly breaking our laws was somehow conservative, I don't know. Because it isn't.
Jun '12
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Douglas
LowcountryJoe
Is that really the way conservatives should want it?
Did Reagan have it wrong? And the inscription below the Statue of Liberty is also wrong? · 42 minutes ago
We have generous immigration policies already, in a country with a population of over 300 million. The pioneer days are over, the country is settled and populated. Unlimited immigration would be a disaster, especially from Mexico, where we're literally attached to the mother country and immigrants don't have to assimilate. Most people have no problem with generous legal immigration. It's illegal immigration they're steamed at. Give us your tired and poor, but damnit, ask before you enter and follow the rules. Where this idea came from that violating our borders and smugly breaking our laws was somehow conservative, I don't know. Because it isn't. · 0 minutes ago
Nail. Head.
Jan '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Douglas
LowcountryJoe
Is that really the way conservatives should want it?
Did Reagan have it wrong? And the inscription below the Statue of Liberty is also wrong? · 42 minutes ago
We have generous immigration policies already...
I don't believe this for a second. I think it's very difficult to be allowed to come here and stay here legally. We most likely differ on this.
Jan '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
ConservativeWanderer
Douglas
LowcountryJoe
Is that really the way conservatives should want it?
Did Reagan have it wrong? And the inscription below the Statue of Liberty is also wrong? · 42 minutes ago
We have generous immigration policies already, in a country with a population of over 300 million. The pioneer days are over, the country is settled and populated. Unlimited immigration would be a disaster, especially from Mexico, where we're literally attached to the mother country and immigrants don't have to assimilate. Most people have no problem with generous legal immigration. It's illegal immigration they're steamed at. Give us your tired and poor, but damnit, ask before you enter and follow the rules. Where this idea came from that violating our borders and smugly breaking our laws was somehow conservative, I don't know. Because it isn't. · 0 minutes ago
Nail. Head. · 9 minutes ago
Probably.
Nov '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
LowcountryJoe
ConservativeWanderer
Douglas
LowcountryJoe
Is that really the way conservatives should want it?
Did Reagan have it wrong? And the inscription below the Statue of Liberty is also wrong
We have generous immigration policies already, in a country with a population of over 300 million. The pioneer days are over, the country is settled and populated. Unlimited immigration would be a disaster, especially from Mexico, where we're literally attached to the mother country and immigrants don't have to assimilate. Most people have no problem with generous legal immigration. It's illegal immigration they're steamed at. Give us your tired and poor, but damnit, ask before you enter and follow the rules. Where this idea came from that violating our borders and smugly breaking our laws was somehow conservative, I don't know. Because it isn't.
Nail. Head.
Probably.
That's good. But here's a more accurate picture of our current immigration law:
Jan '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Astonishing
LowcountryJoe
ConservativeWanderer
Douglas
LowcountryJoe
Is that really the way conservatives should want it?
Did Reagan have it wrong? And the inscription below the Statue of Liberty is also wrong
We have generous immigration policies already, in a country with a population of over 300 million. The pioneer days are over, the country is settled and populated. Unlimited immigration would be a disaster, especially from Mexico, where we're literally attached to the mother country and immigrants don't have to assimilate. Most people have no problem with generous legal immigration. It's illegal immigration they're steamed at. Give us your tired and poor, but damnit, ask before you enter and follow the rules. Where this idea came from that violating our borders and smugly breaking our laws was somehow conservative, I don't know. Because it isn't.
Nail. Head.
Probably.
That's good. But here's a more accurate picture of our current immigration law: · 1 minute ago
Laugh out loud. I do believe I've lost sight of the nail. Did it find it way into the coffin -- the coffin housing LIBERTY?
Mar '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
LowcountryJoe
Laugh out loud. I do believe I've lost sight of the nail. Did it find it way into the coffin -- the coffin housing LIBERTY? · 8 minutes ago
Liberty for who? Certainly not for illegal aliens, unless there's some unlimited right for the world to come here without permission that I'm unaware of.
As for the dispute about whether we allow enough immigrants, we give over 1 million visas a year, with almost as many people being naturalized every year. You don't think that's generous?
What number would you like to see?