The headlines about the Supreme Court decision on Arizona S. B. 1070 indicate that the justices cut the bill back to its bare bones. In June 2010, Arizona passed legislation that allows law enforcement officers to inquire about immigration status when an individual is lawfully detained and suspected to be illegally present. But this week’s headlines are misleading. The law’s key provision, proof of status, remains.
Both camps, the pro-S.B. 1070 enforcement advocates and the anti-S.B. 1070 critics, claim the Court delivered them a victory.
Critics point to the Supreme Court invalidating three of the bill’s four provisions. Since President Obama ordered the Justice Department to sue Arizona, his supporters hailed the Court’s decision as a major triumph.
The emotionally charged, two year long debate about S.B. 1070 has always focused on whether the police should have the right to ask about legal presence with reasonable cause during a lawful stop. On that point, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s right in an 8-0 unanimous vote.
The three points the Supreme Court tossed were minor: 1) to make failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor, 2) to establish a misdemeanor for an illegal alien to seek or engage in work in the State and 3) to authorize state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person an officer has probable cause to believe has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
Think back two years ago. None of the rejected arguments were the focus of the nationwide screaming match between the pro and anti forces. The confrontations centered exclusively on whether S.B. 1070, called the “show me your papers” law by it opponents, would result in “racial profiling.”
The court found that improbable and unanimously agreed that it’s constitutional to ask for proper identification under certain circumstances. From the majority opinion, the court noted that the law, as written, expressly forbids profiling. From his opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that there are three such limits in S.B. 1070 including one that officers “may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Ari¬zona Constitution[s].”
The outrage from S.B. 1070′s detractors proves who lost. Janet Murguia, National Council of La Raza’s chief executive officer, said the ruling places a “bull’s eye” on the backs of Arizona’s Hispanics. The American Civil Liberties Union admitted defeat and immediately launched a fundraising drive to, according to its email alert, “stop anti-immigrant laws from spreading across the nation.”
The court’s decision delivered on top of Obama’s recent announcement that illegal immigrants age 16-30 as well as other “low priority aliens” excused in his proclamation last year will not be deported assures that immigration policy will be front and center until November.
Justices Kennedy and Scalia, the ultimate non-partisans, had cautionary words for Obama who has decided that he alone determines immigration law. Observing that Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have all ignored federal immigration law, Justice Kennedy wrote that Arizona “bears many of the consequences of illegal immigration” as evidenced by an “epidemic of crime, safety risks, serious property damage, and environmental problems.”
Justice Scalia, in a scathing spoken address, noted that because of Obama’s prosecutorial discretion, hundreds of thousands of aliens are “now immune from enforcement” and “will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for jobs.” Added Justice Scalia: “To say, as the court (majority) does that Arizona contradicts federal (law) by enforcing application of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”
The federal government, with Obama’s blessing and encouragement, not only refuses to enforce its own laws but also has ordered high ranking officials like Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to break the law. Napolitano, in turn, orders to her agents to ignore immigration regulations and substitute Obama’s personal versions.
Under a totalitarian Obama, democracy is a fast fading memory.
Photo Credit: terrellaftermath
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
Am I to undertstand that sneaking across the border is not considered breaking the law? It is now just a misdeamor? It seems to me there would be no reason for them to be stopped at a border crossing check point if they arewnot breaking any laws. Politicians alway want us to believe things are complicated. BS!
The illegal immigration problem can be solved!
Deny all benefits (incentives) to all illegal immigrants.
Amend the 14 Ammendent. No more anchor babies.
Establish English as the official language of the United States.
If you are caught aiding, abetting, renting, or hiring an illegal immigrant you will be fined $25,000 and 1 year in jail. 2nd time, $50,000 fine and 5 years in jail.(mandatory)
I would create a National ID card with the person’s picture, their SS#, their finger print along with a hologram that cannot be duplicated which has to be presented by anyone to any law enforcer when asked. This is for your own protection, not to intimidate you.
I would let it be known if you are caught sneaking across our border you will be shot and your body will be tossed back across the border dead or alive. If your home country is across the water then you will be dropped by parachute.
Yeah yeah I know there are people who are really against the shooting part, but if a couple of the trespassers are shot and wounded (not killed) thrown back across the border and they thought we were shooting to kill, it would definatly send a loud and clear message to the rest to think twice before attempting to sneak across.
Bingo! problem solved. Compassion and understanding go just so far. If you knock on my door I will invite you in. If you try to sneak in or break in then you will suffer the consequences!!!
But then I am just uncompassionate, a racist, a bigot, homophobic, a patriotic citizen, who loves MY Country and I am willing to die for it!
YEP,and would solve the problem, but that would be following the rule of law which is a no no…..here is some food for thought…..load em all up and bus them, to the white house and dump em….and drive away….let the eleite at the white house and congress handle the problem …….they would wet their pants….he,he..
Hey okieflash, good idea. Then see how they react, when the illegals confront the WH with the following:
A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!!!
It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.
Her point:
Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress
is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.
Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.
Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.
Let’s say I break into your house.
Let’s say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.
But I say, ‘No! I like it here. It’s better than my house. I’ve made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I’ve done all the things you don’t like to do. I’m hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).
According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to feed me
You are Required to add me to your family’s insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family
My husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest. (except for that breaking in part).
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.
It’s only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m just trying to better myself. I’m a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house
And what a deal it is for me!!!
I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.
Oh yeah, and I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so that you can communicate with me.
Why can’t people see how ridiculous this is?!
America is populated and governed by idiots.
If you agree, pass it on (in English).
If not blow it off……… along with your future Social Security funds and a lot of the former benefits of being an American Citizen.
I agree with you, I live in AZ and it is ridiculous to see the number of illegals that are here. I have stated much of what you are saying, one caveat to the aiding and abetting or hiring of illegals. I would make it a per incident, so, if you are “assisting” 5 illegals, that is 5 counts, not one individual count. And, if it is a business and you cannot afford to pay the fees, your business gets auctioned off and the proceeds go to pay your fees, the rest, you can pocket once you get out of prison.
I am all for dropping people attempting to cross the border illegally as well. My thing though, I would leave the bodies as a deterrent to any others that may come after them. Like the military, shock and awe, let;s see what kind of response you get when they see corpses strewn across the desert with coyotes, vultures, etc. gnawing on them!
FYI, we should sart a racist, bitgotted, homophobic, patriotic group, I will join!
I don’t know why the headline reads that enforcement wins.
Arizona should enforce its law as originally enacted. The state should stand up for its citizens.
The Constitution is a solemn compact, a contract, among sovereign states forming a federal union. The federal government is merely the contract administrator. The contract has mutually dependent obligations. When obligations of the Union to Arizona are breached, Arizona on behalf of the sovereign citizens of Arizona is freed from bowing the determination of the Union as unlawfully ruled by one man faithless to his oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
Other states should adopt Arizona’s legislation, enforce it in its entirety, and test it again. The Supreme Court has followed dissents and reversed itself before. The state legislatures should help the Court see the light: the Constitution, the true Constitution, not the primitive sophistry that Breyer propagates.
The validity and enforceability of the Supreme Court’s decisions rest upon their reasonableness and consistency with the Constitution. When Steven Breyer and his brethren deviate from the Constitution of our federal Union, and purport to infringe the sovereign police power of a state, hampering the right of its people to protect themselves through their elected representatives, violating the Union’s guarantee of a republican form of government, subjecting it to the oppression of a tyrannical federal government headed by an enemy agent in the process of overthrowing the Constitution and returning part of the United States to Mexico, Breyer’s pronouncement for himself and the Court is and of right ought to be of no force or effect.
Sonia Sotomayor has just proved that she is a Racist, by not voting in favor of Arizona, she doesn’t know the first thing about being a Judge she doesn’t even understand the Constitution. When she was a Judge she made up her own laws and they always favored the Blacks and the Lantinos and then she verbably abused the lawyers who were white that tried casses against Blacks and Latinos in her court. She stopped all the White firemen own were suppossed to get promoted and they fought her dession for a few years and they finnely won and proved that she was a Racist because only the Black firemen got those promotions even though they failed the written test. Like her they couldn’t read. She was and is a an Afferitive Action person her own words. She used this law to get into College and did not have to pass an ACT test, she didn’t even have to show up for class, all Afferitive Action people don’t have to study and they Graduate as Doctors, lawyers and don’t know the first thing about what they Graduated as. She was told to read children’s Classic’s to try and understand what she was reading. She should not be a Judge and she should not be a Supreme Court Justics because she is a Racist! Obama did the same thing.