Talk Elections

The Supreme Court seems inclined to uphold the Arizona law. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018065942_apussupremecourtimmigration.html)

Split this off from the thread it was originally posted which was about a different Arizona law.

Why aren't they looking at the ethnic profiling charge? Is that something that could come up later?

It seems like they're looking at partially upholding and partially striking it, or at least everybody but Scalia is.

It is a facial challenge, as opposed to an as-applied challenge, and given the text of the law itself, the government knew that it would never win a racial/ethnic profiling argument, so they did not raise it.

As long as they get rid of the provision forcing people to carry immigration documents with them, I will be happy. That part of the law is ridiculous and makes immigrants targets of criminals who would like to steal their documents to sell it. And then later on it can be challenged for racial profiling, which will inevitably happen. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either extremely naive, or doesn't really care whether it happens.

The opinion is in:

Arizona v. United States (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf)

It largely upheld the lower courts here but said that for now section 2(B) of SB 1070 can go forward, regarding the checks on ID that the police were to make in certain circumstances, but left open it being overturned later based on how it is implemented.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of  Arizona’s strict law targeting illegal immigrants, but said Arizona’s police can stop, question and briefly detain immigrants if they have reason to believe they are in the country illegally.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-issues-split-decision-on-arizona-immigration-law--20120624,0,6007133.story

(Trimmed, and merging to existing topic.)

Jan Brewer's calling it a victory, which strikes me as pretty Baghdad Bob-ish. It seems the law has been effectively declawed, the one "key provision" left in is kind of pointless and unenforcable without the other provisions.

But that one "key provision" was the most controversial provision that brought all of this attention.

So, you want Title 8, Section 1304, subsection (e) of the United States Code, to be struck down?  On what basis?

I'm pretty sure Sbane articulated his basis in his post, but I already new that you have the reading comprehension of a small child off his Ritalin, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Nathan, while Sbane articulated why he thought it was a bad law, he gave no basis for why he wanted it to be found unconstitutional.  While it would have been nice if CARL had been a little less cryptic, 8 USC 1304 (e) is the provision of Federal law that requires resident aliens to carry their green card.  That said, depending on how SB 1070 2(B) is implemented it could effectively require U.S. citizens to carry an ID card with them at all times in order to minimize the harassment law enforcement could subject them to.  So CARL, make certain you carry your driver's license with you when you go jogging in case you get stopped by the cops while you get your exercise.

Does precedent support the sense that a law can be found unconstitutional on the basis of how it's implemented even if that implementation isn't in the law itself? I seem to recall that it does but I'm not sure of the exact case. If so the racial profiling issue might lead to a substantive due process argument against 8 USC 1304 (e).

The thing about title 8, section 134, subsection (e) is that in effect it does not force you to carry your green card on you when you go for a jog, like the Arizona law would do.

I am glad that part of the bill got struck down. Even the provision that the police can detain those suspected of being illegal can only be for a limited time as they confirm with the feds on the suspect's immigration status. Now I am hoping for a reasonable decision on the health care bill.

Please reread the law I cited.

I seem to have missed the part where you tell me that "does not force you to carry your green card when you go for a jog."  I seem to have missed that exemption you claim.

I suggest that you might want to check on Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).  If that official cite is too "cryptic" for you, I'll provide a link to a brief on the case.

Also, here's the text of the federal statute I cited:  

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both.

CARL, your response has nothing to do with Ernest's post. Did you mean to reply to Sbane, and if so, do you know what 'in effect' means?

Yes, giving a bare cite without explaining why you think it is relevant is indeed cryptic.  Ideally, links should be for providing corroborating information for those who chose to peruse it, not something that must be examined in order to understand what a person means.  Simply mentioning you believe that Hibel establishes that simply giving a name is sufficient identification during a police stop-and-identify would have been far less cryptic, but denied you a chance for some snark.  At least from what you wrote that is what I think you believe.  If that is your belief, you are wrong.

In Hibel, the Court interpreted the Nevada statue as being satisfied by the interviewee giving a name to the policeman who stopped him, and found that there were Constitutional problems raised by requiring that a name be given, but it did not set that as the absolute limit as to what could be asked.  As cited in Hibel, in Kolender v. Lawson,  461 U.S. 352 (1983), the Court found that California's requirement that a person subjected to a stop and identify interview provide "credible and reliable" identification was too vague.  However, SB 1070 2(B) is not at all vague as to what identification it wants to end potential police harassment:

So I stand by my previous advice to you that you make certain you carry your "Get Out Of Jail Free" card at all times while in Arizona.  Depending on how 2(B) gets implemented, you may need to.

First, I'm sorry you have trouble dealing with a citation. 

Second, if you take a look at the identification itemized in the Arizona law, it is far more liberal than that required in the federal law (which has not been invalidated).

Third, you seem to be under some impression that specific laws dealing with aliens must also apply to American citizens. 

I have no problem dealing with citations, CARL; it's just irritating to have to open another webpage just because you couldn't be bothered to write a simple sentence.

CARL, if you don't think some of Arizona's finest won't use SB 1070 2(B) as an excuse to demand to see the identification of US citizens whose appearance they don't like, you are either naive or stupid.  However, I don't think you are either of those, but rather that you don't care if those people get hassled.

Please understand how immigration laws are enforced before you reply back to me. Thanks.

But that's not a state law that's preempted by federal law.

Inks,

Let me quote you the key passage of the post to which I responded:

"As long as they get rid of the provision forcing people to carry immigration documents with them, I will be happy."

Now, I not only posted the citation for the federal statute which is stricter in specifying the documents which aliens must carry, but also posted the specific language for those unable to access it otherwise.

So, while the the court will not let a more liberal state law be enforced, existing federal law requiring carrying of identification continues.

The only point is that the law is not enforced by the feds.

Right now, immigration laws are NOT being enforced for the most part.

Which is apparently what you want.

Verify workers before they are hired. Increase enforcement to ensure proper verification is happening and of course make e verify available to help businesses and employers comply.

CARL, I'm familiar with the Hibbel decision and how it applies in law enforcement. I'm tired so I'll simply note that your applying it to immigration law, particularly AZ's, is dead wrong as usual. Good night :)

So, if alien s illegally present in this country are employed off the books as drug smugglers, prostitutes, etc, its ok since those lines of business don't use eVerity?

Then catch the drug smugglers as you would regularly ( prostitution shouldn't be a crime) and then deport them. The US already departs criminals at high rates and that should continue. Of course the magnitude of the crime should be taken into account as well.

I do wonder why you keep acting as if the majority of illegals come here to commit other crimes.


Agreed, and not just prostitution.  We should legalize, regulate, and tax the prostitution and recreational drug industries.  (Not all drugs, but the detrimental side effects from the international drug trade in marijuana, cocaine, and opiods combined with it being more cost effective to treat the use of those drugs as a medical problem rather than a criminal problem mean that I favor legalizing those.)

I never said anhtni ng about a majorityh.

However, a substantial number do commit crimes while illegally in the United States. 

You seem to want to cover up those crimes.

No, I want to law enforcement to focus on serious crimes rather than being a pack of Javerts.