Supreme Court issues split decision on Arizona immigration law

[Frodo]

The Supreme Court seems inclined to uphold the Arizona law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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

[Sam Spade]

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

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.

[Sbane]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The opinion is in:

Arizona v. United States

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.

[Purch]

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.)

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

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

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

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 knew 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.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

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 knew 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).

[Sbane]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

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 knew 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.

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.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[Sbane]

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.

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

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

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

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

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

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

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

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

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

Which is apparently what you want.