Maybe this is a give me to the president before they strike down Obamacare...
Basically, the court is supporting the government for not doing it's job. Pathetic.
High court rejects part of Arizona immigration law
doofiegirl POTL~PWCM~JLA
2012/06/25 15:35:04
The decision upholds the "show me your papers" requirement for the moment. But it takes the teeth out of it by prohibiting police officers from arresting people on minor immigration charges. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court that was unanimous on allowing the status check to go forward. The court was divided on striking down the other portions.
Kennedy said the law could – and suggested it should – be read to avoid concerns that immigration status checks could lead to prolonged detention.
The court struck down these three major provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers, making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.
The Obama administration sued to block the Arizona law soon after its enactment two years ago. Federal courts had refused to let the four key provisions take effect.Scalia, in comments from the bench, caustically described Obama's recently announced plans to ease deportation rules for some children of illegal immigrants.
"The president said at a news conference that the new program is `the right thing to do' in light of Congress' failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind," Scalia said.
Kennedy said the law could – and suggested it should – be read to avoid concerns that immigration status checks could lead to prolonged detention.
The court struck down these three major provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers, making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.
The Obama administration sued to block the Arizona law soon after its enactment two years ago. Federal courts had refused to let the four key provisions take effect.Scalia, in comments from the bench, caustically described Obama's recently announced plans to ease deportation rules for some children of illegal immigrants.
"The president said at a news conference that the new program is `the right thing to do' in light of Congress' failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind," Scalia said.
Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120625/...
Top Opinion
-
Farnsworth 2012/06/25 16:24:37
The statute states that “any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined BEFORE he is released.” The Court essentially punted this provision of the law, saying that "without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law." The Court further contended that "state courts may read this as an instruction to initiate a status check every time someone is arrested, or in some subset of those cases, rather than as a command to hold the person until the check is complete no matter the circumstances." That's funny because the statute spelled it out pretty clearly to me!
I call this a bunch of BS. They were simply trying to avoid determining the issue of whether it would be constitutional to detain a person suspected of being an undocumented immigrant for a prolonged period of time. Clearly, they were also too lazy to determine that this statute is preempted by federal law.
Basically, the court is supporting the government for not doing it's job. Pathetic.