On Monday, June 25, the Supreme Court ruled mostly against Arizona’s SB1070, the controversial immigration law that required the state’s law enforcement officers to seek out and detain undocumented immigrants.
In a somewhat surprising twist, the court chose to uphold the most controversial portion of the law, one that requires police officers to stop and question anyone who they suspected of being in the country illegally.
The parts of SB1070 struck down by the court would:
1) make it a state crime for undocumented immigrants not to possess registration identification
2) make it illegal for undocumented immigrants to work, apply for work, or offer their skills or services
3) allow local law enforcement officers to detain undocumented immigrants without a warrant when there’s reason to believe that the individual has committed “any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.”
Upholding the federal government’s sovereignty over immigration matters, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s opinion, “The federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled. Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws…. Perceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad.”
In explaining immigration enforcement as the sole responsibility of the federal government, Roberts wrote, “It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States.”
“Federal law,” Roberts wrote, “makes a single sovereign responsible for maintaining a comprehensive and unified system to keep track of aliens within the Nation’s borders.”
Justice Antonin Scalia agreed in part with the court’s decision, but argued in favor of a state’s relative right to form its own immigration policy.
Both Justice Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Arizona’s SB1070 did not violate federal sovereignty over immigration policy because no parts of it were in conflict with federal law.
About Hector Luis Alamo, Jr.
Ay yay yay…
The Forgotten Class is coming soon
Ugh…
They left the biggest and the most racist law in so what difference does it really make.
Wow
Should they check every speeder regardless of race to be fair? Yes. If they’re going to check one person, they should check all people. Will they check everyone regardless of race? I have little hope for that. I get stopped because I’m brown , happened in SC, Atlanta and NC, and unfortunately PR, and it’s cause I’m brown.
They did uphold it, but said that there is plenty of room in it for future challenges.
The most important thing is that the court squarely upheld the notion of immigration enforcement as being a federal function, which means no mini immigration laws cropping up across the country.
They are correct. The 50 states are essentially 50 countries. The federal government cannot force any state to host illegal immigration. The Federal government has no authority with regard to the security (other than invasion) with what states legislate. They can setup a sanctuary state, or restrictive state policy. This is not about Mexicans, but about lawful immigration.
Illegal is still illegal, How come we never see the number on illegal Asians? Europeans? Africans? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm? Just saying????
It still won’t stop their racism. I can tell you that much is true.
Racial profiling will sadly continue in AZ. Brown is the new black and puts us back to the 50s-60s of segregation in AZ.
FUNNY HOW MOST LATINOS WITH BROWN SKIN, IS A REFLECTION OF THEIR NATIVE AMERICAN BLOOD, “mestizos” and that who they target, still targeting the Native American Blood what ever is left of it, this is so backwards!!!!! makes my native blood boil!!!!
I’m still speechless… grrrrr… but… not for long >(
The ruling did leave AZ with broad police powers, to intimadate, stop and question people of color. Which should have been restricted and denounced by the Supreme Court.
For Joseph Loo. Just saw a news report 20/20 or Nightline one of those news shows on how Asians are becoming the increasing illegals in the USA. Take that!
I have seen on the news how some Puerto Rican people have also been stopped and they are American citizens and almost got deported because they didn’t have id at the time. Racial Profiling hello!!!!
Brown is the new Black? How ignorant! How about, illegal is illegal.
M M M!
Joy Behar of the View basically said once it is a racist law and it is targeting the Mexican people for the most part. Call it what it is.
I understand illegal is illegal but the United States makes it so difficult for people to become citizens. Some have waited years and years to become a citizen.. The racial profiling has occurred, will occur, and will continue to occur no matter what laws are in place. People judge others 1st and get to know them last.
So tht means they left a loop whole for police to check everyone, specially latins… so many illegal europeans here and I don’t see them deport white europeans..
White Europeans like Che Guevara that executed and jailed a lot of brown people and Native Americans! ^^
Joy Behar is yet another liberal comedian that has no clue about the Constitution or law. She bases her views on her subjective personal feelings.
They upheld one part of the AZ law on the premise that part COULD be interpreted as merely requiring local officers to comply with already-existing federal doctrine, and because that portion clearly states that no officer could infringe upon civil rights or take any action that would undermine or contradict federal immigration policy. They did NOT say “We’re upholding that part because, hey, each state is like its own little nation and they can do whatever the heck they please!”
That being said, I disagree with their decision to leave any part of the law intact. Just wanted Kev Sa and other like-minded individuals to realize that it is not at all indicative of the idea that states can individually govern immigration.