Skip to comments.Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama’s immigration law claim
Posted on 04/25/2012 12:21:28 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administrations claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The court was hearing arguments on Arizonas immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal governments role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.
It seems to me the federal government just doesnt want to know whos here illegally, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when its on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Here comes another 9th Circuit smackdown.
Gingrich is right. It’s long past time to break that Circuit up into 2 or even 3 smaller ones.
How dare you force the President to faithfully execute the law?
Is it almost neener, neener time??
Prayers for AZ SB1070 and sound jurisprudence to prevail in this case...
“It seems to me the federal government just doesnt want to know whos here illegally, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.”
I’d say that sums the issue up pretty nicely!
Schumer does want their and their friends votes......
Only this in Caps under a photo:
...and then fence it in with triple concertina and lock the gate. Make it like the Roach Motel - They can check in, but they can’t check out!
I think Roberts didn’t go far enough with his statement. Not only does the government not want to know who is here illegally, I’m convinced they don’t care. And they have no effective means of determining who these individuals are and where they are. The government might want to outsource the tracking of U.S. residents to Fedex. But kudos to Roberts for speaking out on the issue.
This administration would suffer weekly smackdowns if the GOP leadership had the backbone to bring half of Obama’s excesses to trial.
Keep praying for sanity folks!
I think it's time for Obama to warn the SCOTUS (the five bad ones) again to NOT overturn any bill he signed, he says it's OK to overturn DOMA. That would be a sound legal decision.
Obama knows, he is a legal scholar.
Legal scholar....I’ll wager 1500 FReepers who never attended law school, could impeach the logic of Obama.
Obama is a fake....knows nothing about the law...
Don’t blame the lawyer, he is charged with defending the indefensible. Obama believes he can modify gov’t policy by selective enforcement of existing law while executive orders covers the laws he wishes he had. Obama’s legacy is written in pencil, and the Supreme Court is a huge eraser.
“Imagine if Obama lost on both Obama-care and the Arizona illegal immigration invasion defense bill???”
Imagine that we could even imagine him winning either!
I’m still in shock that we have a population electing the dunderheads to get us where we are even considering some crappola like Obamacare and not defending our borders.
“The court was hearing arguments on Arizonas immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally,”
And this morning Romney came out that he didn’t like police checking immigration status.
Ok, Mitt, WHO is going to check their status then? YOU??? ME??? Don’t think so!
And Newt just bailed, as usual.
Same ol’ crap, different election year. The heck with the GOP and their never ending nonsense. I’m voting for Ron Paul, at least he stands for something out of the GOP ordinary Rino.
With the MSM, they’d have the public convinced this was a double victory for Obama, proving him right, that we need him more than ever.
2. For instance, states should have the power to screen persons as to their legal status when it comes to housing, jobs, elementary and high school education, welfare benefits, and voting rights.
3. If we don't do something soon, we will soon PASS THE POINT OF NO RETURN when these illegal immigrants will have so many in number and gain so much power that they will be able to pass laws that will make the borders wide open for anyone who wants to come here.
4. Again, I am so tired of hearing judges, Senators, Representatives, federal judges, and President Obama say that fighting illegal immigration is a federal government only duty, while, in the meantime, states like Arizona, Texas, and California turn more and more into illegal immigration dominated states.
5. NOTE: I have a relative in a Southern state who said this to me when I asked the relative why their small construction company hires Mexicans:
6. The relative said that they do so because the Mexicans show up every day while they never know when white workers are going to show up, especially if the weather is bad like it is raining.
7. When I asked the relative why not hire black laborers-—living in a Southern state, there is a large pool of black workers-—the relative mumbled something and did not answer the question.
I leave it up to you to figure out what the relative thinks of the work habits of black workers where he lives, if the relative is so critical of white laborers.
8. I'm sorry, but the POINT OF NO RETURN is rapidly approaching when illegal immigrants and their supporters will soon use their power to open our borders to anyone.
9. And it is not just a problem in traditional illegal immigrant states like Arizona, because as many of us know, the problem is now in non-traditional illegal immigration states like Southern states North Carolina and Georgia.
10. Sen. Rubio of Florida: What is this about his Dream Act? Has he lost his mind?
11. Such a Dream Act would send everyone across the world who is dreaming of coming to the United States this message: “If you can sneak across the border and survive for at least 5 years without breaking any major laws, your children will be granted amnesty and entitled to an American education.”
So, if you can sneak across the border and not be caught, why not try it, because if the Rubio Dream Act passes, an illegal immigrant sneaking across the border will have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
And once an illegal immigrant is legally entitled to an education all the way up to college, it would be a sad thing to send him back to his country of origin, according to the Rubio Dream Act argument, so the best thing to do would be to let him stay in the United States and let him work his way to citizenship.
And once he becomes a citizen, he can then petition the court to bring all his relatives to this country.
And the vicious circle continues over and over.
12. Rubio seems like a good leader, but if in his distorted reasoning, he believes that this Dream Act is good for America, he is completely wrong.
13. So it is time to put pressure on Sen. Rubio to drop this Dream Act, because it is wrong for the United States.
14.ARIZONA SHERIFF: He and other law enforcement officials across the country should have the power to help control illegal immigration at the state level, because it is becoming obvious more more with each passing day that the problem is too big for the federal government to handle.
15. Do we need a Constitutional amendment to give more fighting power to states like Arizona who are being overwhelmed and suffocating with illegal immigration problems, or can Congress pass laws to give more power to the states before it will be too late to do anything about it, because illegal immigrants and their supporter will have too much power so that they will be able to stop any plans to control illegal immigration in the future?
16. For instance, if the police spot a van or truck with a lot of people in it, and the police suspect something is not right, they should be able to stop the vehicle and find out what is going on and check identification papers.
17. ANCHOR BABIES: Something has got to be done about these so-called anchor babies.
18. I recently read a story where a foreign national had a baby on a plane that was coming to the United States.
19. Obviously, the woman was waiting to the last minute to travel to the United States so that she could have her baby in the United States, because how many women would dare travel out of their country in the last few months of pregnancy unless their dream was to have their children born in the land of gold, the United States of America, where their children automatically become United States citizens at birth.
20. I can't blame the woman for trying to find a better life for her and her family, but this illegal immigration is out of control, and so we must try to do something to to try stop it before it is too late.
21. One of things we can do is take away some of the federal government's power over immigration.
22. We can then give the power back to the states so that people like the ARIZONA SHERIFF-—who fight the problem close-up every day-—can help control illegal immigration at the state level.
Proving once again the founders' wisdom in dividing federal authority into three branches. The purpose was to limit federal power over the states.
"Professor Obama" is a fraud.
AuntB, where was Romney when he said that? This is the first I have heard this. Do you have a link?
I saw what you did there...
And btw, so stolen, it’s going out to my email list today.
You can’t steal what I freely donate. Glad you liked it.
Great job of writing...I was getting goosebumps.
Sigh, if only...
My posts at the time with citations to Federal law specifically mentioning local enforcement of federal immigration laws.
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > § 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliensJudge Blocks Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law
Can 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) "Any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law" be applied to a local police officer who conducts a traffic stop and finds a driver of a car (who may be an illegal) who has other people in the car as passengers (who are illegal) under the "transports" clause?
(a) Criminal penalties
(A) Any person who
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
In other words, could Arizona police officers (under the definition of "any person who" be held in violation of this law by not detaining someone they suspect to be in violation of the above clause?
(c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
Does "all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws" refer to state and local police officers?
(3) Upon the request of the governor or chief executive officer of any State, the Service shall provide assistance to State courts in the identification of aliens unlawfully present in the United States pending criminal prosecution.
The governor has the power to request the federal government to assist in the determination of immigration status of detained suspects.
So, Federal law allows for Arizona police to detain suspected illegal aliens pending ICE review.
The Governor can request federal support in determining the status of detainees.
It's interesting that I've not seen any reference to US Code 1252c:-PJ
§ 1252c. Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens(a) In generalNotwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who—(2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction,but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.(b) CooperationThe Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials.
1252c specifically authorizes states to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens. How does this judge expect the states to comply with 1252c if they cannot first determine if the person is an illegal alien, and then determine if said illegal alien has committed a felony?
Since he is known for “doubling down” on every one of his attacks, I fully expect him to threaten the SCOTUS again.
“...And this morning Romney came out that he didnt like police checking immigration status................
AuntB, where was Romney when he said that? This is the first I have heard this. Do you have a link? “
Oh man! I got caught without a link! 30 lashes?? Real early this am, on CBS TV news. I’ll look and see if I can find something. It was short [the police shouldn’t be asking immigration status]...
I did see where there was a big poll result yesterday of the ‘latino’ vote not liking him supporting the AZ law, so maybe he wanted to pander a bit today.
Here’s a bit:
“Romneys campaign says his claim during a primary debate that the Arizona law was a model for the nation referred only to the electronic verification of immigration status. “
” Proving once again the founders’ wisdom in dividing federal authority into three branches. The purpose was to limit federal power over the states”
It’s a beautiful thing to see it in action, isn’t it?
“Professor Obama” is a fraud. “
Yes, yes indeed he is.
President Johh Bohner?
Liberals are not hard to undo. They can’t be honest and up front about their dark motivations. Reality is hidden behind silly emotional slogans designed to sell the hidden monster to the public.
The problem conservatives have suffered is that no one in GOPe power lays out what they are up to and lays out the end game. That does not happen in court.
Romneys campaign says his claim during a primary debate that the Arizona law was a model for the nation referred only to the electronic verification of immigration status.
Oh oh that sounds a bit wimpy.
Thanks for the link..I like Russell Pearce. This article was quite a slam on him but I have to consider the source. A column by Dana Milbank in the WP no less.
OK, ever have a great DREAM and then you wake up and try to get back to sleep fast so you can continue it and then the bad one nails you??
Here is the followup bad dream:
Obama loses the election but Justice Kennedy has a heart attack at the end of November so then Obama claims that to save the country he will recess appointment himself to that lifetime position and will be deemed resigned by doing it.
The Republicans challenge it in the courts and it reaches the SCOTUS and they rule it was FULLY constitutional 5-4 with Obama making the deciding vote,
Sorry, I couldn't resist. You know he is too principled to try something sleezy like that... well isn't he??? Stop looking at me that way...
” The Republicans challenge it in the courts”
LOL....they don’t do anything but collect a paycheck : )
“You talkin to me? “
Joseph ROBINETTE Biden. Is that his real middle name?
I love this imaginary dialogue — if only it were real!
>Obama loses the election but Justice Kennedy has a heart attack at the end of November so then Obama claims that to save the country he will recess appointment himself to that lifetime position and will be deemed resigned by doing it.
At that point I think all but the most brainwashed would say “What the hell!?”
Or at least I hope they would.
But Obama’s metality is just what he said....the elected reps of the people back ME up...and the same story unfolds...with him saying the court is purely political....
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an illegal alien (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
Allow police to detain people where there is a reasonable suspicion that theyre illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what reasonable suspicion might entail)
Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they werent already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official may not consider race, color, or national origin in making any stops or determining an aliens immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in solely considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: Reasonable suspicion is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: Reasonable suspicion has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of reasonable suspicion:
A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-drivers license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.
The SB1070 provision in question reads:
For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment).
Funny but a SCOTUS recess appointment would expire just like any other. He’d have a year tops. And if it’s a Republican Congress in 2013 I think it could immediately adjourn thus ending the appointment.
I don’t know about the constitutionality of him appointing himself but he could resign and have Biden appoint him and unfortunately that would be constitutional
>Funny but a SCOTUS recess appointment would expire just like any other.
I’m not sure that’s the case; but in any event there’s still impeachment for SCOTUS Justices.
>Hed have a year tops. And if its a Republican Congress in 2013 I think it could immediately adjourn thus ending the appointment.
>I dont know about the constitutionality of him appointing himself but he could resign and have Biden appoint him and unfortunately that would be constitutional
I would hate to see an electorate, or a Congress, that would, take it laying down... though the current Congress has been incredibly disappointing on repudiating anything in this administration. (ex. Fast and Furious)
OneWingedShark: Im not sure thats the case
I assure you it is. Remember EVERY federal judge serves the same "during good Behavior" (aka lifetime unless impeached and removed) term, Supreme Court is not special in that regard.
Need to frame this.
Thanks Brother, if I knew for sure that a FedEx overnight delivery would actually get it into the hands of Chief Justice Roberts, I’d pop for the expense today.
Unfortunately the clerks would probably toss it in File 13 as if it never existed.
” Thanks Brother, if I knew for sure that a FedEx overnight delivery would actually get it into the hands of Chief Justice Roberts, Id pop for the expense today.”
Best money ever spent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.