Supreme Court Skeptical of Striking Down Arizona’s SB 1070
from ColorLines:
The federal government got beat up today in the Supreme Court and if the Justices’ line of questioning is any sign, at least parts of Arizona’s SB 1070 are likely to stand. In the hearings, which began this morning at 10am and lasted for more than 20 minutes beyond the allotted time of an hour, the justices launched an aggressive line of questioning of the attorneys for the government and the state of Arizona.
As a general matter, the majority of the justices were skeptical of the federal government’s claim that Arizona’s SB 1070, which was enjoined soon after it’s passage by a lower court, fully preempts federal authority.
Most fundamentally, the justices took issue with the the government’s claim that the state of Arizona cannot mandate its cops to enforce immigration laws and detain undocumented immigrants. The argument here, which was central to Arizona’s appeal, is that the federal government regularly uses local police to detain undocumented immigrants through federal programs like the Secure Communities and 287g, which deputizes local police as immigration agents.
Paul Clement, who represented Arizona in the court said, “The Federal Government doesn’t like this statute, but they are very proud of their Secure Communities program. And their Secure Communities program also makes clear that everybody’s that’s booked at participating facilities is — eventually has their immigration status checked.” ...............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/04/ive_just_left_the_supreme.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
...what (other than skin colour and perhaps a less-than-strong command of the English language) would cause a police officer to think that a check on immigration status would be necessary? What happens if you are an hispanic US citizen and you don't have a birth certificate or passport on your person? Do they get to detain you until they can "verify" you? How is that not a violation of ones' Constitutional rights?
I'm British, I've lived in the US over half of my life but I am still a British citizen. I carry my green card with me EVERYWHERE (as the law demands) but I am as pale as a sheet and speak better English than 100% of the fuzz I have ever come into contact. I would be willing to bet my left bollock that if I were to be detained by a polite intelligent gentlemen of the AZ law enforcement, because of my ability to speak English clearly, and the colour of my skin, they wouldn't ever think about checking my immigration status. (My English accent only comes out when I am pissed (American) pissed (British) or talking to a lovely lady 
I think AZ has a right to "protect its borders" from law-breakers, but it does NOT have the right to become a de facto arm of the INS...
Another factor to consider is that if the SCrOTUS allows this to stand it in effect allows AZ to ignore/circumvent Federal law. What's next, can States implement their own foreign policy? Their own trade policy? And if the States determine to enact laws that supplant Federal laws/authority, can the Fed then withhold funds to those various States?
This is the top of a very slippery slope...and one that I believe may have a very nasty outcome in the end...
He had a guest on (legal analyst? Professor?) who argued that it was a bad law but that SCOTUS should uphold it so that the law (and laws like it) would inevitably die a "natural death". His rationale was that SCOTUS striking it down would galvanize the anti-immigrant crowd to push for even more extreme laws and/or become even more resistant to comprehensive immigration reform measures. SCOTUS upholding it, however, he argued, would keep the laws intact, of course, but he stated that he believes that such laws would inevitably die a "natural death" due to the difficulties (i.e. money, time) imposed by the law on law enforcement, as well as negative publicity for the state. It seems counter-intuitive but it does make some sense IMHO.
