Will the Supreme Court Uphold Arizona's Immigration Law?

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will arguments in the case of Arizona v. United States (with Justice Elena Kagan recused), which deals with the state's notorious "papers please" law, S.B. 1070, which, among other things, requires police officers to "make a reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of anyone they encounter through "any lawful stop, detention, or arrest." More specifically, however, this is a federalism case, and the question is whether federal immigration law preempts Arizona's controversial measures.

The Supreme Court considered a very similar question last term in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (2011). In that case, the Court considered whether federal law preempted the Legal Arizona Workers Act, dubbed the "business death penalty" by opponents, which required Arizona employers to verify the immigration status of their workers through E-Verify. In a divided ruling (with Kagan recused), the Court upheld Arizona's actions. These two immigration laws are not identical, of course, but the Court's decision in Whiting is not promising for opponents of S.B. 1070.

Comments

[tarran]

So in Arizona, you have to get permission from the government to hire someone?

Seriously?

Watta bunch of commie losers.

[Metazoan]

My thoughts exactly. Funny that "conservatives" who claim to be for small government don't mind a massive interference if it gets rid of groups they don't like.

[Episiarch]

To conservatives, "small government" means "not much affects them, but huge military and police state for the foreigners and immigrants".

[Thom]

Not just "foreigners and immigrants". More like "everybody else."

[Hugh Akston]

I don't think this really is an issue of federalism. Presumption of innocence is widely understood to be protected by the Constitution, and S.B. 1070 treats people presumptively as criminals.

[rather]

the argument is not their treatment but whether Arizona can enforced existing federal laws by twinning them with state statutes.

[rather]

The "emotional" argument is irrelevant. I always wanted to say that here!

[MikeP]

Indeed, the presumptive guilt and paper-carrying is the actual problem with the law. (Aside from its being obnoxious on its face.)

But as I gather from news sources I've heard on this, that's not what's being reviewed. Only the supremacy question -- whether the state is usurping federal powers -- is at question here. Whether the state is violating people's rights must await appeal of other cases.

[Hugh Akston]

Yeah my bad. Clearly it won't do for AZ to usurp the Feds' right of way in harassing brown people.

[MikeP]

...the case of Arizona v. United States...

When governments fight over who gets to oppress the people, little good can be expected.

[Koan]

Is it ok for me as a libertarian to say I really don't care about this issue? I have never understood the dudgeon that has been kicked up as a result of this, on either side. In my thinking, naivete reigns on both sides: open borders is a bad idea, as are walls and guard towers. How about common sense? I don't know, just not a big issue for me.

[karmorda]

What is wrong with open borders? People come up from Mexico looking to sell their labor, and some people in the US gladly buy it. I don't see a problem, if the person looking to sell his/her labor hasn't recieved the government's permission.

[pmains]

Does anyone else see the potential for a massive surge in identity theft here? If legal immigrants are forced to carry 3 forms of ID, the easiest way to beat the system is to hang out around their work place and mug them. Once they no longer have the original copies of their papers, they have no way of proving who they are, so they get to spend the next several months in an immigrant detention center. Hooray for the rule of law!

[Res Publica Americana]

The Supreme Court upheld the mandate to verify immigration info on potential employees? Holy fucking shit.

And here I was, thinking the Court's decisions were getting at least marginally better.

[TrickyVic]

""The Supreme Court upheld the mandate to verify immigration info on potential employees?""

The I-9 form? It's been used for decades. Immigration info for potential employees is nothing new. Proving you're a legal citizen at a traffic stop is different.

[capitol l]

Tough immigration laws getting your business down: Try Seasteading!

Good article in Wired about the movement.

[R C Dean]

Interesting that most of the objections to the AZ law (papers, bitte, must clear employees with the Almight State, etc.) apply to AZ provisions that are duplicates of existing federal provisions.

SCOTUS is in a little bit of a bind, here. It can't overturn any of the AZ provisions on any grounds except federalism, as that decision would take out the federal laws as well. And Allah knows SCOTUS wouldn't want to do that.

On pure federalism grounds, of course, the feds can't require the states to enforce federal law. But the feds really, really like it, in general terms, when the states do so.

So, if SCOTUS says the states can't adopt laws that mirror federal law and enforce those, how exactly does a state go about helping the feds enforce federal law? If a statute directing local police to enforce the equivalent of federal law is verboten, why would a functionally equivalent policy of enforcing federal law be hunky-dory?

[capitol l]

So, if SCOTUS says the states can't adopt laws that mirror federal law and enforce those, how exactly does a state go about helping the feds enforce federal law?

Wouldn't this have ramifications for drug laws?

[R C Dean]

Wouldn't this have ramifications for drug laws?

Why, yes, cap l. Yes, it would.

[R C Dean]

Lemme give an example:

(1) State A passes a law directing local police to check IDs for immigration, arrest and hold violators for ICE pickup.

(2) In State B, local police check IDs for immigration, arrest and hold violators for ICE pickup.

On what theory is State A violating the Constitution, but State B is not?

[MikeP]

Because kidnapping is a violation of the Fourth and Ninth Amendments and requiring papers in lieu of indefinite detention is a violation of the Fifth.

Why should a legal resident -- or even a citizen -- be required to prove anything to avoid being detained forever? Requiring such detention as in your case (1) puts the onus on the individual, not the state as in case (2).

[R C Dean]

Because kidnapping is a violation of the Fourth and Ninth Amendments and requiring papers in lieu of indefinite detention is a violation of the Fifth.

Good reasons to invalidate federal immigration law, I suppose. Which is why SCOTUS can't/won't go there.

Any federalism based arguments?

[MikeP]

Are there really federal laws that:

1. Require presentation of papers or you get detained until you present them?

2. Encourage citizens to sue federal agencies that don't pursue (1) to their personal satisfaction?

[Chatroom Crank]

Non citizens, which includes illegal immigrants, are required to have their passport or green card with them at all times.

[MikeP]

How about citizens?

[TrickyVic]

""Non citizens""

How do you know they are, or are not citizens? That's the problem. Non-citizen does not come with a stamp on the forehead. You can't prove you are not a citzen, therefore the burden is placed on citzens proving that they are. Failure to proof yourself not guilty of immigration law mean you run afoul of the law.

Alabama has already embarresed its self.
"Two foreign workers for Honda and Mercedes were recently stopped by police for failing to carry proof of legal residency. The cases were quickly dropped, but not without lots of international attention that Alabama officials didn't want."
http://news.yahoo.com/ala-gop-.....41807.html

[Xmas]

Illegal immigrants do understand when the law changes...and they leave. Who cares about "international embarrassment" when you've got towns infested with lawbreakers.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/n.....50819276/1

If the federal government really cared about these poor people, they'd change the laws so they could work here legally. But the Feds don't care, they just want to softly enforce immigration law, only to use it as a hammer when it's politically expedient or hurts political opponents (see Meg Whitman and her nanny).

[Diomasach]

Everyone here seems to be missing the point.
The "presumption of guilt" argument is BS, the police only have the authority to ask for proof of citizenship AFTER making ocntact for a lawful reason. They can't simply stop people on the street and ask for ID.

And the "carrying of papers" argument is also BS. The Federal Govt already has this authority, this simply lets the local cops do the same theing the INS, FBI, etc already can do.

The real issue here is the Federal Govt getting thier panties in a twist because local governments are not kowtowing low enough to the almighty Federal Government.

[Apatheist]

So what your saying is if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about?

It's not like the police ever invent "lawful reasons" to contact(?) people. Plus, who could possibly think that you shouldn't need papers even if there is a legitimate reason for the Police to contact(?) you.

[Apatheist]

youryou're. Goddamn.

[Diomasach]

Ah, so we shouldn't pass any laws, even ones specifically prohibiting the kind of abuse you're talking about, because the law may not be followed?

You do realize how ridiculous that sounds don't you?

[MikeP]

"We" should not pass laws that require the police to harass people.

[Diomasach]

Well I guess it's a good thing this law doesn't do that.

[MikeP]

What part of No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law don't you understand?

[Diomasach]

The part that somehow means that the police are required to harass people.

[MikeP]

How about this provision:

A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws, including 8 United States Code sections 1373 and 1644, to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

This is not simply a law that says how a state agency should conduct itself when it suspects it has its hands on an illegal immigrant. This is a law that requires, under civil threat, that it conducts itself as strictly as it can get away with.

You must trust police more than I.

[pmains]

What you're missing is that local law enforcement can enforce federal immigration law so long as they abide by the civil rights protections put in place under the 287(g) program. Certain law enforcement agencies in AZ are either not able or unwilling to do so, which is why the law was passed in the first place. It was intended to be an end run around federal law, hence pre-emption.

[Concerned Citizen]

I wish that I was an illegal immigrant. No socialist security number, operating outside the system. Not paying a dime in taxes - how do the liberals handle that fact?

[Chatroom Crank]

They make sure you vote for them so they can increase taxes on everyone else.

[Ben]

They don't pay a dime in taxes? That's interesting. I was not aware that when renting a home, apartment, or buying things taxes were taken out if you're an illegal.

[Diomasach]

He's referring to Federal Income Taxes and Social Security Taxes, which they DO NOT pay.

Illegal Immigrants have two choices; tax evasion or identity theft. Both of which are, last time I checked, illegal.

[Ben]

Some pay it. Of course, this depends on the employer. Don't know about you guys, but those taxes are taken out each pay period. If they're not...that's more on the employer. These immigrants aren't exactly the people that will end up paying the IRS extra money on an average year. When I pay employees, what they deposit in to the bank is a net figure; not gross. They don't physically go out and pay their federal taxes.

Hell, half the legal population in this country doesn't really pay taxes.

[Diomasach]

Some pay it...

How? If they are illegal then they have no TIN/SSN which means they are incapable of paying payroll or income taxes. Unless they are using someone else's number, which would be identity theft. Hardly better.

[Edwin]

When I hire laborers it's all cash.

There's no way it's reported.

Then again, at their income they wouldn't be paying income tax after filing every year. But then again they do get social services, which even on the state level, a lot of money comes from the fed. This is no different than it would be with legal people at that income level, but the problem is the ratio of people with that low income to people with higher income who do pay taxes gets scewed, pushing us towards more spending without more taxes.

[fwcanada]

Actually more than 12 million illegal immigrants that invaded the United States thats why gov getting mad.

[edwin]

This is not simply a law that says how a state agency should conduct itself when it suspects it has its hands on an illegal immigrant. This is a law that requires, under civil threat, that it conducts itself as strictly as it can get away with.

[fwcanada]

The Federal Govt already has this authority, this simply lets the local cops do the same thing the INS, FBI, etc already can do.
And the "carrying of papers" argument is also BS. The Federal Govt already has this authority, this simply lets the local cops do the same theing the INS, FBI, etc already can do.