|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 25, 2012 23:01:29 GMT -6
Arizona's latest immigration law was largely struck down by the Supreme Court on Monday. The only part left standing was the part about allowing the police to check immigration status of suspected illegal immigration. Everything else was struck down. from CNN:" Key provisions Upheld
The court let stand one of the most controversial parts of the bill -- a provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.
Struck down
The Supreme Court's 5-3 ruling struck down key parts of the Arizona law. Provisions struck down included:
• Authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.
• Making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.
• Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work. That would include immigrants standing in a parking lot who "gesture or nod" their willingness to be employed." In my opinion, only the last part that was struck down was a disappointment. Allowing illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for employment is wrong. That part should have been allowed by the Supreme Court. In contrast, the part about carrying papers was ridiculous to begin with--and was a poison pill to start with. Additionally, it's inclusion just reduced the credibility of the authors of the bill. The bill would have been far less challengeable had that not been included.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Jun 26, 2012 10:19:55 GMT -6
Justice Kennedy was the key voting member that backed off from the work restrictions.
In civil matters, the Ct is mixed with rulings allowing governments to deny business permits to non resident aliens, illegals.
In my view the disappointment means the Ct will not impose a political policy and now awaits the election results for Congress in 2013 and/or beyond to act; or, a Republican President with a 'honeymoon' might get to appoint a conservative new Justice to replace a retiring Justice IF one does retire during the 1st year (2013) of the next Presidential term.
|
|