I also don't toss and turn at night now due to the pain. This is awesome, as I am finally getting some sleep. Now back to the fray.
Arizona S.B. 1070
In a broad sense, the situation was that illegal immigration in Arizona was out of control. The feds weren't doing their jobs as immigration enforcers, and crime was rampant along the border. Governor Brewer stepped in and said that they were going to do the job the feds weren't. Napoleon was like "NUH-UH RAYCISM". The Arizona legislature said differently, and passed SB 1070 (linky-linky), signed by Gov. Brewer 23 April 2010.
Four sections were struck down by the ninth circuit, otherwise known as the "Department of Judicial Activism". The sections were 2(b), 3, 5(c), and 6.
Arizona v USA
Split decision. Noted that Kagan recused. Let's get to the highlights.
Section 3: Arizona tried to regulate alien registration. Justice Kennedy: "Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field in which Congress has left no room for States to regulate...The federal registration framework remains comprehensive. Because Congress has occupied the field, even complementary state regulation is impermissible. Pp. 8–11."
Analysis: State tried to take away some federal power. That's a no-no. Justice Kennedy ruled on prior precedent, wagged his finger at Arizona. I have no problem with this.
Section 5(c): Arizona legislated that it's a misdemeanor for an illegal alien to seek employment in this country. Justice Kennedy: "Section 5(C)’s criminal penalty stands as an obstacle to the federal regulatory system...The correct instruction to draw from the text, structure, and history of IRCA is that Congress decided it would be inappropriate to impose criminal penalties on unauthorized employees. It follows that a state law to the contrary is an obstacle to the regulatory system Congress chose. Pp. 12–15."
Analysis: Federal trumps state. Congress said no penalty, and no penalty shall be assessed. Personally, I don't agree with this one. If an illegal breaks the law (like trying to get a job in this country), shouldn't there be penalties? In other words, an illegal gets deported, comes back illegally, applies for a job. Gets discovered, cycle repeats. Wouldn't a penalty in theory discourage them from coming back? Don't ask what penalty I would come up with, because I have no idea. For use of example, branding. Moving on. (ed-in rereading this, i might have missed the simple rule: federal trumps state; i think my point is how can you break a law and not be penalized?).
Section 6: Allows state/local officials in Arizona to arrest suspected illegals without a warrant at any time (this is important), i.e. without federal supervision. Justice Kennedy: "By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable...Section 6 attempts to provide state officers with even greater arrest authority, which they could exercise with no instruction from the Federal Government. This is not the system Congress created. Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform an immigration officer’s functions. This includes instances where the Attorney General has granted that authority in a formal agreement with a state or local government. See, e.g., §1357(g)(1). Although federal law permits state officers to "cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States," §1357(g)(10)(B), this does not encompass the unilateral decision to detain authorized by §6. Pp. 15–19.
Analysis: In effect, the state of Arizona again tried to take federal power away and give state/local PD entirely too much power. Federal trumps state. I agree with the opinion, basically because we all know Barney Fife would put an entire town on lockdown at gunpoint based on a hunch. No thanks.
Section 2(b): Officers who stop, detain, or arrest may in some circumstances verify immigration status. Justice Kennedy: It was improper to enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that §2(B)’s enforcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives. Pp. 19–24.(a) The state provision has three limitations: A detainee is presumed not to be an illegal alien if he or she provides a valid Arizonadriver’s license or similar identification; officers may not consider race, color, or national origin "except to the extent permitted by the and §2(B) must be "implemented in a manner consistent with federal law regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens."
Analysis: Check with ICE if they don't have a valid ID. Don't profile (wink-wink). This section merely affirms Federal law, and is allowed to stand. And I concur.
- Three of four sections struck down. All four ruled upon the same way in the majority opinion.
- Justice Sotomayer concurred to uphold section 2(b) (as did the other 7; Kagan recused). Guess she's now a wise white person, because that was the most racist-y racist law to every racist a racism. Or something.
- Justice Kennedy relied heavily on past precedent to draw a clear line in state vs. federal powers. His logic was clear and sound in this opinion. The ACA decision will be handed down this week. As we saw in the oral arguments of said case, Justice Kennedy could not provide, and was not given, any prior precedent regarding the use of federal power in the manner the Federal Government stated it could. In fact, toward the end of arguments he got rather flustered that the AG/SG clownshow couldn't answer any of his questions. While he did favor the federal side of the equation in this opinion, it's his technique which should be noted. This bodes well for Thursday.
- Just a thought, but will the ID check of section 2(b) be tied into whole "disenfranchising minorities" blather?
Can't wait to hear the "RACISM" snarl this afternoon.