Arizona Law Struck Down, Mostly.

[cranewings]

CNN Article

It sort of pisses me off how much power Justice Kennedy has, being the only swing voter. What's the point of lifetime appointments if the justices are just going to email David Axelrod or Eric Cantor and ask them how they should vote.

Still, I'm glad that it turned out this way. I think the court did the right thing.

[Vic Wertz]

While it's true that—numerically speaking—"most" of the provisions were struck down, the provision that caused the most controversy is the part that was *not* struck down.

[cranewings]

Vic Wertz wrote:

While it's true that—numerically speaking—"most" of the provisions were struck down, the provision that caused the most controversy is the part that was *not* struck down.

Are you referring to the ability of law enforcement to check the emigration status of a person that they lawfully stop for another reason? I never thought that was the most controversial part. Maybe I'm just too media blind. That was the parts I agree with and I didn't realize before today that it was the hot issue.

I thought the more controversial measures were these:

Quote:

The court struck down these three major provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers, making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants. - source

All of which were killed in the ruling.

[Vic Wertz]

Yeah, as far as I observed, the part that garnered the most discussion in the media is the so-called "show me your papers" provision, which is the part that was upheld; that's the part that many say will lead to abusive racial profiling.

[bugleyman]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Yeah, as far as I observed, the part that garnered the most discussion in the media is the so-called "show me your papers" provision, which is the part that was upheld; that's the part that many say will lead to abusive racial profiling.

True. However, at least now they can't arrest you for being in the country illegally, which should help significantly with the fear factor (though really, why bother checking if you can't do anything anyway?).

But yeah -- as an AZ resident I wish they had tossed the whole thing. Between the governor, the sheriff, and SB1070, we're pretty....special.

[cranewings]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Yeah, as far as I observed, the part that garnered the most discussion in the media is the so-called "show me your papers" provision, which is the part that was upheld; that's the part that many say will lead to abusive racial profiling.

See, I thought that was changed in legislation before it ever went to court. It wasn't a part of the law at all.

The "show me your papers" thing is just that a person who is lawfully stopped for any other reason can be investigated by the police to find out if they are legal. What they USED to be able to do, but was changed, was that police could ask any individual to show papers for any reason, just because the police suspected you might be illegal. So if your name is Gonzales and you have an accent, you would have to show papers every time you walked past a cop. That wasn't in the law when it went to court.

[Vic Wertz]

cranewings wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

Yeah, as far as I observed, the part that garnered the most discussion in the media is the so-called "show me your papers" provision, which is the part that was upheld; that's the part that many say will lead to abusive racial profiling.

See, I thought that was changed in legislation before it ever went to court. It wasn't a part of the law at all.

The "show me your papers" thing is just that a person who is lawfully stopped for any other reason can be investigated by the police to find out if they are legal. What they USED to be able to do, but was changed, was that police could ask any individual to show papers for any reason, just because the police suspected you might be illegal. So if your name is Gonzales and you have an accent, you would have to show papers every time you walked past a cop. That wasn't in the law when it went to court.

I believe you're correct about that, but some parties still have issues with what's left, as Justice Alito noted in his Opinion:

Justice Alito wrote:

If properly implemented, §2(B) should not lead to federal constitutional violations, but there is no denying that enforcement of §2(B) will multiply the occasions on which sensitive Fourth Amendment issues will crop up. These civil-liberty concerns, I take it, are at the heart of most objections to §2(B). Close and difficult questions will inevitably arise as to whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that a person who is stopped for someother reason entered the country illegally, and there is a risk that citizens, lawful permanent residents, and others who are lawfully present in the country will be detained.

The Opinion of the Court essentially acknowledges the *possibility* of abuse, but says that's not a good enough reason to strike it down—though they leave the door open to do so if the application of the law presents problems:

The Court wrote:

There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law. ... This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.