SB 1070, SCOTUS, Friendly House, and a Ray of Hope

Such comments are particularly frustrating because if states are allowed to come up with their own immigration enforcement schemes, we could, hypothetically, be looking at 50 different enforcement schemes. 

It would make more sense, considering that immigration law is the purview of the federal government, for the feds to maintain exclusive control over the enforcement of immigration law. 

But the feds have already muddied the water with programs such as Secure Communities and the ill-fated 287(g) program, which trained local cops to enforce federal immigration statutes. 

In particular, 287(g) opened the door for bad players like Sheriff Joe Arpaio to go rogue with his immigration sweeps in Hispanic neighborhoods. These, ironically, became the pretext for the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Arpaio for racial profiling.

So now the feds are in the difficult position of arguing that, yes, local law enforcement can enforce federal immigration law, but only when we say so. Not a particularly convincing line of reasoning.

However, there is a more powerful argument against section 2(b) , which is that it violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure because it will lengthen the time someone is detained. 

There could also be 14th Amendment claims, specifically related to racial profiling, though this would likely require gathering evidence, such as has been gathered in the ACLU's racial profiling case against Sheriff Joe, Melendres v. Arpaio.

Fourth Amendment arguments are part of a separate 1070 lawsuit, Friendly House v. Whiting, brought by the ACLU and MALDEF. This case is before Judge Susan R. Bolton, the judge who enjoined portions of 1070 on the grounds of federal preemption in U.S. v. Arizona.

Lawyer's for the plaintiffs in Friendly House have asked for parts of 1070 to be enjoined based on violations of Fourth Amendment. In an October 8, 2010 order, Bolton said the matter was moot because she had already enjoined the sections of the law in question based on federal preemption in U.S. v. Arizona.

But Bolton acknowledged that there were valid Fourth Amendment claims. In her order, she wrote:

"Since the Court previously found that the United States was likely to succeed on its challenge to this provision on preemption grounds, rendering Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction moot, the Court does not engage in a full preliminary injunction analysis on Fourth Amendment grounds. 

"However, there appear to be substantial questions as to whether Subsection 2(B) would withstand a challenge under the Fourth Amendment, and some of the facts supplied, both in this case and the related cases, suggest that Plaintiffs could demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of this claim."


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
34 comments
Sarum
Sarum

oh
Friendly House, oh Friendly House, what in truth is your mission? Cuz
when I had interaction with Friendly House they would only help
immigrants that spoke Spanish. That is prejudice and misrepresentation
of your organization and it is against the law. All these years when my
employer encouraged/forced us to donate to United Way; the Friendly
House description never mentioned that they are/were an illegal
prejudice organization serving Spanish speaking only. Allowing entities
to misrepresent themselves is also illegal for the United Way to
permit. I am not up to date as to whether "Friendly House" is now
"friendly" to the many "immigrants" in our area that don't speak Spanish
or if they are still as xenophobic in their mission, however, due to
their criminal past I think they should be thrown out of court with "no
standing."


Harbinger
Harbinger

Your endless whining about the profiling of the “Latino community”
as it relates to every effort to deal with the illegal alien invasion is of no
interest to legal citizens of this country. 
It is this simple….If you are not here legally, get out of the Unites
States. 

We are on to your game, and have had more than enough.  A second Operation Wetback is long
overdue.

thegreatgatsby
thegreatgatsby

A person who enters on a visa but then overstays and has a petition and adjustment of status application filed by a U.S. Citizen spouse is then present under "an authorized stay as authorized by the Attorney General" under 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationallity Act. Immigration officers of course would know this because they would have access to this info in their federal database and because of their knowledge of ever changing immigration laws, as well as case law continuosly interpreting these laws.  So SB1070 now would allow lowly county deputies and local police to come to a determination that this person is illegally present and then detain them? How would this deputy or officer be able to make a correct determination of their lawful status if they lack the knowledge and the info to make this decision? SB1070 is making state law enforcement officers become federal officers, without the necessary tools. This is Bullshit!!!!!

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

It's simple really. That 'lowly' deputy or police officer would call ICE and have them provide the information from their database. It's been working that way for decades. Nothing changes except the person in question could be cited by that 'lowly' deputy or police officer.

Your ignorance on the issue is staggering yet expected due to the heaps of rhetoric that have been shoveled by the anti 1070 groups.

Personally I don't care whether 1070 gets the nod except for the horribly dirty methods and lies the anti 1070 folks have implemented in order to defeat this bill. Because of that I like that the arguments presented to the SCOTUS reflected the disparagement between truth and fiction. In June there will be a defining exclamation stamped into the foreheads of the race baiting propofandists who have been screaming racism at the top of their lungs.

LD19 Resident
LD19 Resident

Narcissistic, corrupt and mentally sick Pearce must especially be happy with the way the U.S. Supreme Court questioned the feds over BS1070.

GED Jan and the MCSO shurf must also be happy with the Supremes about this. If this law is permitted to go into effect, the MCSO shurf has the ability to claim that the Justice Department is targeting him for political reasons. The whole "egregious case of racial profiling in U.S. history" becomes essentially moot.

Seems to me BS1070 needs to be thrown out. This bullshit law was designed solely to make a political statement. It damages and terrorizes Hispanics. Enforcing it will create nothing short of Nazi Germany circa 1930's.

I hope the bobble-heads at the U.S. Supreme Court see this for what it is. If not, it's time to clean up the U.S. Supreme Court and place justices that will actually follow the law and interpret the Constitution correctly.  

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Supreme Court Justices are life terms.

You've obviously got zero respect for the system in place. Your arguments against sn1070 are hollow and inflammatory. Your hatred for States Rights to protect their borders shows your lack of respect for the Constitution and your irreverence to the position of the SCOTUS is appalling.

LD19 Resident
LD19 Resident

I know that the Justices appointed to the Supreme Court have life terms.

BS1070 does nothing to solve the problem of border security and illegal immigration. That's why the feds sued.They think that Arizona may have overstepped its bounds by stepping into exclusive federal territory. 

I'm all for states' rights, as laid out in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. What I am not for is using people, regardless of immigration status, as political pawns.

I respect the Constitution. That's why I took an oath to protect and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I merely disagree with the Court's position. BS1070, in my view, does nothing but damage and terrorize Hispanics, similar to the Nuremberg Laws of 1938, in which Adolf Hitler declared that all Jews were non-citizens, stripped them of their ability to work, marry, etc. Perhaps you need to brush up on your world history.

It seems to me that you support BS1070. Kinda like how the MCSO shurf supports this useless, do-nothing law.

IIRC, former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke called the law unconstitutional, unfunded, unworkable and confusing. I agree with him. 

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

And if you knew Supreme Court Justices served life terms why would you say this- "I hope the bobble-heads at the U.S. Supreme Court see this for what it is. If not, it's time to clean up the U.S. Supreme Court and place justices that will actually follow the law and interpret the Constitution correctly."
How do you propose "cleaning up the U.S. Supreme Court"?...or were you just rambling on about nothing like normal?

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

...and quoting Dennis Burke, the guy who got bounced out or Fast and Furious after Brian Terry was killed, is laughable.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Hitler ordered the extermination of Jews and countless lives were slaughtered.  

Hardly a comparison to a law that gives state and local authorities the right to enforce the federal law already on the books.  The argument SCOTUS heard was NOT framed in the manner you continually harp.  The issue was simple- can States create laws that are congruent with Federal Law.  

Federal Law prohibits illegal entry.  It also sets parameters for those entering.  SB1070 mimics the federal statutes.  Stop with the fear mongering 

Your arguments are fallacious.  

Royalphoenix2
Royalphoenix2

If law enforcement starts asking me questions, do I have to answer ? umm..no. peace

Aars McGarkle
Aars McGarkle

It would seem that this law would be fairly easy to enforce.  If you are stopped for a traffic violation and you don't have a license, that is a GOOD INDICATOR that you are here illegally!  It doesn't matter how "brown" you are, if you have a valid AZ license, they cannot do anythng to you. If you are a US Citizen, how will this law cause discrimination for YOU, a "brown" US Citizen?   How can this law be used against a "brown" US Citizen?  Is the problem that you anti-1070 nuts don't want the state of AZ to get rid of the illegals? 

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

This hit piece is what defeat looks like when legitimate arguments fail.

teknik1200
teknik1200

I did not realize the constitutionality of section 6 was not also being tested in this case.

imho it's kinda dumb that they don't look at the entire picture while they have the thing in their hands.

oh well, the lawyers win again.

Marcy
Marcy

The federal government has badly misframed their objection to the 2b section.  The real problem with 2b is that an immigration violation, ie being in the country unlawfully, is not more discernible by a cop during a traffic stop than someone being in violation of tax law.  Well, other than how people who profile would come to their "reasonable suspicion, brown and not carrying proof of right to be in the country".

Can Arizona pass a law requiring police to verify that you are in compliance with federal tax law if they have "reasonable suspicion" that you aren't?

But the Supremes tend to live in their own little world, quite divorced from the real world so they have no difficulty overlooking basic protections of the US Constitution and declaring that DUI checkpoints are OK and immigration checkpoints are OK within 100 miles of the US border despite anything in the US Constitution granting the federal government such broad powers to stop and question people without any probable cause.  

Chip, chip, chip, chip and chip away at basic civil liberties some more.  

sven
sven

Let's have 50 different state immigration enforcement laws and why not have 50 different state laws regulating interstate commerce while we're at it.......makes so much sense (to a fucking idiot!!!)

Aars McGarkle
Aars McGarkle

That is just stupid.  You have to resort to cursing.  WITHIN THE STATE BORDERS is where the Arizona law applies.  There are MANY MANY areas where the states have different laws.  That is the form of government we have. Most states have laws against counterfeiting, robbing federal banks, and many other things also covered by federal law.  Drop the 4 letter words and study American government.

guest
guest

we're already working on the "anchor babies away!" bill to stop the ridiculous practice of granting the spawn of illegals automatic citizenship. this is just the beginning. you liberals do not have to thank us, we're your dark knights and we'll help you in spite of yourselves.

Neto
Neto

Dude, try helping yourself and your inept associates to a heathy doze of world history and reality first.  The methane fumes you've been inhaling as well as the meth you've been pumping into your brain have impaired your ability to reason in a very serious manner; you are not only delusional, your rambling suggests that you are hallucinating and suffering from paranoia as well as illusions of grandeur.  Who are your imaginary legislatiive co-authors and who came up with such a stupid title for your legislative master piece? It's the damned voice whispering on your left ear right?  Your obessive fixation with cartoons and Fox News is a giveaway, "dark knights" and words of gratitude for your benevolent heroic actions appear and disappear into the fold of the space-time fabric that are at your beaconing, right on your finger tips, right old chap?  You idiot, get real!  The only thing that is coming your way is a growing tidal wave of registered voters with last names like Mendoza, Sanchez, Torrez, and even half-Mexican & half-Vietnamese kids who want to set things right and send fools like you to an organic bean farm where you may experience the healing powers of nature.  It's amazing what a healthy diet of homegrown beans and hand-made tortillas will do for you; yes, even you, the anonymous fascist who masquarades as an imaginary dark knight in the commentary crevices of cyberspace.  Pinchi pendejo, ¡alivianate!  

LD19 Resident
LD19 Resident

Good luck attempting to undo the 14th Amendment and the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Wong Kim Ark vs. United States.

You must be one of the Tea Party idiots from Thomas' sad press conference two weeks ago and one of the Old Fool's birther bobbleheads. 

david saint
david saint

lol i laugh when cowards like you use that term...I doubt you would have said it to Bruce Lee, who would have fallen under that term. Also, you can call Rick Rubio's father that now too, since its been show his grandpa entered the country illegally from Cuba BEFORE Castro took over.. 

Duelly2003
Duelly2003

 When a policy that is meant for good, like legal citizenship to those born in the US, is taken advantage of, then it is time to change the policy to be more strict.  

You can equate it to a store that allows it's patrons to return an item without a receipt, based on a trust system that the item was purchased from their store.  Once people start stealing from the store and try to return the item for cash, and the problem is recognized, the store will CHANGE IT'S POLICY to hinder further criminal activity by requiring patrons bring in a receipt for each item they wish to return.  This is a policy change.  What the US needs is a policy change in response to an honor system being compromised primarily by our southern neighbor.  This would also be true of Canada was doing this is great numbers as well; any person here illegally.

Emreza
Emreza

You can try to brighten things up for those of us who happen to be at the receiving end of  institutional bigotry and xenophobia by putting some "english" on yesterday's Supreme Court proceedings, but anyone who is willing to read the 90+ pages of legal diatribe is likely  to wonder why an incompetent and incoherent imbecile who failed to articulate a credible argument for the poorly designed national health care program would be allowed to display his inept communication skills again and argue the federeal government's case against AZ SB1070? With liberal democratic "allies" who try to do right by appointing a career bureaucrat like Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. to argue convincingly on constitutional law and moral principles, I prefer looking forward to global warming, extreme weather events, earthquakes, tsunamies, volcanic eruptions, and global economic maelstroms.  From my point of view, that may be the only reliable path to attain significant social change...

Neto

sven
sven

The Immigration and Nationalilty Act, federal circuit case law and the Federal Code of Regulations are used to determine whether many lawful permanent residents are removable from this country based on a criminal conviction.......yet SB1070 will allow deputies and police officers to arrest and detain these people (who otherwise would not be detained) until it's determined that they're removable? How is this not in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution which grants the feds summary power over immigration.  DHS/ICE officers are trained to determine whether someone should be referred to an immigration judge for removal proceedings based on their knolwedge of immigration law. A person would be sitting in a jail cell for days and weeks until ICE is able to meet with them and determine they're not removable. How would this not be a violation of the 4the Amendment. Deeply troubling that the Supremes are not seeing the due process implications and preemption issues inherent in SB1070.

guest
guest

it's good that you've taken my advice and switched from "racism" to "bigotry." it makes you appear smarter when you use the correct words.

Tommy Collins
Tommy Collins

 I will guess as a child your mother consistently referred to you as "very special".

GreenHornet
GreenHornet

it's still racism because it's based on the color of one's skin. skip the pedantic lecture about race and ethnicity. if Hispanics had creamy white skin, your kind would not be persecuting them.

guest
guest

no, the word racism is derived from the word race. if you were correct, we'd call it pigmentism or some other PC word dreamed up by a libtard. bigotry is the word to use, even if it doesn't necessarily match up with the dictionary in your head. besides, you guys have worn racism out and nobody takes you seriously anymore, it's time to shake things up with a new name to call people, in place of the arguments that you don't have.

Jdoxey2
Jdoxey2

No matter how well thought out, rational and well said your point is (and it very much is all of those), it typically won't matter. Most with the opposing view are just going to say you're a racist/bigot/republitard and call it a day, completely convinced they won the argument.

Duelly2003
Duelly2003

I know I'm in the lions den here speaking with the kind of people that subscribe to the New Times(mostly lefties), but here goes: Even if Mexicans were completely indistinguishable from someone of European decent, no American in their right (unbiased) mind should be FOR illegal immigration.  This country has been successful for a long time with LEGAL immigration.  Let me make myself clear on my views on race, if this country were being invaded by any group of people, I'd have to say, Mexicans are at the top of my list as for the kind of people with which I do not mind sharing the US.  Most Mexicans and Mexican Americans I meet are good people and I have no negative feelings toward them, but when it comes to illegal immigration, their reasoning for being "all for it" appears to be a racial one because it makes no logical sense for a legal citizen to be okay with a country without borders and illegals forcing down the value of labor and causing unavoidable strain on health care and public education.

GreenHornet
GreenHornet

"it's time to shake things up with a new name to call people, in place of the arguments that you don't have" 

how bout "prejudiced piece of shit nativist"?

dumb-ass republitard

RetiredArmy
RetiredArmy

 Please, I agree, words are very important, but can you tell me where I can find the definition of "libtard"? I can't find it in my dictionary so I'm confused about your meaning.

I did find the word "liberalism". Is that what you meant? I kind of liked one of the meanings listed under that word. It said:

"3. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties."

Wow, seems you could build a constitutional form of government around that definition!

Or maybe it was the word liberal that you meant? Again that word had lots of definitions, most of them having to do with some form of freedom.

Please help me understand what a "libtard" is. Thanks.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...