Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Supreme Court Backs Arizona’s Right to Enforce Immigration Laws

If you are having trouble viewing this message, click here to view it online

Liberty and Justice for All: News and Analysis on the Rule of Law
JUNE 27, 2012

Supreme Court Backs Arizona’s Right to Enforce Immigration Laws

Monday’s Supreme Court decision upholding the major provision of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 immigration law is a strong rebuke of the Obama Administration.

The Administration had argued that its own immigration enforcement priorities should be treated as controlling law—that is, above the determinations of both Congress and Arizona. But the Court’s decision means that the President must go through Congress if he wishes to impede the states’ ability to enforce immigration laws within their borders.

In a judgment joined by all eight justices who participated (Justice Elena Kagan was recused), the Court found that Arizona may implement its requirement that law enforcement officers make a “reasonable attempt… to determine the immigration status” of any person they stop, detain, or arrest, if “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the United States.” The Court found that three other provisions, which regulated alien registration, illegal aliens seeking employment, and arrest of individuals based upon possible removability, were preempted by federal law.

In this case, the Court recognized that the core of S.B. 1070, which requires officers to work collaboratively with the federal government to determine the immigration status of those who have been stopped or detained for a lawful purpose, need not be interpreted to conflict with federal law. With this decision, the Court has reaffirmed the important principle that, much as he might want to, President Barack Obama cannot prevent the states from taking action to enforce federal immigration laws just by saying that he doesn’t want them to do so.

In 1996, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Congress made it clear that states retain inherent authority to cooperate in immigration enforcement and to supplement federal resources with their own. The federal government has the exclusive authority to determine who should be admitted into the country and who should be deported from the country. However, nothing in Arizona’s immigration check provisions modifies the conditions under which somebody can legally enter or stay in the country.

Arizona and other border states bear the largest burden when immigration laws are not enforced federally or when rules are overlooked. And the burden is significant. There are 2,000 miles along the southwest border, 370 of which adjoin Arizona.  Between 2006 and 2010, in the border town of Nogales alone, 51 drug smuggling tunnels were discovered. Home invasions and kidnappings are common in Arizona.

Illegal aliens take jobs from Americans and drive down wages. It is estimated that illegal aliens constitute 7.4 percent of the state’s workforce. To address these problems, Arizona passed S.B. 1070, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Today’s decision reaffirmed that the states are not without recourse to address such a systemic problem. States should not have to beg the federal government for permission to enforce laws within their borders.

Today’s decision means that the Obama Administration may not, by executive order, prevent states like Arizona from participating in an immigration verification process set up by Congress. The President may disagree, but for his disagreement to actually have the force of law, he will have to persuade members of Congress—a refreshing change for a President who has seen fit to go it alone far too frequently.

What do you think of Monday's Supreme Court decision? Read more and share your comments on our blog >>

Share This


Latest Headlines
New Research: What States Can Do to Enforce Immigration after Arizona v. United States

Is John Roberts' Court Partisan?

Join Us This Friday: Live Event with the Obamacare Plaintiffs' Perspective on SCOTUS Dccision

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Work without Union Control

Fast and Furious: Covering Up the Death of a U.S. Agent

 
Case In Point

Miller v. Alabama:
The Mandatory Juvenile Life without Parole Case
 

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court held on Monday that the Eighth Amendment prohibits  mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile killers. To show intolerance for the taking of human life (i.e. murder), a state should be allowed to impose the harshest of sentences for juveniles—short of the death penalty, which the Court has found unconstitutional for teenagers. The Court’s decision Monday does not change this; it only requires individualized sentencing for juveniles.

Read the rest of the story >>
 
Heritage Foundation
The Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy organization. Heritage created the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies in 2001 to educate government officials, the media and the public about the Constitution, legal principles and how they affect public policy.

The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | 202.546.4400 | heritage.org


No comments: