"Controversial" Arizona Immigration Measure Survives Challenge

[littlefieldjohn]

Show Your Papers' Arizona Immigration Provision Survives As Court Rejects Bid To Have It Blocked


* Governor "under no illusion" ruling will end fight

* Plaintiffs say they are exploring legal options



(PHOENIX, Sept 25 (Reuters) - A U.S. federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a bid by a coalition of civil and immigrants rights activists to prevent police from enforcing an Arizona provision that is at the heart of the fierce national debate over unauthorized immigration.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco denied an emergency motion for an injunction blocking the "show your papers" provision of SB 1070, the state's crackdown on undocumented immigrants, pending appeal.

The provision requires police to verify the citizenship or immigration status of people arrested, stopped or detained if there is a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country unlawfully.

It went into effect on Sept. 18 after a U.S. district judge lifted an injunction blocking it.

In June the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that three other key provisions of SB 1070 were unconstitutional, but declined to block the "show me your papers" provision. Several other parts of SB 1070 are blocked by separate injunctions issued by the district court.

Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed the state crackdown on undocumented immigrants into law in April 2010, saying that the federal government had failed to secure the state's border with Mexico.

Brewer is an outspoken foe of Democratic President Barack Obama's administration on immigration.

In a statement Tuesday, the governor said she was under "no illusion that opponents of SB 1070 will stop their baseless allegations and call off their teams of lawyers."

"Know this: They will not succeed. The State of Arizona stands firmly in support of the rule of law, in defense of our citizens and together with our brave men and women in uniform," she added.
Karen Tumlin, managing attorney with the National Immigration Law Center which was among a coalition that challenged the law, said the group is exploring its legal options.

"We need to continue the fight because of the unconstitutional harm it will unleash in Arizona" Tumlin said. "First and foremost, we are concerned about unlawful detention and individuals who may be profiled based on their manner of speech or the color of their skin."

Obama challenged Arizona's law in court two years ago, saying the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government sole authority over immigration policy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88O1IL20120926

[Squarehead Chris]

"Unauthorized Immigration"

Yet another lefty euphemism comes down the pike.

I wish AZ all the best in their efforts here, but does anybody remember Hazleton, PA?

[Angel Ramsey]

Originally Posted by Squarehead Chris

"Unauthorized Immigration"

Yet another lefty euphemism comes down the pike.

I wish AZ all the best in their efforts here, but does anybody remember Hazleton, PA?

Court voids Hazleton, Pa., law targeting illegal immigrants
Updated 9/10/2010 3:11 AM
A crowd gathers in June 2007 in support of Mayor Lou Barletta in front of City Hall in Hazelton, Pa. By Alan Gomez, USA TODAY

A Hazleton, Pa., law that targeted illegal immigrants and served as a model for similar laws around the country was struck down by a federal appeals court Thursday.

The law, passed in 2006 but held up by lawsuits, would have allowed the city to revoke the licenses of businesses that employed illegal immigrants and fine landlords who rented to them. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled that the law infringed on the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration.

"It is, of course, not our job to sit in judgment of whether state and local frustration about federal immigration policy is warranted," wrote Chief Judge Theodore McKee. "We are, however, required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress."

Mayor Lou Barletta said the city will appeal.

"This ruling is a loss for Hazleton and its legal residents," he said. "It is also a blow to the rights of the legal immigrants who choose to call Hazleton their home."

The ruling follows the July decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton to halt Arizona's immigration-enforcement law, which would have required police officers to determine the immigration status of suspects stopped for another offense if there was "reasonable suspicion" they were in the country illegally. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is appealing that decision.

The Hazleton law was the model for similar laws passed around the country, said Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project, who argued against the Hazleton law before the appeals court.

After 84 state immigration laws of different kinds were passed in 2006, more than 200 were passed by state legislatures in each of the next three years, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

"I think it's especially significant that the parent of all of these laws has been pretty conclusively found unconstitutional by a federal court of appeals," Jadwat said.

Gabriel Chin, a University of Arizona Rogers College of Law professor, said those rulings will halt the wave of immigration laws as legislators realize the costs of defending them.

"They are going to put the brakes on around the country on anti-immigrant legislation because it begins to look like a costly proposition," Chin said.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates tighter immigration controls, said Thursday's ruling "makes it almost certain" that the Supreme Court will weigh in on states trying to enforce immigration law.

Another Arizona law passed in 2007 that fined businesses hiring illegal immigrants has been upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear that case this year.

Meanwhile, Krikorian said, Thursday's ruling will help Barletta, a Republican who is running for Congress, and others who argue that they are trying to enforce immigration laws in the absence of federal action. That strategy has propelled Brewer's popularity in Arizona as she fights the lawsuit led by the Justice Department.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...law10_ST_N.htm

[ATiii]

Beaner scumbags should have no rights at all in America. A lot of them barely look human.

Alan

[brutus]

Brown skin = inconsiderate person

How many of us here would immigrate to another country with a foreign language knowing most of the natives hate you and then demand all of the rights and privileges as the Mexicans have been doing in America?

Most here wouldn't leave our homeland even if we were facing the same problems the Mexican and other browns suffers in their own country. This is because the brown man is not like us as the jew and Christian would have us believe. The early Christian had a saying, The darker the skin, the deeper the sin. And the beaner is guilty of gross unpardonable inconsideration and wanton thievery of resources earmarked for our dependents and elderly. Whether aware of their crime or not justifies none of it. And because they don't have it within their character to see their inconsideration, all they can do is become smugly indignant and that makes them all the more repugnant.

The jew and White facilitators of this illegal immigration should be hung.

.

.

[N.B. Forrest]

Originally Posted by brutus

Brown skin = inconsiderate person

How many of us here would immigrate to another country with a foreign language knowing most of the natives hate you and then demand all of the rights and privileges as the Mexicans have been doing in America?

Most here wouldn't leave our homeland even if we were facing the same problems the Mexican and other browns suffers in their own country. This is because the brown man is not like us as the jew and Christian would have us believe. The early Christian had a saying, The darker the skin, the deeper the sin. And the beaner is guilty of gross unpardonable inconsideration and wanton thievery of resources earmarked for our dependents and elderly. Whether aware of their crime or not justifies none of it. And because they don't have it within their character to see their inconsideration, all they can do is become smugly indignant and that makes them all the more repugnant.

The jew and White facilitators of this illegal immigration should be hung.

.

.

Yep. And the hypocritical runts sure as hell don't put up with it when Salvadorans or Panamanians sneak into May-hee-co, even if they're only in transit to here.

It's one of the many reasons discerning folks call 'em mexcrement....