But the Supremes said that SB 1070 can require "an officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion that person is in the country illegally"
And as any defense attorney will tell you that you should always take the 5th and refuse to answer any police questions. And if you don't answer police questions it will make it much harder for them to prove you are in Arizona illegally.
Arizona immigration law: Supreme Court upholds key portion of Senate Bill 1070
Three other parts of controversial immigration law ruled unconstitutional
by Alia Beard Rau - Jun. 25, 2012 11:15 AM
The Republic | azcentral.com
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that one key part of the Arizona immigration law, known as Senate Bill 1070, is constitutional, paving the way for it to go into effect. Three other portions were deemed unconstitutional in a 5-3 opinion.
The part ruled constitutional is among the most controversial of the law's provisions. It requires an officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion that person is in the country illegally.
The three parts ruled unconstitutional make it a state crime for an immigrant not to be carrying papers, allow for warrant-less arrest in some situations and forbid an illegal immigrant from working in Arizona.
The long-awaited decision was a partial victory for Gov. Jan Brewer and for President Barack Obama, who sued the state of Arizona to keep the law from taking effect. By striking down the portions they did, justices said states could not overstep the federal government's immigration-enforcement authority. But by upholding the portion it did, the court said it was proper for states to partner with the federal government in immigration enforcement.
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, the injunction blocking the provision from taking effect is still in place. The case now goes back to the lower courts. Authorities cannot begin enforcing the provision upheld by the Supreme Court until U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton lifts the injunction she issued in 2010. It is unclear how long that process could take.
Once it does take effect, the federal government will not automatically accept for deportation every person arrested under SB 1070 in Arizona, federal immigration officials said Monday.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it will not take action when receiving calls from local police unless the person arrested meet priorities for deportation. ICE's priorities include illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes and those who pose a threat to national security.
"ICE will not issue detainers unless they meet priorities," a Department of Homeland Security senior official said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. He said it was improper for the lower courts to enjoin Section 2, which requires law enforcement to check immigration status, "without some showing that (the section's) enforcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives."
"The mandatory nature of the status checks does not interfere with the federal immigration scheme," he wrote. "The federal scheme thus leaves room for a policy requiring state officials to contact ICE as a routine matter."
However, Kennedy's opinion does set the state up for future possible lawsuits. He wrote that if an individual is detained under SB 1070 for longer than they would have been before just to check their legal status, that would be a constitutional problem.
"This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect," he wrote.
Justices John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor agreed with Kennedy's opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito filed opinions partly agreeing and partly disagreeing.
Thomas and Scalia in their dissents opined that all of SB 1070 should be permitted to go into effect.
"What I do fear -- and what Arizona and the States that support it fear -- is that 'federal policies' of nonenforcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration," Scalia wrote. "Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so."
Alito split with both groups, arguing that the majority was correct to allow the portion requiring law enforcement to check immigration status and to not allow the portion requiring that individuals show paperwork. But he said the portions forbidding illegal immigrants from working in Arizona and allowing for warrantless arrests in some cases should be allowed to go into effect.
The ruling, which comes little more than a week after Obama's administration modified its immigration-enforcement policy, is the culmination of a two-year battle.
The Arizona Legislature passed the measure and Brewer signed it into law in 2010, setting off an international political firestorm.
As they reacted to the divided opinion Monday morning, those on both sides of the issue claimed victory.
Brewer on Monday called the opinion "a victory for the rule of law."
"It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens," Brewer said in a news release. "After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."
She added that law enforcement will be held accountable should the law "be misused in a fashion that violates an individual's civil rights."
"We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves," she said.
Obama in a statement said he was pleased that the court struck down key provisions.
"What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform," he said. "A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system - it's part of the problem."
Obama said he is concerned about the portion of the law the high court will allow to go into effect.
"No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like," he said in his statement. "Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court's decision recognizes."
In a written statement, Senate Minority Leader David Schapira, D-Tempe, said the ruling sent two messages: "(T)hat states cannot pass policies that undermine federal law and that Congress must act on comprehensive reform in order to address this issue and avoid these kinds of legal conflicts."
"We cannot begin to honestly solve the issue of illegal immigration until those in Congress are willing to have meaningful discussions on comprehensive reform," he said.
Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, who along with former Sen. Russell Pearce sponsored the bill in the Legislature, said he was elated that the law's key provision was found to be constitutional.
He acknowledged the section is open to future legal challenge. But that doesn't signal the section will be struck down, he said.
Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, has been one of the law's most vocal opponents.
"When it comes right down to it, I think the Supreme Court has really sent us a mixed messages," he said. "The big question now is law enforcement. This is not the last time 1070 will be before the Supreme Court."
U.S. Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain, both Republicans, issued a joint statement on the opinion.
"The Arizona law was born out of the state's frustration with the burdens that illegal immigration and continued drug smuggling impose on its schools, hospitals, criminal justice system and fragile desert environment, and an administration that chooses to set enforcement policies based on a political agenda, not the laws as written by Congress," according to the statement. "We will continue our efforts on behalf of the citizens of Arizona to secure our southern border. We believe Arizonans are better served when state and federal officials work as partners to protect our citizens rather than as litigants in a courtroom."
U.S. Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., called the ruling a victory.
"The federal government has failed my state with its inability to properly enforce immigration law," he said in a written statement. "Now Arizona, with the core of SB 1070, can implement what Washington has failed to do."
In the days prior to the law's passage and the weeks after its signing, hundreds of supporters and opponents rallied at the state Capitol.
Opponents called for a a boycott of Arizona that resulted in canceled conferences and music concerts. Supporters sent Brewer millions of dollars to help fund the law's legal defense. At one point, the governor and President Barack Obama sat down for an Oval Office chat to discuss their differences on immigration and border security. The two were not able to reach an agreement, however, and their relationship has been frosty since.
The federal government eventually sued Arizona over the immigration law.
Brewer has criticized Obama's new immigration policy as a preemptive strike against SB 1070. The policy, announced June 15, allows certain illegal immigrants under age 30 to apply to stay in the United States without fear of deportation for two years. They also could apply for a work permit. The policy, which mirrors portions of the Dream Act, does not grant legal status to undocumented immigrants.
Legal experts say the policy protects qualifying individuals who may be arrested or detained under SB 1070 by making it clear that federal officials will not pursue deportation.
Lawmakers in dozens of other states proposed -- and in five states passed -- copycat immigration-enforcement legislation.
Now, the court's decision is expected to reignite passions over immigration and affect political contests from coast to coast, from the presidential race down to local legislative districts.
The U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit was one of seven challenging Senate Bill 1070. Three are still working their way through the courts.
Bolton issued a preliminary injunction in that case, preventing four parts of the law from ever going into effect. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld her ruling and Brewer appealed the injunction to the high court.
The law, among other things, makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and requires an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest to, when practicable, ask about a person's legal status when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally. It's written goal is to deter the unlawful entry and presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona through a policy of "attrition through enforcement."
Bolton ruled that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government, not individual states. As part of the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit, she issued an injunction stopping four parts of the law: requiring a law-enforcement officer to check a person's immigration status in certain situations; making it a crime to not carry "alien-registration papers;" allowing for a warrantless arrest if there is cause to believe a person committed a crime that makes him or her removable from the U.S.; and making it a crime for illegal immigrants to work.
The key argument before the Supreme Court in April was whether Arizona has the right to enforce federal immigration laws the way it chooses.
The U.S. Department of Justice in its lawsuit argued that immigration is an issue that only the federal government can address. The state argued that SB 1070 mirrors federal law and assists the federal government in enforcement.
The Supreme Court ruling determines the future of immigration enforcement nationwide and affects laws in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah. It will also likely reignite passions over immigration and affect political contests from coast to coast, from the presidential race down to local legislative districts.
This is also not the end of the SB 1070 lawsuits in Arizona.
The underlying lawsuit the federal government filed challenging SB 1070, as well two other lawsuits filed against the measure, are all still awaiting trial before Bolton. Bolton will have to base future decisions in those cases on this ruling.
The high court's decision does not directly affect a separate injunction Bolton issued in one of the other lawsuits. That injunction halted the part of the law limiting day-labor activities.
Republic reporter Mary Jo Pitzl contributed to this article
Arizona immigration law is subject of seven separate lawsuits
SourceArizona immigration law is subject of seven separate lawsuits
by Alia Beard Rau - Jun. 25, 2012 08:42 PM
The Republic | azcentral.com
Individuals and organizations filed seven separate lawsuits in 2010, challenging Arizona's immigration law, Senate Bill 1070.
Plaintiffs included a Phoenix police officer, a Tucson officer, illegal immigrants, local pastors, non-profit organizations that serve the immigrant community and the federal government. Most of them argued that immigration regulation is the jurisdiction of the federal government and not the state and that SB 1070 could lead to racial profiling and violate individuals' constitutional rights.
The U.S. District Court in Arizona dismissed four of the lawsuits for various reasons. Judge Susan Bolton is overseeing the remaining three.
U.S. Department of Justice: This has been the primary lawsuit surrounding SB 1070 and is the furthest along in the process. It was in this case that Bolton issued the preliminary injunction halting four key parts of the law from going into effect, prompting the U.S. Supreme Court hearing. The Supreme Court ruling technically only covers the injunction, but it is broad enough that it will likely affect the underlying case and the other lawsuits.
This case focuses on federal preemption vs. states' rights issues.
The underlying lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB 1070 is still awaiting a trial before Bolton. No date has been scheduled.
Non-profit groups, civil-rights groups and individuals: A large number of individuals, local non-profits and civil-rights groups filed this lawsuit. Bolton dismissed some claims and allowed others to stand. The plaintiffs are trying to turn the case into a class-action lawsuit. Bolton has not ruled on the request for class-action status. She did grant a preliminary injunction halting part of SB 1070 that deals with day labor.
This case focuses on how SB 1070 could -- or does -- impact individuals' constitutional rights. Based on a warning by Justice Anthony Kennedy that the Supreme Court could reconsider SB 1070's constitutionality if individuals are detained longer while their immigration status is checked, this case could become the dominant SB 1070 challenge. Allegations of extended detainment could be added to this case later.
No trial has been scheduled on the full case.
League of United Latin American Citizens: This lawsuit addresses similar constitutionality questions surrounding SB 1070. Bolton has put this case on hold while she deals with the other two. It could later be combined with the other non-profit lawsuit.
SB 1070 ruling expected to have little effect on law enforcement
SourceSB 1070 ruling expected to have little effect on law enforcement
by JJ Hensley and Dennis Wagner - Jun. 25, 2012 09:50 PM The Republic | azcentral.com
Law-enforcement agencies across the state were nearly unanimous in the view that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Arizona's immigration-enforcement measure would do little to change their day-to-day duties.
But as agencies digested the court's ruling Monday, more questions began to emerge about the finer points of Senate Bill 1070, which will likely require more court action before police have clear guidance.
The high court's ruling struck down several parts of the law but let stand a provision requiring police officers to contact federal agents to determine a suspect's immigration status if they have reason to believe the person is in the country illegally and if it is practical to do so.
The court's ruling did not address questions that many opponents of the law have raised. For example:
Which factors may officers consider to develop "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally, which triggers the requirement to contact federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents?
Who determines when it is practical for officers to make contact with ICE?
How long can an officer detain a suspected undocumented immigrant who is not accused of violating any other state law?
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Monday that the court ruling means other agencies will likely hear some of the same public concerns over racial profiling that have dogged his deputies in recent years.
"They're going to say, 'You're going to racial-profile, you're going to stop them because they have brown skin,'" Arpaio said. "This one thing the Supreme Court ruled on, I think, is a nightmare for the activists out there. They're already accusing us of stopping people to ask for their ID because of how they look."
Phoenix Police Chief Daniel Garcia attempted Monday to reassure residents that police will not discriminate based on race, saying that he will not tolerate profiling and that the agency will continue to concentrate resources on violent criminals and property crimes.
Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said the court decision means deputies will be required to ask about immigration status under certain circumstances, while at the same time striving to avoid racial profiling.
Asked how that could be accomplished, he laughed and said, "They'll have to be very careful. ... I'm dark-skinned and Hispanic. If you put me in tennis shoes and a baseball cap in the wrong place, they will ask me."
Estrada, whose county abuts Mexico, said that, in the past, deputies called nearby Border Patrol agents when they encountered suspected illegal immigrants. Now, he said, they will ask first and call federal officers afterward.
The only questions most local law-enforcement administrators had after Monday's Supreme Court ruling centered on whether ICE agents would take custody of suspected undocumented immigrants who were not being booked into jail on violations of state law.
A U.S. Department of Homeland Security official speaking in a conference call with reporters said the Arizona law can force officers to contact ICE, but it won't change the federal government's enforcement priorities placing an emphasis on deporting violent criminals, repeat violators of federal immigration law and recent undocumented border crossers.
"We do not anticipate increasing dramatically our calls to the scene in Arizona for an actual physical apprehension of an individual unless those individuals meet our immigration priorities," a senior Obama administration official said.
Within hours of the release of the ruling, Homeland Security announced that it was rescinding agreements with seven law-enforcement agencies in Arizona, including Phoenix police, that authorized specially trained local officers to serve as immigration agents. In February, ICE announced it was phasing out the program, beginning by terminating the least-productive ones first. The senior administration official said the ruling provided another reason to cancel Arizona's agreements.
Anyone booked into jail on suspicion of violating an Arizona law will continue to have his or her immigration status screened.
But as law-enforcement agencies from around the state began to assess the ruling on Monday, concerns emerged about whether the requirement that police contact immigration officials would be more of a hindrance than a help.
Gila County Sheriff John Armer said he has not had time to review the court's decision but was troubled by a portion of SB1070 that dictates police activity. The law says officers "shall" make an attempt to ascertain immigration status whenever they lawfully contact a person and there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is an undocumented alien.
"I'm concerned about the mandate that it must be done," Armer said. "That's problematic for me."
Douglas Police Chief Alberto Melis said the provision of SB 1070 upheld by America's high court seems to micromanage local law enforcement and is difficult to interpret. He said SB 1070 requires police to ask subjects about citizenship, yet that mandate applies only when an officer has cause for suspicion, and it may be ignored if enforcement is not "reasonably practicable."
The result, Melis said, is a law that oversteps and confuses officers who make common-sense decisions daily.
"We know how to do our jobs. We have trained people who are very good at what they do," he said.
Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villaseñor said police will lose the ability to use their judgment in the field because of the law's requirements. "I think the state is mandating and taking away control of local law enforcement," he said.
Melis noted the Arizona Police Officer Standards and Training Board issued an SB 1070 training packet on June 13 and sent out an update Monday afternoon that summarizes the Supreme Court decision. He said public-safety leaders statewide are struggling to unravel the legal issues but that Douglas officers likely don't face significant changes.
"I'm sure it's not over yet," he added.
Arizona Ruling Only a Narrow Opening for Other States
SourceArizona Ruling Only a Narrow Opening for Other States
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: June 25, 2012
While the Supreme Court’s mixed decision on Monday on Arizona’s immigration enforcement law gave a big political boost to officials there who supported it, the ruling does not seem likely to unleash a new wave of legislation by other states to crack down on illegal immigration.
Gov. Jan Brewer and Arizona lawmakers who wrote the law can claim victory because the court’s decision allows the authorities to go ahead with its most intensely disputed provision, which requires the police to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop if there is a “reasonable suspicion” the person is an illegal immigrant.
But in practice, the legal opening the justices defined for action by states on immigration is relatively narrow, constitutional lawyers said.
On the basis of the ruling, five other states that have already passed similar laws — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah — should be able to defeat some of the many challenges they faced from civil rights organizations, which have held up those laws in the courts.
But the Supreme Court’s carefully etched decision also gave opponents of Arizona’s law a clear affirmation of the primary role of the federal government on immigration. The court put state governments on notice that they would have to tread carefully to avoid interfering with federal policy if they want to engage in immigration enforcement.
The court also allowed, and even invited, lawsuits against Arizona’s law that are based squarely on civil rights claims that it would lead to racial profiling against Latinos and other immigrants — issues that did not arise directly in the current case. Many civil rights groups, predicting that the police provision of the law would rapidly lead to discriminatory actions by officers once it takes effect, said on Monday that they were ready for that fight.
“If state governments enact new immigration bills, we say bring it on, we will see them in court,” said Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. His organization has participated with other rights groups in a separate lawsuit against Arizona over the law, known as S.B. 1070, and against immigration enforcement laws in other states.
The Supreme Court struck down three central sections of Arizona’s law, which had been regarded by opponents as the most harsh. In allowing the “show-me-your-papers” provision to stand, the court accepted, for the time being at least, Arizona’s word that police officers would not engage in racial profiling as they put it into practice.
Both sides claimed on Monday that they had achieved important gains. Dan Stein, the president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, a group that supported Arizona, called the ruling “an important victory.”
“Even if the Obama administration refuses to enforce most immigration laws, states have the power to deter and discourage illegal aliens from settling or remaining within their jurisdictions,” Mr. Stein said.
He said the ruling, coupled with a Supreme Court decision last year that affirmed an Arizona law requiring employers to verify the legal immigration status of employees, gives states “broad latitude to carry out a policy of attrition through enforcement.”
Mr. Stein’s organization supported a small but determined corps of lawyers who created legal blueprints for Arizona’s and other state laws that were intended to drive out illegal immigrants by making daily life impossible for them in this country.
In Georgia, Gov. Nathan Deal, a Republican who signed an immigration enforcement law last year, welcomed the court’s decision more cautiously.
“It appears the court has upheld the major thrust of our state’s statute,” Mr. Deal said, “that states have the right to assist in enforcing federal immigration law.” An appeals court suspended parts of immigration enforcement laws in Georgia and in Alabama, awaiting the decision from the Supreme Court.
On the other side, Obama administration officials also offered praise. “I am pleased the Supreme Court confirmed that state laws cannot dictate the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies or priorities,” said Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security.
To prove the point, officials from her agency announced that they were suspending, throughout Arizona, a program of joint agreements, known as 287g, under which they had deputized state and local police to detain illegal immigrants.
Homeland Security officials also said they will send a directive to federal agents in Arizona reminding them that to be consistent with the administration’s priorities, they should not pursue deportation of illegal immigrants who have not committed serious crimes or are not repeat offenders.
Lawyers for both sides, after digging down into the complex decision, were guarded in their assessments.
Calling the ruling a “qualified victory for Arizona,” Kris Kobach, a constitutional lawyer who helped to write S.B. 1070, said the court had avoided sweeping statements. Though affirming rights of states on immigration, he said, the court also “left open the possibility that a state action might not be permissible depending on whether it is cooperative” with federal efforts. Mr. Kobach is now the Kansas secretary of state.
Latino leaders said they were deeply dismayed that the Supreme Court had allowed the policing provision of the law to take effect.
“We believe it puts the civil rights of all Americans at risk and it places a bull’s-eye on the back of all Latinos,” said Janet Murguía, president of N.C.L.R., also called the National Council of La Raza, one of the nation’s largest Latino groups.
Mr. Romero said that the A.C.L.U. had raised a new “war chest” of $8.7 million to combat state immigration laws across the country. “The Supreme Court kicked the can down the road, opening the floodgates to racial profiling and years of litigation,” Mr. Romero said. “The constitutional sequel will be much more controversial, messy and costly.”
Officials in states that have adopted similar laws said they would have to sort through the court’s decision to determine exactly how their statutes would be affected. In Alabama, an especially far-reaching immigration law included provisions imposing mandatory penalties for businesses that hired unauthorized immigrants and requiring schools to check the immigration status of students, neither of which were in Arizona’s law.
In Utah, lawmakers avoided most of the pitfalls the court signaled in the provisions it struck down, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said Monday.
Across a wide spectrum, politicians from President Obama to Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, a Republican, said the decision should spur Congress to move on a broad overhaul of immigration laws.
At least eight states considered enforcement legislation this year. But as officials elsewhere have watched the polarized battles in Arizona, the mood appears to have changed. No state passed a law like Arizona’s.
Supreme Court ruling on Arizona 'papers, please' provision doesn't constitute endorseme
SourceMercury News editorial: Supreme Court ruling on Arizona 'papers, please' provision doesn't constitute endorsement
Mercury News Editorial
Posted: 06/25/2012 03:28:48 PM PDT
The Supreme Court's decision Monday striking down most of Arizona's draconian immigration law was a relief, even if one of the most unnerving aspects of the law survived this round in court.
The justices ruled that most of the law infringed on the federal government's jurisdiction over immigration enforcement, even if the feds have fumbled their role badly. But the court upheld the most controversial provision, which allows officers to demand immigration papers from anyone they've detained for other reasons and suspect is undocumented. That revives the specter of driving while Hispanic and being taken into custody as an excuse to check immigration status.
The ruling could embolden more states to adopt similar policies, as Alabama, Georgia and others did after Arizona's law was passed in 2010. But the court's decision to allow the "papers, please" provision does not appear to be an endorsement of it. In their 5-3 ruling, the justices made clear that they'll be monitoring enforcement of the law, which has yet to take effect, to ensure it doesn't lead to racial profiling or other constitutional violations.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it wouldn't be appropriate for the court to rule on that part of the law "before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that enforcement of the provision in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives."
He added, "This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect."
It's hard to imagine how this law could be enforced without racial profiling, which is why immigration advocates have been so worried about it -- and why they were angered by Monday's ruling. What characteristics, after all, would lead a police officer to suspect that a person had entered the country illegally? We doubt many Canadians or Swedes will be asked to prove they're here legally. We suspect that's why the court left the door open to further challenges.
The bulk of the decision affirmed the widely held view that it's the federal government's responsibility to craft and enforce immigration law. The court said Arizona can't make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for a job or to fail to carry immigration papers, and that it can't arrest people solely on suspicion that they are in the country illegally.
All along, Arizona lawmakers argued that they passed this law because the feds had failed in their responsibility. They're right about that; the U.S. government has failed. But that's not a good enough reason for states to step in, as the high court affirmed.
The ruling should be another jolt to Congress and President Barack Obama to get serious about long-range immigration reform. Courts can't fix everything. Humane, practical and fair solutions to the mess we have today can only come from the Capitol.
Big SB 1070 victory for Jan Brewer??? She thinks so!!!
SourceThe heart of SB 1070 beats (but just barely)
Here in the state of Denial, our governor declared victory on Monday, praising the U.S. Supreme Court’s long-awaited ruling on Senate Bill 1070.
“Today the state of Arizona and Senate Bill 1070 was vindicated and the heart of the bill was upheld,” a beaming Gov. Jan Brewer proclaimed.
Evidently, Brewer took a pass on her usual scorpion-laced breakfast on Monday and instead went straight for the funny mushrooms.
The Supreme Court tossed out three provisions of SB 1070 and as for the fourth – the “papers please” provision – the court left that key piece of the law intact.
But largely irrelevant.
The Obama administration has no intention of going along with Brewer’s brand of immigration enforcement, and the Supreme Court says it doesn’t have to.
The court noted that the feds have “broad discretion” about who to deport. “Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime.”
The court did rule that Arizona police can ask about immigration status during a legitimate stop, if they have reason to, but added that detaining people “solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns.”
Don’t look to the feds to punch a time clock. Shortly after the ruling was released, the Department of Homeland Security revoked Arizona’s 287(g) program, which allowed state and local police to act as immigration agents – a move which Brewer called “a new low, even for this administration.”
That means police will now have to call ICE to determine immigration status, a process that can take up to an hour. Even if ICE quickly verifies that a person is here illegally, the court said there’s nothing that police can do about it without federal approval.
So how likely are feds to come running when the cops call in a jaywalker who is here illegally?
“We’re going to tell you we’re not interested,” a senior Homeland Security official told me on Monday.
That official said ICE will respond only in three circumstances: when the illegal immigrant is a criminal, a repeat immigration violator or a recent border crosser.
“We apprehend more people than we can possibly get through the system,” he said, adding that the detention centers and immigration courts are overwhelmed. “If you’re arrested in Arizona today and you are just a run-of-the-mill illegal immigrant, your court date won’t be set for five years … and in five years, you lose and you can appeal -- two and a half, three more years. So eight years from now you will have a final court order to leave the United States. That’s why we’re not responding to those cases.”
So to recap, SB 1070 allows Arizona police to ask about immigration status. They just can’t do anything about it once they get an answer.
Meanwhile, back in the state of Denial, Brewer promised to “move forward, instructing law enforcement to begin practicing what the Supreme Court has upheld.”
And that would be …. oh never mind.
SB 1070 lives – though life support might be a better description.
And the controversy rages on and on and interminably, on. The court correctly noted that Arizonans are justified in our frustration.
“Accounts in the record suggest there is an ‘epidemic of crime, safety risks, serious property damage and environmental problems,’ associated with the influx of illegal migration across private land near the Mexican border … Phoenix is a major city of the United States yet signs along an interstate highway 30 miles to the south warn the public to stay away … The problems posed to the State by illegal immigration must not be underestimated.”
Or ignored, as they have been for lo the last 25 years under five presidents.
SB 1070 succeeded in one respect. It put illegal immigration in the national spotlight. Monday’s ruling will ensure that it stays there in this year’s elections.
So commence the pandering one last time to the folks crowded into whichever foxhole you’ve dug into – noble immigrant or alien invader.
But when the voting is over and the smoke has cleared, we really need a Congress and a president who will emerge from wherever they’re dug in – a coalition of statesmen with the courage, the backbone and the wisdom to find that elusive common ground and fix, finally, this mess that has turned the term “rule of law” into a national joke.
Hey, I, too, can dream.
Ruling on SB 1070 law leaves many questions unanswered
SourceRuling on Arizona's immigration law leaves many questions unanswered
By Paloma Esquivel, Los Angeles Times
June 27, 2012
PHOENIX — If I'm traveling with other Latinos in a carpool will I be stopped?
Will you accept my Mexican-issued ID?
If I witness a crime, should I call the police?
One by one, Phoenix Police Chief Daniel Garcia tried to reassure the questioners gathered at a Phoenix high school, saying repeatedly that people would not be detained without reason under Arizona's landmark immigration law.
Across the state, the law's "show me your papers" provision upheld by the Supreme Court has created confusion and anxiety, and moved Latinos — both legal and illegal residents — to ask an overriding question: How can you promise we won't be singled out because of how we look?
The law compels police to ask about the immigration status of people they stop for lawful reasons, if they suspect those people of being illegal immigrants. Garcia and officials say they will apply the law fairly.
But many meeting with the police chief were skeptical. Long after the meeting was over, a group gathered around a police officer and peppered him with more questions about IDs and traffic stops.
Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, a critic of the law, said the text of SB 1070 leaves plenty of room for questions.
"The law itself lacks clarity," Stanton said Tuesday.
Stanton said Phoenix was prepared to "err on the side of protecting civil rights." But he said it would probably take litigation "to establish the parameters of what is and is not constitutional under 1070."
Russell Pearce, the former Republican state senator who sponsored the law, said it was "demeaning to law enforcement to assume they're out there looking to racially profile."
On the other hand, he said, "Those that are here illegally should worry. If they're here illegally, they ought to be arrested."
At La Campesina, a Spanish-language radio station in Phoenix and other cities, DJs have fielded dozens of calls from worried immigrants since the ruling was announced Monday.
"There are a lot of hypotheticals, a lot of 'what if' questions," said Saul Madrid, education manager for the radio network.
Many of those questions revolved around whether driving without a license would lead to deportation. (Answer: It's not clear.) The radio station brought in local officials and legal experts to respond to inquiries. But satisfactory answers are few and far between.
"The questions that people are asking are questions that the police cannot answer right now," Madrid said.
SB 1070 requires local and state officers to tell Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection if they believe someone is in the country illegally. An official — typically over the phone — will verify the person's immigration status, run a background check and decide whether federal authorities want to get involved.
The Department of Homeland Security only deals with "priority removals" — that is, illegal immigrants who just crossed the border, who have been deported before or who have been convicted of a crime. Department officials said most people stopped would not meet those criteria.
But if someone is a priority removal, ICE will issue a detainer and deport them once they have been released from local custody, officials said.
Lydia Hernandez, president of a local school board, said there was a shared sense among some Latinos that what police call routine traffic stops are really motivated by the type of car one drives, the number of people in the vehicle and — yes — whether they have brown skin.
"My routine traffic stop differs from a person in Scottsdale who is not my color," she said, referring to the well-to-do community northeast of Phoenix. Arizona is 29.6% Latino.
The state board that governs police training distributed a video to all law enforcement agencies to teach agents how to enforce the law, with repeated reminders to avoid racial profiling.
"The reality is that the ethnic mix of our communities is such that race tells you nothing about whether or not a person is unlawfully in the United States," lawyer Beverly Ginn says in the video.
A combination of factors can lead to reasonable suspicion, according to the video, including: having foreign identification, being in a place where illegal immigrants are known to congregate looking for work, traveling in tandem or in an overcrowded vehicle, type of clothing and significant difficulty communicating in English.
After SB 1070 was signed into law two years ago, Hugo Sanchez, 24, and his family began advocating for immigrants rights. Sanchez, his parents and two sisters are all illegal immigrants, but their anxieties have turned to a sense of empowerment with their activism, he said.
But Monday night, as Sanchez drove home with his mother from the community meeting at Carl Hayden Community High School, it was clear that his mother was fearful.
Maybe you shouldn't drive as much anymore, she told him. Try to stay home. At least sell your old car and get a new one. A new car is less of a target, she said.
"I just stayed quiet," Sanchez said Tuesday. "I started thinking, 'What should I do? What's next?' "
paloma.esquivel@latimes.com
Times staff writer Laura J. Nelson in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
Who needs SB 1070 to violate the rights of brown skinned folks???
Who needs SB 1070 to violate the rights of brown skinned folks??? The racist NYPD doesn't, ask 686,000 New Yorkers.Rude or Polite, City’s Officers Leave Raw Feelings in Stops
By WENDY RUDERMAN
Published: June 26, 2012 Comment
Most of the time, the officers swoop in, hornetlike, with a command to stop: “Yo! You, come here. Get against the wall.”
They batter away with questions, sometimes laced with profanity, racial slurs and insults: “Where’s the weed?” “Where’s the guns?”
The officers tell those who ask why they have been stopped to shut up, using names like immigrant, old man or “bro.”
Next comes the frisk, the rummaging through pockets and backpacks. Then they are gone.
Other times, the officers are polite, their introductions almost gentle. “Hey, how’s it going?” “Can you step over here, sir?” “We’d like to talk to you.”
The questions are probing, authoritative, but less accusatory. “What are you doing here?” “Do you live here?” “Can I see some identification, please?” During the pat-down, they ask, “Do you have anything on you?” They nudge further: “You don’t mind if I search you, do you?” They explain that someone of a matching description robbed a store a few days ago, or that the stop is a random one, part of a program in a high-crime area. Then they apologize for the stop and say the person is free to go.
In interviews with 100 people who said they had been stopped by the New York police in neighborhoods where the practice is most common, many said the experience left them feeling intruded upon and humiliated. And even when officers extended niceties, like “Have a nice night,” or called them “sir” and “ma’am,” people said they questioned whether the officer was being genuine.
Michael Delgado, 18, said he was last stopped on Grant Street in East New York, Brooklyn. “I was walking, and a cop said, ‘Where’s the weed?’ ” he recalled. “In my mind, I’m like, ‘Yo, this guy’s a racist.’ He started frisking me, his hands were in my pockets, but I didn’t say anything because my mom always tells me: ‘No altercations. Let him do his thing.’ ”
When the stop-and-frisk was done, Mr. Delgado said, the officer left him with a casual aside to stay safe.
“Stay safe?” Mr. Delgado said. “After he just did all that?”
Last year, city police officers stopped nearly 686,000 people, 84 percent of them black or Latino. The vast majority — 88 percent of the stops — led to neither an arrest nor a summons, although officers said they had enough reasonable suspicion to conduct a frisk in roughly half of the total stops, according to statistics provided by the New York Police Department and the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Behind each number is a singular and salient interaction between the officers and the person they have stopped. In conducting the interviews, The New York Times sought to explore the simple architecture of the stops — the officers’ words and gestures, actions, explanations, tones of voice and demeanors.
What seems clear is that there is no script for the encounters, or that if there is one, it is not being followed. Under the law, officers must have a reasonable suspicion — a belief that a crime is afoot — to stop, question and frisk people. One thing an officer cannot do is stop someone based solely on skin color. Yet many of those interviewed said they believed that officers had stopped them because of race — and race alone.
Al Blount, a minister at a Harlem church, said he had been pulled over. “They’ll ask, ‘Where are you headed?’ When you’re African-American, you have to have a definite destination. Everyone else can just say, ‘Mind your own business.’ ”
Last month, a federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit alleging that the Police Department’s stop-and-frisk tactics systematically violated the constitutional rights of blacks and Latinos, who say they are singled out for stops.
Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg contend that the stop-and-frisk tactic has reduced crime; nonetheless, they have said they are taking steps to ensure that stops are conducted lawfully. Those measures, they said, are expected to drive down the number of stops, while increasing their quality. The mayor has acknowledged that officers are not always respectful during stops, and said that efforts would be made to improve interactions.
The informal street survey, conducted over the past two weeks, sought to get at the root of an angry groundswell against the police among residents in predominately minority and poor neighborhoods.
The interviews consisted of five questions: When and where were you stopped? What was the first thing the police officer said to you? How did the officer address you? Did the officer ever explain why he or she had stopped you? What was the last thing the officer said to you?
The answers offered a glimpse into the experience and why it often leaves such a bitter taste in the mouths of so many who have been stopped, and raised questions about whether the Police Department’s new emphasis on courtesy and respect would help mend relationships in predominantly minority neighborhoods.
While the encounter is often brief, the impression can be long-lasting.
“I understand that they might need to be aggressive with some people, but you just feel it,” said Christopher A. Chadwick, 20, a college student from Brooklyn. “They talk to you like you’re ignorant, like you’re an animal.” Mr. Chadwick described a stop that began when an officer said: “You, come here. Show me your ID.”
Cruz Calixto, 48, said the foot-patrol officers who approached him last summer as he walked down Rockaway Boulevard in Queens were mild-mannered. “ ‘Can you step over here sir? We’d like to talk to you,’ ” Mr. Calixto recounted. Still, the encounter was degrading. “It makes you feel belittled,” he said.
In April, the Police Department began a stop-and-frisk training course with a new component, “The Nobility of Policing,” meant to reduce animosity through professionalism and respect. The course centers on the notion that people want to be asked, and not told, what to do.
Instructors at the department’s training facility at Rodman’s Neck in the Bronx teach officers the importance of “shelving or ramping down one’s ego,” while underscoring that tone, body language, words and actions can dictate whether a stop will go badly for both the officer and the citizen, said Detective James Shanahan, a Police Academy instructor.
The department recently distributed thousands of wallet-size cards — labeled “What Is A Stop, Question and Frisk Encounter?” — to precincts across the city. Officers have been encouraged to give the cards to people they have stopped; at the bottom of the card is essentially a one-sentence, conditional apology: “If you have been stopped and were not involved in any criminal activity, the N.Y.P.D. regrets any inconvenience.”
Of the people interviewed, only one, Derrick Smith, said that officers had provided the card — in an exchange witnessed by The Times.
Mr. Smith, 47, had been stopped as he emerged from the subway in East New York. He said the officers told him they had seen a suspicious bulge in his shirt.
“I had to lift my shirt; I was coming home from work,” Mr. Smith said. “It was just my cellphone.”
As Mr. Smith spoke with reporters, the officers returned to hand him one of the cards.
Many of those interviewed said that they resented being stopped, but that the officers’ demeanor made the experience far worse.
On an evening about a month ago, while walking with friends on Northern Boulevard near 78th Street, in Queens, Louis Morales, 15, and Alex Mejia, 16, found themselves swarmed by plainclothes narcotics officers. They shoved the teenagers’ palms onto an unmarked police car and searched them. Spewing expletives, the officers repeatedly ordered them to “shut up,” the teenagers said.
One of the officers, Mr. Morales said, warned: “Say one word and I’m going to make your parents pick you up at the jail. You guys are a bunch of immigrants.”
“Yep, that’s what they said, ‘You guys are immigrants,’ ” Mr. Mejia interjected. “We can’t say anything to them. They curse at us. They treat us like we killed somebody.”
Mr. Morales said he and other neighborhood teenagers had become so bitter that even if they had information about a crime, they would not share it with the police. “I’m not going to help them,” he said. “They are not helping me by disrespecting me.”
Most of those interviewed said they could not remember the exact date and time when they were stopped and only six or seven said they knew the name of the officers involved. The sentiment, however, was clearer.
On a recent early evening in Brownsville, Brooklyn, Eric Togar said, he was on his way to meet his wife and her younger brother in front of the Langston Hughes Houses, where a cream-colored stretch limousine was on its way to take Mr. Togar’s teenage brother-in-law to a prom. The police cruiser pulled up, with lights activated, and two officers jumped out.
The officers asked if he was wanted on a warrant, said Mr. Togar, 45, a computer technician. They asked to see identification and what was inside the red backpack slung over his shoulder. “Computers and tablets,” he told them. Mr. Togar said they patted him down, offering no explanation, then told him he could go. Mr. Togar almost missed the prom send-off.
“They’re supposed to serve and protect, but all they do is patrol and control,” Mr. Togar said. “Walking down the street doesn’t make you a criminal.”
Immigration Ruling Leaves Issues Unresolved
SourceImmigration Ruling Leaves Issues Unresolved
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: June 26, 2012
The Supreme Court’s mixed decision on Arizona’s tough immigration enforcement law has laid the ground for years of legal and political wrangling in many states over racial profiling and civil rights, making it likely that the court will be asked to revisit immigration.
In its opinion on Monday, the court struck down three parts of the controversial law but let stand a core “show me your papers” provision, which requires the police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop if they suspect the person is an illegal immigrant.
But the court also suggested it was open to new challenges based on any adverse impact the law might have on the civil rights of Arizona residents.
Legal groups opposed to Arizona’s law contend that the police will not be able to decide whom to question without singling out Hispanics and foreign-looking people for special scrutiny. They said the court’s opinion, in a lawsuit brought by the Obama administration, clears the way for them to come forward with challenges based directly on claims that the statute will lead to racial profiling of Latinos and immigrants.
Fearing that impact, Latinos turned out in street protests across the country after the law, known as S.B. 1070, was enacted in 2010, and they led a boycott of Arizona, together with civil rights and immigrant groups. But claims of discrimination were not squarely addressed in the administration’s case.
“The court has opened the door for us to proceed now with the rest of our constitutional claims,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, which brought challenges against Arizona’s law and similar statutes in five other states. “This type of law is almost impossible to enforce in a racially neutral way, without leading to civil rights violations against people of color,” she said.
On the other side, supporters of Arizona’s statute said the Supreme Court’s decision would compel them to pursue a new line of legal attack, focusing on what they contend is overreaching by the Obama administration, which they believe the justices encouraged. In its opinion the court broadly endorsed the administration’s argument that immigration policy and enforcement are primarily the province of the federal government, not the states.
“The administration is relying on a claim that they have discretion to enforce immigration law,” said Michael M. Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute in Washington, a group that helped Arizona and many other states to write their own immigration enforcement laws. “And they are using that claim to really massively expand their direct power.”
Mr. Hethmon’s institute is the legal branch of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, one of the nation’s most influential groups seeking reduced immigration.
Five other states have enacted laws that are some variation of Arizona’s: Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah. Civil rights groups have challenged those laws, and federal courts have suspended some or all of their provisions.
The Obama administration, in its case against Arizona — the first challenge to rise to the Supreme Court — relied almost exclusively on the argument that the state law was invalid because it was in conflict with federal policy.
Before the administration filed its suit in 2010, civil rights organizations — including Ms. Hincapié’s center; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, known as Maldef; and the American Civil Liberties Union — brought a separate lawsuit against S.B. 1070. That case, on behalf of labor unions, business groups, churches and immigrant organizations, claims the Arizona law “will subject many persons of color,” including Americans and legal immigrants, “to racial profiling and to unlawful interrogations, searches, seizures and arrests.”
The federal court put that lawsuit in abeyance while the Obama administration’s case moved forward. But after the Supreme Court’s decision, Ms. Hincapié said, the civil rights case can advance again.
The Supreme Court decision heightened attention on Alabama, where lawmakers last year passed an immigration law tougher than Arizona’s. While authorizing the police to check immigration status, the law also restricted business contracts and transactions with illegal immigrants, and required public schools to check the status of students.
This year, the Alabama Legislature added provisions to make the law even more strict. Based on challenges from rights groups, federal courts suspended many provisions but allowed the “show me your papers” section to stand, making Alabama the only state where such a law has gone into effect.
Alabama officials and lawmakers said they were both heartened and worried by the court’s decision.
“The Supreme Court came down solidly committed to both sides, not solidly for either side,” said State Senator Scott Beason, a Republican who was a leading sponsor of the immigration bill. “I was hoping for a more definitive set of guidelines,” he said.
Rights organizations, including the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, brought two lawsuits against Alabama, both including extensive civil rights claims. They won one round, in which a federal court found the law unfairly prevented illegal immigrants from obtaining license plates for mobile homes.
Alabama officials said they were studying the Supreme Court decision to decipher its impact on the state law.
“The people of Alabama want a strong anti-illegal-immigration law,” said Gov. Robert Bentley, a Republican. “I will keep my commitment to uphold and enforce Alabama’s law.”
Mr. Hethmon, of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, said the group was preparing “creative legal strategies” to directly contest the Obama administration’s view that it can use its federal authority to exercise wide prosecutorial discretion in setting deportation policy. The administration has said it will focus on removing illegal immigrants who are criminals, while sparing others with no criminal records.
Mr. Hethmon said he would also be advising states on how to devise policing statutes similar to Arizona’s so they will be fully consistent with the Supreme Court’s guidance.
Civil rights lawyers said they will not give up on trying to stop the policing provision of S.B. 1070, which the Supreme Court upheld, from taking effect. They contend the court’s opinion pointed to new limits it wanted to impose on the law.
“We feel strongly this law should not be implemented,” said Thomas A. Saenz, general counsel of Maldef. “The irreparable harms are just too severe.”
Police policy on immigrants a patchwork across California
"In California right now the law says you take them to jail until you establish who they are" - That sounds like a lie. You can't just arrest and jail people because they can't prove they are NOT criminals or because they don't have ID. You have to have "probable cause" which means you have evidence they committed a crime.Police policy on immigrants a patchwork across California
Posted: 06/26/2012 05:37:02 PM PDT
State and local police across the country didn't need the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding Arizona's "show me your papers" immigration law to begin turning people over to the federal government for deportation.
Since late 2007, they have helped identify nearly 20 percent of the nation's 1.6 million deportees -- a trend likely to accelerate.
Even before Arizona passed its strict law more than two years ago, many California police officers routinely questioned unlicensed immigrant drivers about their nationality and legal status and passed suspected illegal immigrants to federal agents.
Police across the state are unlikely to change their practices now. In San Jose, Hayward and Fremont, they will continue to comply with department policy against looking into immigration status, while Escondido police and immigration agents will continue working side by side.
"In California right now the law says you take them to jail until you establish who they are," said John McGinness, a consultant for the California Peace Officers' Association and retired Sacramento County sheriff. "That's not very different from Arizona."
Some police departments expressly prohibit their officers from getting involved in immigration matters, believing it corrodes relationships with immigrant communities.
"We're not interested in people's immigration status," said Sgt. Jason Dwyer of the San Jose Police Department. "That's by direction of the chief."
While most police officers in California don't try to be immigration agents, the social and political norms of the communities where they work and internal policies -- or lack of them -- often guide how they handle the immigrants they pull over, said UC Irvine criminology professor Charis Kubrin.
"It depends on the directions they're getting from up above in the cities they're working in," Kubrin said.
In the liberal and diverse Bay Area, many in law enforcement pan Arizona's law as one that makes it harder for officers to do their primary duty of protecting public safety.
"If that were to happen here it would drive a huge wedge between the department and the community," Dwyer said.
Fremont and Hayward are among several Bay Area cities where manuals instruct officers to ask about immigration only if it is relevant to a criminal investigation.
"We are not immigration or customs officers," said Hayward police Chief Diane Urban.
About half of Hayward's residents are Latino and "the last thing we want to do is put ourselves at odds with our community," she said.
But regardless of how local law officers view their role in immigration, the Obama administration plans to have police everywhere share fingerprints of those accused of breaking the law to identify people for deportation.
The administration is making clear -- as the Supreme Court did this week -- that federal authorities have always had and will continue to have the final say on who gets deported.
As debate has raged over the only provision of the Arizona law the high court upheld -- the requirement that police question immigrants they stop and suspect of being here illegally -- the federal government has increasingly tapped the vastly superior presence of state and local police.
State and local police made about 150,000 arrests resulting in deportations from late 2007 to late 2011 under a program that empowered specially trained local officers to enforce immigration laws. Deportations under that program are falling sharply as the government phases it out.
In the separate Secure Communities fingerprinting program, state and local agencies were responsible for most of another roughly 150,000 deportations during that time. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement checks prints of everyone booked into jails and tells local police who to hold for deportation hearings.
Secure Communities has deported more than 7,500 immigrants from the Bay Area since its counties joined the network in 2010.
A few police departments go even further. Escondido, a San Diego suburb of 140,000 people, has nine ICE employees at police headquarters.
Escondido police Chief Jim Maher said his officers target illegal immigrants who commit crimes. Those whose only offense is being in the country illegally won't be bothered, nor will crime victims or witnesses.
"If you're not a criminal, you have nothing to fear," he said.
The Associated Press and staff writers Matt O'Brien and Chris De Benedetti contributed to this report.
Error Supremo
