Skip to main content

The Supreme Court and Immigration Arizona v. United States

By
The Supreme Court issued its decision in Arizona v. United States, in a resounding defeat for the anti-immigration movement, the Court affirmatively stated that three of the four provisions in question are PREEMPTED by Federal law, and most importantly that the show me your papers provision must be NARROWLY construed and enforced in order for it to remain constitutional, essentially inviting further challenges should there be any hint of racial profiling in its enforcement.

In order to enforce a show me your papers provisions, the State would have to check the immigration status of EVERY person, in EVERY stop, for EVERY crime, EVERY time. Short of doing this, racial profiling will occur, since there could be NO legitimate way to determine someones immigration status. Especially since the Supreme Court struck down the provision that that barred the Arizona from stopping people because they had a reasonable cause to believe they were undocumented. This is a KEY part of the HB 87, Section 8, so we have much to celebrate. Because Section 8 has a key provision requiring police to check of the immigration status of anyone the have reasonable cause to believe is undocumented. Section 8 cannot be enforced without this provision being removed and the police checking the immigration status of EVERYONE they stop and/or arrest.

Further, because Section 7 of the Georgia's HB 87, dealing with harboring and trafficking, was NOT part of the Supreme Court case in Arizona, we remain confident that the Court of Appeals will uphold the District Court and strike down this section of HB 87. The bottom line? This is a terrific decision, a HUGE blow to the anti-immigration movement and the likes of Kris Kobach and his ilk who wrote the Arizona law and helped Rep. Matt Ramsey write Georgia's HB 87.

Let me end with a quote from Justice Kennedy's decision today:

The United States has established that §§3, 5(C), and 6
of S. B. 1070 are preempted. It was improper, however, to
enjoin §2(B) 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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If You Are An Immigrant (even a US Citizen), Here Are 9 Things You Should Know

By
Are you a Naturalized U.S. Citizen, Lawful Permanent Resident, Visa Holder, or an Undocumented Immigrant? We recommend you take the following steps to protect yourself in our current version of America. The last couple of weeks have reminded immigrants, even naturalized U.S. citizens, that they were not born in the United States. Our office has received countless phone calls, emails, and social media messages from people worrying about what their family’s future in the United States holds. Most people want to know what they can do now to protect themselves from what promises to be a wave of anti-immigration activity by the federal government. Trump's Executive Order on Interior Enforcement has some provisions that should make most Americans shiver.  We recommend the following actions for each of the following groups: Naturalized U.S. citizens. In particular if you have a foreign accent, and you are traveling within 100 miles of any US Border (including the oceans...
231 comments
Read more

Seven Reasons Why the Georgia Legislature Should Repeal HB-87

By
Recently the Alabama Attorney General called on the Alabama State Legislature to repeal parts of Alabama's horrid anti-immigration law ( HB 56), because of the "unintended" consequences of the bill (frankly, what happened was not unintended). Because of the similarity between the two laws, Georgia's Speaker of the House, David Ralston was asked whether Georgia Legislature would repeal part or all of HB 87, Georgia own anti-immigration law. HB 87 has caused almost a half a billion dollars in damage to the Georgia economy (along with untold suffering in Georgia's immigrant communities) without any noted or reported positive effect. Speaker Ralston plainly stated that the Georgia Legislature would NOT do anything to repeal HB 87 . While it understandable why a politician would not admit that a pet bill he shepherded and pushed through the state legislature was simply bad law, it is also clear that Speaker Ralston is facing a challenge on his RIGHT in th...
1 comment
Read more

Why is USCIS Taking So Long to Renew DACA Work Permits?

By
If the calls to our office are any indicator, there are thousands of DACA recipients whose work permit applications were filed at least three months prior to expiration, who are still waiting for their renewed work permits.  Without renewed permits, these individuals lose the right to work legally, the right to drive, and may once again accrue unlawful presence. The DHS published a notice in October 2014 advising DACA recipients that they could file their request for extension up to 150 days (5 months) prior to expiration.  As with all things government, very few of the DACA recipients, who tend not to frequent government websites, knew about the memo and many did not file so far before expiration perhaps thinking that extending a work permit was a like extending a drivers license, its is done in a few minutes.  As an experienced immigration lawyer will tell you, the USCIS does nothing quickly, and certainly does not worry that a person may lose their job or their drive...
16 comments
Read more