OUR VIEW; IMMIGRATION GETS KICKED DOWN THE ROAD.
With the Monday announcement of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Arizona's controversial immigration law, we are assured of this: Federal law is supreme when dealing with immigration immigration, entrance of a person (an alien) into a new country for the purpose of establishing permanent residence. Motives for immigration, like those for migration generally, are often economic, although religious or political factors may be very important. , and this law will return again to the nation's highest court.
The court gutted most of Arizona's law, including provisions criminalizing work for undocumented immigrants and allowing police officers to arrest without a warrant if they believe there is probable cause Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution, or that a Cause of Action has accrued, justifying a civil lawsuit. that the person has committed crimes for which he could be deported. Further, the Supreme Court ruled against a portion of the law that made any federal violations of registration statutes a state crime as well. It was a resounding re·sound
v. re·sound·ed, re·sound·ing, re·sounds
1. To be filled with sound; reverberate: The schoolyard resounded with the laughter of children.
2. endorsement of the notion that the federal government is responsible for immigration laws, not the states.
What the court didn't do -- and this one matters to any "foreign-looking" person -- is vacate the portion of the law that would allow police officers to demand papers at will upon a "reasonable" suspicion that a suspect is here illegally. From now until the next lawsuit, American citizens who somehow spark the suspicion of a police officer will have to "prove" they belong here. That is simply un-American. Take heart, though. This ruling is hardly the end of the issue.
The court basically said in its decision that it cannot rule on the "show-me-your-papers" policy mainly because justices have no way of knowing whether this provision will be carried out in a nondiscriminatory fashion. In other words Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke"
put differently , if Arizona's police officers began stopping only people with accents, for example, or did not treat people similarly after a stop because of their appearance, there's a good chance the law could be thrown out. While Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is trying to claim a victory because this part of the law has been left untouched, we believe -- given Arizona's track record on fairness -- that it most certainly will be carried out in a discriminatory manner. Overreach overreach
the error in a fast gait when the toe of a hindhoof of a horse strikes and injures the back of the pastern of the leg on the same side.
overreach boot will kill this law, too. We are just sorry that real-life people will be hurt as officers discriminate and courts take time to make their rulings.
Most fascinating in this decision is the reaction of Justice Antonin Scalia, whose dissent in defense of the Arizona law is worth reading -- he particularly goes after the president's recent announcement that the U.S. is going to stop deporting immigrants who came to this country illegally as children, turning what should be a timeless verdict into a screed-of-the-moment reaction. When voting in November, think of Scalia. Voters who want more justices in the Scalia mold should not vote for President Barack Obama; those who think he is a courageous conservative can choose Mitt Romney. A real choice, on issues that matter -- as we will see the law in Arizona mattering to the first person asked to show his papers because of accented speech or the color of his skin.