Editor's note: Probably the best article I've found on the ruling yet?
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected much of Arizona’s tough new immigration law but allowed one key provision to stand, saying federal law did not pre-empt the state's instruction to its police to check the immigration status of people they detain.
Several other important provisions of the law conflicted with federal laws, the court found, rejecting provisions that made it a state crime for immigrants not to register with the federal government or to seek or hold jobs without proper documents, and to make warrantless arrests of some people suspected of being deportable.
The Obama administration had urged the court to strike down the whole law, including its provision requiring state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of people they stop and suspect are not in the United States legally. That provision also requires that the immigration status of people who are arrested be determined before they are released.
Continue reading Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law
The part of the law they upheld is basically meaningless since the Federal government has the Secure Communities program active in all US counties now.
With Secure Communities, as soon as the local police fingerprint you, they typically check those against FBI records, and then the FBI passes them on to ICE, which checks for immigration law violations.
I fail to see why the Supreme Court allowed the provision of Arizona's law that lets the cops check immigration status if you're picked up for committing a crime stand, as Secure Communities already did the same thing. There is no gap in existing federal law that Arizona is plugging here.
On the other hand, the parts of Arizona's law that were struck down (the rest of it), were correctly stricken. We SHOULD NEVER let the police simply say "Hey, that guy looks Hispanic, let's go harass him!". Where does that end?
If I have a dark enough sun tan, they might start harassing me based on racial stereotypes.
Also, playing it fast and loose with warantless invasions of peoples homes can't be allowed to stand. There's no harm in making the police go before a judge and saying "Hey, we think there are a bunch of illegal immigrants in that house and we want your permission to check it out."
When you start letting the cops kick down the door with no warrant for that, where does THIS end?
The Fourth Amendment says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Indiana's Constitution, Article I, section 11 says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized."
I didn't see a place in either one that said that lawmakers can make exceptions whenever they like, to give the police an excuse to raid the house with no judicial oversight.
If you let the police do unwarranted searches for suspected immigration violations, eventually they're going to bypass the need to ask for a warrant for any kind of search of a person's home, regardless of why they really want to search it.
They will simply justify it later by saying "We thought there were illegal immigrants in there, oops! But....after we kicked down the door, we found this, this, and that"
It's refreshing to see the Supreme Court take a grim view upon the fascist police state that Arizona is attempting to create.
Perhaps the idiots that run the state of Indiana will back off now...
Posted by: Abraham Lincoln | June 25, 2012 at 10:03 PM