On June 25 the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling rejecting most of the Arizona immigration law, known as SB1010. The only part of the law now remaining is the section that allows state and local officials to check the status of people who they have stopped or detained as long as they have “reasonable suspicion” that these individuals are in the country illegally.

One of the parts rejected by the Supreme Court includes making it illegal for illegal immigrants to not have a federal registration card which is already a misdemeanor nationally. SCOTUS also rejected the part of the law that made it illegal for illegals to work, apply for work, or to try to solicit work. SCOTUS also announced that allowing state and local officials to arrest illegals without warrant because they have committed “any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States” is no longer allowed as a part of the law.

Now the law states that officers must check with immigration officials before holding immigrants for reasons other than committing a crime. Arizona law enforcement can notify the federal officials about the suspected illegal status but cannot detain them in jail or charge them for their illegal status. However, while law enforcement cannot hold someone because they are illegal, while the officials are trying to determine the status of an individuals the amount of time they are detained cannot be determined. Kennedy, in the majority opinion, states, “it is not clear at this stage and on this record that the verification process would result in prolonged detention.”

Justice Kennedy delivered the majority opinion. Kennedy stated, “this authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s constitutional power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization’ and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations…the federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled.” Further in the opinion Kennedy elaborates on this aspect of the problematic law: “[this law] would allow the State to achieve its own immigration policy. The result could be unnecessary harassment of some aliens…whom federal officials determine should not be removed. This is not the system Congress created.”

Yet Kennedy acknowledged the problems that Arizona is having stating, “Statistics alone do not capture the full extent of Arizona’s concerns.”

Arizona’s state government claims that it made the law because the federal government has failed to control immigration into the state. Arizona has had to deal with high costs of education and care of immigrants in recent years. The state government believes that this law would empower law enforcement to be able to deal with the immigration problems. Additionally, the law forced the federal government to face the problem of immigration.

However, opponents of the law stated that it criminalized law-abiding people because of their statuses. There was also the worry that the law would lead to racial profiling of legal Hispanics. In his majority decision Kennedy echoed a similar sentiment stating, “discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service.”

Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas delivered their own concurring and dissenting opinions. Scalia stated in his opinion, “as a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress.” Thomas supported Scalia and writes, “I agree with Justice Scalia that federal immigration law does not pre-empt any of the challenged provisions of S.B. 1070. I reach that conclusion, however, for the simple reason that there is no conflict between the “ordinary meaning” of the relevant federal laws and that of the four provisions of Arizona law at issue here.”

This decision will highly impact the creation of similar laws in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah.

After the Arizona law was passed Obama stated that the law, “threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans” and sued the state of Arizona for overstepping its sovereign rights of the federal government. Oral arguments were heard in front of the Supreme Court on April 25, 2012.

Mitt Romney claimed to support the law and would have dropped the lawsuit against Arizona. According to USA Today Romney would then adopt the idea from Arizona of making life so difficult for immigrants that they self-deport.

The article Supreme Court Rejects Most of Arizona Immigration Law appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. – The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency announced that it will no longer initiate enforcement actions against deportable aliens identified by the Secure Communities program who have committed “minor” criminal offenses.

This represents the Obama administration’s latest assault on immigration enforcement, charges the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The new policy is the next step in the Administration’s effort to ensure that only aliens who have been convicted of violent crimes will be subject to deportation.

Secure Communities cross-checks the fingerprints of every person arrested by state and local police against a variety of federal databases, including a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) database of immigration law violators. Deportable aliens who are identified through the Secure Communities program are turned over to ICE, rather than released on bail. The new policy will dramatically limit the number of deportable aliens in state and local jails who ICE takes action against.

“Today’s action is clear evidence that this administration will not quit until most immigration enforcement apparatus in the U.S. is shut down and should be a clear signal that this administration believes the violation of immigration laws is entirely inconsequential. The removal of violent criminal aliens only has been the lone factor in the Administration’s ability to maintain the pretense that it is enforcing our immigration laws,” noted Dan Stein, president of FAIR.

“Programs which rely on local law enforcement, like Secure Communities and 287(g) – a congressionally established program that trains local police to identify and detain illegal aliens – have provided ICE with a pipeline to identify deportable aliens,” continued Stein. “The Administration is phasing out 287(g) entirely, and now they are limiting the use of Secure Communities so that non-criminal aliens are ultimately released back onto the street.”

The latest ICE announcement is part of the Administration’s effort to prevent state and local authorities from playing a role in immigration enforcement. The Administration has made it abundantly clear through lawsuits and other actions that it does not want to enforce most U.S. immigration laws and it will not tolerate state and local policies that get in the way of their political objectives.

“We are rapidly approaching the point where violent criminal aliens will be the only people who will be subject to immigration enforcement,” Stein concluded.

The article Obama Administration Limits the Use of Secure Communities appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

America’s Wire released a story about undocumented immigrant parents, usually Latinos, who are losing custody of their children.  It cites data from an alarming study by the Applied Research Center and details the case of Encarnacion Bail, an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala, who is in a prolonged fight to regain custody of her son, Carlos.

Award-winning reporter, Marjorie Valbrun, reports that more than 5,000 children of immigrants are languishing in state foster care nationwide because their parents were living in the United States illegally and were detained or deported by federal immigration authorities.

“These children can spend years in foster homes, and some are put up for adoption after termination of their parents’ custody rights,” she writes. “With neither state nor federal officials addressing the problem, thousands more are poised to enter the child welfare system every year.”

This story, as well as others, are available free of charge from America’s Wire.  The story is also available in Spanish.  Go to www.Americaswire.org  and click the “Download” button in the right column.

“Our story exemplifies what is wrong with America’s immigration policy,” said Michael K. Frisby, president of America’s Wire. “Ms. Valbrun details the impact on immigrant children and how parents who came to America in search of a better life are losing custody of their children. I urge media outlets and websites to publish this story to help the public better understand the consequences of our nation’s failed immigration policy.”

America’s Wire is an independent journalism outlet that provides newspapers, community papers, websites, ethnic publications and wire services with stories that report on structural inequalities, and the communities impacted by it. This week, we also highlight a story on the abysmal academic performance of Latino and African-American high school students.

They are performing at the same level as 30 years ago; on average, black and Latino high school seniors read and do math at the same level as 13-year old white students.  This story is also available free at www.americaswire.org.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/longislandwins/

The article America’s Wire Released Story on Immigrant Parents Losing Children’s Custody appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, is urging a federal appeals court to uphold Alabama’s immigration law saying the measure “mirrors federal immigration provisions” and warns that if the Obama Administration challenge to the Alabama law succeeds, states will be effectively rendered “powerless over unchecked illegal immigration and the associated social and economic costs that their citizens must bear.”

“This is fast becoming one of the most important issues for the American people,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “This latest case underscores the growing clash between the federal government and the rights of states.

The fact is many states are doing what Alabama and Arizona already have done – enacting laws that promote Congressional immigration policy by enforcing the very laws that the Obama Administration fails to enforce. We contend the Alabama measure impedes no federal law and is actually consistent with federal immigration policy that promotes increasingly greater roles for states in enforcing immigration law.”

The ACLJ filed an amicus brief yesterday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, backingAlabama’s HB 56.

The brief, posted here, argues:

“The Administration’s attack on HB 56 undermines federalist and separation of powers principles by permitting the Administration’s policy preferences to trump Congress’s statutory acknowledgement that states have inherent authority to enforce laws that profoundly affect their citizens’ welfare. A decision sustaining the Administration’s claims will effectively leave the states powerless over unchecked illegal immigration and the associated social and economic costs that their citizens must bear.”

The Alabama appeal comes as the Supreme Court has decided to hear a challenge to Arizona’s immigration measure, SB 1070. The ACLJ, representing 59 members of Congress and nearly 60,000 Americans, filed an amicus brief urging the high court to take the case arguing the Arizona measure, like the one in Alabama, is constitutional because it mirrors federal immigration law and incorporates federal standards.

The ACLJ is now preparing an amicus brief in support of the Arizona measure to be filed with the Supreme Court, which is expected to hear oral arguments in the case this spring.

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.  The ACLJ is online at www.aclj.org.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler / Shutterstock.com

The article ACLJ Urging Federal Appeals Court to Uphold Alabama’s Immigration Law appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.