Supreme Court Rules on AZ law
On June 25, 2012, the US Supreme Court upheld the main provision of Arizona's immigration SB 1070, which required law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of detained individuals. This ruling clears the way for other states to follow Arizona's lead on immigration enforcement - to "do the job the feds refuse to do".
And yet they still refuse. Immediately after the victory, the Department of Homeland Security said that officers would only assist Arizona law enforcement to most minimal extent. In further retaliation, DHS cancelled the highly effective 287(g) program in Arizona - the where local authorities can make immigration-related arrests.
Attrition through enforcement quite simply works. Which is why the Administration vehemently opposes the Supreme Court Ruling.
Although the Supreme Court struck down three provisions of the law, several Justices filed dissenting opinions saying that they would have upheld the full law. Justice Scalia wrote that the ruling:
"deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign's territory people who have no right to be there," and that the ruling "deprives states" of basic "characteristic of sovereignty."
Here are selected articles on the ruling:
"The arrest provision will come into play thousands of times every day."
"Combined with another Court ruling on an Arizona law last year, states now have all the legal room they need to pursue attrition-through-enforcement measures that cause illegal aliens to depart from a state, opening up jobs for unemployed Americans and legal immigrants."
"Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law."
Where the Supreme Court Went Wrong in Arizona