Arizona SB on Dipity. Read the U. Supreme Court's ruling on SB , Arizona's controversial anti-immigration law. Download PDF. Groups interested in the outcome of Arizona's immigration Supreme Court case have outlined their arguments. The architect of Arizona's SB will testify before Congress this week, the day before the immigration law goes to the Supreme Court.
Arizona officials argue they are responsible for stopping illegal immigrants when they enter the state. Officials from Washington D. The plan is to raise millions of dollars through private donations - in part through a website - to build a more secure fence along the U. It's still unclear exactly where the barrier will go. A study finds that even though the majority of SB 's provisions were not enacted, it caused some migrants to move out of Arizona, and they often left their children behind to finish school.
Ever since Arizona's controversial SB became law, other states and cities have tried to copy it. But few have defied both state and federal laws like Escondido in enforcing immigration laws. Supporters say the law has achieved one of its goals: Thousands of illegal immigrants have left on their own.
Arizona has passed several laws and initiatives in this vein. In spite of them, data show many unauthorized immigrants have found a way to stay. The resolution was introduced on June Illinois HJR calls upon the Arizona Legislature to repeal SB and asks Congress and the president to act quickly to enact comprehensive immigration reform. The joint resolution was introduced May 4, adopted by the House on May 7, and is pending in the Senate. In Michigan, HR urges repeal of SB and asks Michigan businesses and public and private organizations to refrain from doing business with or in the state of Arizona.
The resolution was introduced on May Michigan HR expresses support for Arizona's new legislation regarding immigration and opposes any boycott of Arizona businesses. The resolution was introduced on June 9. New York SR denounces policy that encourages racial profiling and asks cooperation on all levels of government to enact immigration policies and laws.
The resolution was adopted on May 4. Tennessee HJR commends Arizona on its upcoming Centennial and salutes the initiative of the Arizona Legislature and Governor Jan Brewer in their actions to protect their citizens and the border. Three individuals two law enforcement officials and one researcher and the Coalition of Latino Clergy filed the first challenges to the law based on equal protection, due process and preemption under the Supremacy Clause. The lawsuit states that SB violates the Supremacy Clause, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, the Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Equal Protection Clause guarantee of equal protection under the law, and Article II, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution.
The lawsuit was filed May 17 in the U. District Court for the District of Arizona. On July 6, , the U. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in the U. District Court for the district of Arizona seeking a permanent injunction of SB The civil action states that SB is preempted by federal law 8 U. On July 15, U. On July 28, Judge Bolton granted in part and denied in part the motion for preliminary injunction. The sections that were barred from taking effect pending appeal were: Section 2B, requiring law enforcement officers to determine immigration status during any lawful stop; Section 3, creating state crimes and penalties for failure to carry federally-issued alien registration documents; Section 5 making it unlawful for an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for or perform work in Arizona; and Section 6, permitting an officer to make a warrantless arrest if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
Prohibits state and local law enforcement from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws. Requires state and local law enforcement to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful stop, detention or arrest in the enforcement of any other local or state law or ordinance where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present, except if it may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
Requires the immigration status to be verified with the federal government for anyone who is arrested. Stipulates that law enforcement cannot consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.
Specifies a presumption of lawful presence with these IDs: Arizona driver license or ID; tribal enrollment card or ID; valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.
And in the State's most populous county, these aliens are reported to be responsible for a disproportionate share of serious crime. Accounts in the record suggest there is an "epidemic of crime, safety risks, serious property damage, and environmental problems" associated with the influx of illegal migration across private land near the Mexican border.
Phoenix is a major city of the United States, yet signs along an interstate highway 30 miles to the south warn the public to stay away. SB was enacted with the intention of addressing these perceived issues of immigration and crime by deterring unlawful entry into the country and economic activity by persons residing in the state without legal permission. The bill passed the senate in February , and in April the house passed a modified version of the bill Governor Jan Brewer R signed the bill into law on April 23, SB contained four primary provisions related to immigration enforcement: [5].
SB created a new misdemeanor offense for a non-citizen to fail to complete and carry immigrant registration documents. Individuals sentenced under the offense were made ineligible for a suspended sentence, probation, pardon, commutation of sentence, or early release.
SB created a new misdemeanor offense for individuals residing in the country without legal permission to apply for or perform work in the state of Arizona. The offense was punishable by up to six months in prison for a first offense.
SB required state and local law enforcement to attempt to determine an individual's legal status when making a lawful stop, detention, or arrest, if reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence exists. Under this provision, those arrested were to be held until their legal status was determined and verified with the federal government. Race, color, and national origin were not to be considered in enforcement of this provision.
The provision also required law enforcement to notify U. Customs and Border Protection CBP immediately if someone convicted of a violation of state or local law, discharged from prison, or assessed a fine was discovered to be in the country without legal permission.
It also provided that state and local law enforcement may not be prohibited or restricted from sharing immigration status information with any governmental entity. SB added to the list of permissible reasons for warrantless arrests. Under the law, law enforcement officers could make warrantless arrests of individuals based on probable cause of unlawful presence or probable cause of an offense that makes the person eligible for removal from the United States.
SB also contained a number of other provisions: [6]. Supporters of SB , such as the Arizona-based blog Gilbert Watch —a publication that "promote[s] the concepts of limited government, low taxes, free enterprise, and personal responsibility"—generally argued that Arizona's enforcement of immigration law would improve public safety. They contended that the federal government had failed to properly secure the border, leading to issues of crime and national security, as well as impacting other areas such as the economy, the environment, healthcare, and public education.
In addition, some favored the creation of a state crime to work in the state without legal permission, arguing that this would protect such individuals from exploitation by employers.
0コメント