« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Let’s not forget about the parts of SB 1070 that already went into effect.

By: californiasam (Diary)  |  June 25th, 2012 at 05:42 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There’s a lot of talk today about the Supreme Court ruling, and I’ve seen some good analysis here. However, there are many provisions in SB 1070 that went into effect two years ago that should not be ignored, and, hopefully, are being picked up in other states.

Only 4 parts of the law were enjoined. The rest was left standing, and because it DID have a severability clause, the rest of the law remains untouched. There’s a great analysis of the enjoined sections and, as Governor Brewer pointed out, the law is only a few pages long and is easy to read.

Here are the sections that were already implemented:

  • Sanctuary cities or neighborhoods will no longer be tolerated.
  • Citizens can sue sanctuary cities and fines will be imposed on cities which do not comply with the law.
  • Unauthorized aliens to be turned over to ICE immediately upon release from prison for another offense.
  • Immigration status can be shared within the AZ government to determine eligibility for state benefits.
  • Smuggling human beings is a felony in Arizona.
  • Drivers cannot block the roadway to hire dayworkers.
  • Dayworkers cannot enter cars that are blocking roadways.
  • It is against AZ law to transport, harbor or encourage unauthorized aliens.
  • An employer may not hire an unauthorized alien, nor knowingly hire a contractor who does and may lose their business license(s) if they do.
Granted, the Obama administration has already said that it won’t respond to requests to aid in the enforcement of the provision which was upheld today (no surprise.) But, there are many parts of this law that help to take AZ in the right direction that have already been implemented.
Time to stop hand-wringing and start working on getting another Supreme Court Justice in there who we can trust before the standing sections are challenged on  supposed “Racial Bias’ grounds.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • checkmate2012

    and are good things to know. I think the SC didn’t go far enough since they aren’t willilng to do their job. I fear they will avoid AZ and head here to TX. sigh.

    • mikeymike143

      i dont buy into this ”we need to have a pandering contest with the democrats” in order to win the hispanic vote. yuck. lets not be RINO’s on immigration.

      • mikeymike143

        being strong on illegal immigration will be a voting bonanza for the republican party. and dont forget that those illegal immigrants are future democratic voters anyway.

        • checkmate2012

          needs to say it’s not fair to those here legally and the other 3Million citizens let alone those in line. Take a stand damnit and he could be rewarded.

        • acat

          Securing the border from illegal entry by those who seek violence or those importing illegal substances (i.e. national security and/or law&order) are equally good reasons to beef up border security.

          I’m not *disagreeing* with you, although I would like to know just where you’re sending the bill for tracking down all the illegals – including the gang members who are off the grid – and for driving them back to Juarez.

          While you can certainly oversimplify the southern (and northern) border down to fit on a bumper sticker, it’s at the expense of a real discussion, and therefore also at the expense of a real solution.

          Mew

          • checkmate2012

            illegal immigration is wrong? I understand the $$$ factor but in the end, we are a country of laws. Take it from shrimp on treadmills or drinking as it relates to Chinese call girls or NEA. I don’t care where the funds come from, O’Care comes to mind as well, but there has to be room for the primary function of the Feds to protect the citizens.

            I feel like we are now worse than a banana republic with this admin as it stuck out the finger to the SC, to AZ and to the US citizens today. There is no rule of law left. Illegal is illegal.

            If that’s the case, I hope TX, AZ, NM and CA defy the Feds as they are doing to us and the rest of the country and put the illegals back on a bus somewhere south of the border without telling ICE. Kinda like F&F.

            Sorry this wasn’t aimed at you. I’m mad as hell and know this is just wrong for all of us.

          • acat

            sue the Fed for dereliction of duty. Let’s at least figure out who has standing….

            The Supremes just said “States can’t do this” .. therefore it’s the job of the Fed, and what’s the recourse for the citizens if the Fed runs away?

            Mew

        • Dave_A

          To even get close to securing the border would require 500,000 men and trillions of dollars for equipment, construction, and supplies… We’d have to raise a force the size of the entire Active Duty Army.

          Similarly, a ’round up’ of illegals would be prohibitively expensive and have limited effecacy….

          The right solution, is to freeze border spending & focus on the interior.

          We don’t need a border fence if we eliminate the ability to get a job, own titled property, or obtain financial services (including wire-transfers – eg, no more wiring money back home)…

          And ‘border focused’ efforts won’t do anything about the 40% of illegals who come here legally & overstay or violate their visas.

          The costs of the above will be a few billion, rather than trillions… It will require very little new manpower & only a small amount of new technologies (ID documents would have to be switched to smart-card format, similar to the current military ID).

          Round it off with increased new legal immigration (to replace the illegals who are leaving in certain menial-labor fields such as farm-labor), and you have a low-cost, high-impact solution.

          For an order-of-magnitude less cost, we could get rid of 99% of illegal immigrants without having to formally deport a single person. The environment created would just make them all go home on their own.

          • commonsenseobserver

            Not that we should throw money away, but completing a high-tech fence and putting more agents on the ground would help to get a grasp on the situation and provide a stronger deterrent.

            That would complement attrition-through-enforcement.

          • Dave_A

            And think we shouldn’t wast another dime down there…

            Use the IRS for the agents to do interior enforcement, keep the border patrol small & focused on drug-interdiction & antismuggling ops…

            We don’t need to ‘do both’, and there is no logical reason to fortify our border, just like we haven’t ever needed to do it before.

            Every dollar spent on the border is one dollar less that can be spent on actually solving the problem.

  • westcoastpatriette

    and that is why Gov. Brewer is quite pleased with the bigger picture and the progress the state of Arizona has made legally in the last several years. They have blazed a trail for other states to follow suit in the future. Out of a total of fourteen provisions in SB 1070, only three of them were struck down and even I can see the courts reasoning for striking them down, although, I disagree with them.

    What’s magnifying the negativity at this point is Obama’s interference and attempts to block Ariz.’s progress by punishing them and refusing to assist them in their implementation of the laws — which can easily be corrected by throwing him out of the White House in November. But, overall, I am quite pleased with the progress states are making in defining what roles they can play to repel illegal imm. in their states.

  • Dave_A

    The grounds was Federal Supremacy, not a question of rights or race, etc…

    So ALL 3 provisions are ALL still legal for the federal government to enact…

    AND if Congress wants to allow the states to do these things, a law authorizing this would re-enable those 3 provisions (because SCOTUS ruling was that the provisions were unconstitutional for usurping federal authority – if the feds delegate said authority to states, that reasoning no longer applies)….

  • gekster

    Race was not mentioned in the ruling at all, even though all the opponents were yelling racists.