Arizona Immigration Law
April 12, 2011 by USA Post
Arizona Immigration Law, A federal appeals court in San Francisco refused Monday to stop Arizona requires its officers to require documentation of suspected illegal immigrants, saying the state is meddling in federal authority and undermine U.S. foreign policy.
In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of a federal judge blocking the main provisions of a law that seeks to inject the state in immigration law. Obama administration had sued to strike by law. State officials said they would appeal. Arizona, which in recent years has seen a greater influx of illegal immigrants nationwide, said the federal government had no border police and needs new forms of government assistance, despite record levels of deportations during the presidency of Obama. Conservative lawmakers in other states, including California, have developed similar measures.
The centerpiece of April 2010 Arizona law is a requirement that the evidence police claim the status of any person within his custody to reasonably suspect of being illegally in the country.
Citing a federal law that allows states to provide information to immigration officials, Arizona, said the law requires that the police just to make reasonable efforts to determine the immigration status of a person and does not interfere with federal enforcement.
But the majority of the court said state law goes further and requires police to detain suspects for verifying immigration status with federal authorities before being released. The court said that the mandate, which applies to those who are not only arrested and detained, the police become immigration agents.
The law “interferes with the federal government authority to implement its priorities and strategies in implementing the law,” Judge Richard Paez said the majority opinion.
He said that states could apply the restrictions on immigration only with prior consent and federal officials under his supervision.
Paez also said the Arizona law has harmed U.S. relations foreign. He cited the protests of the UN secretary-general and many countries in Latin America, especially Mexico, which has limited its participation in a conference of the border and the delay in a proposed agreement to respond to national disasters.
Judge John Noonan sided P? Ez and wrote an opinion emphasized the need for uniform immigration policy.
“That individual states or state individual must have a foreign policy is absurd,” said Noonan.
Dissenting Judge Carlos Bea said the Obama administration, Arizona, is responsible for any breakdown in immigration policy in the U.S.
“The Executive’s desire to appease complaints from foreign governments can not override the provisions mandated by Congress” for states to help enforce immigration law, he said.
The state law that intrudes on the federal authority, Bea said, only if administration officials “do not want to enforce immigration laws.”
The court also blocked the provisions that make it a crime in Arizona illegally or not to take the immigration papers. He rejected the implementation of other sections allows police to detain any person they believe to be deported because of a crime in another state, and what is a crime by an illegal immigrant to hold a job or seeking employment.
The governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, said he would consult with state attorneys on whether to ask the full appeals court for a rehearing or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ruling “is harmful to the safety and welfare of Arizona citizens who suffer the negative effects of illegal immigration,” said Brewer.
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.