recent on-air advertisers

Now Playing

News/Talk WSB
Listen live to ...

Nealz Nuze

Posted: 8:48 a.m. Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Supreme Court fallout on Arizona ruling 

By Neal Boortz

Here’s the Readers Digest version of what happened yesterday on the Arizona immigration Supreme Court ruling.  There were four parts to this ruling.  Three out of the four parts were ruled unconstitutional.  The three parts that were ruled unconstitutional were related to state implemented criminal penalties for immigration violations.  In other words, it is the role of the federal government to punish illegal immigrants for violating the law of being illegal, not the state government.  As the opposition, Justice Scalia wrote:  “to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.  If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.”

Also, as we pointed out yesterday, the majority opinion states that "it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States.”  Interesting.  So entering the United States illegally is an illegal act (punishable only by the federal government) but staying in the United States as an illegal alien is not.  Does this mean that breaking into a home would still be illegal, but staying there – squatting, if you will – is not?  Just how does that work? 

But as I mentioned, there were four parts to this ruling.  The three relating to criminal punishment were overturned, but one was upheld by eight justices and it happens to be the one that has stirred the most puddin’ … the “show your papers” provision.  The court ruled that police are allowed to stop, question and check the immigration status of those whom they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe that they are illegal.  From there, the police must report their findings to the federal government. 

As you can see, the power of Arizona law enforcement is pretty limited, as they have must have authority from federal officials before they can hold any suspected illegal immigrants.  So at this point, it does not seem to violate the Constitution to stop someone who authorities believe is an illegal immigrant.  This has some proggie panties in a wad because they are concerned about raaaacial profiling.  Even Obama, while overall “pleased” with the ruling says, “I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. … No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.”

In order to make sure that Arizona is not raaacially profiling, we have our corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder to take on the task!  Holder warned Arizona law enforcement that his Justice Department will “closely monitor” their efforts to check the immigration status of individuals so as to not violate their civil rights.  Doesn’t that make you feel better?

Neal Boortz

About Neal Boortz


Connect with Neal Boortz on:Twitter



The Clark Howard Show


