Maison » Sélection

Procureur Mike Sayer du sud Echo donne une analyse plus juridique

26 Juin 2012 No Comment
Juin 26, 2012

La décision de la Cour suprême américaine en Arizona v. États-Unis,qui a frappé vers le bas 3 de l' 4 dispositions contestées de SB 1070, l'Arizona loi anti-immigrant, devrait être considéré comme une victoire extraordinaire pour les gens de cette nation, et surtout pour ceux qui travaillait si dur à un tel risque pour lutter contre la loi.

 

Il ya eu beaucoup d'hésitations sur le fait que la Cour de tenir inconstitutionnels les «Vos papiers, s'il vous plaît!«Disposition,Partie 2(b)de la loi. Prenons un oeil à ce que la Cour a réellement fait et n'a pas fait en ce qui concerne l'abticle 2(b).

La Cour n'a pas jugé l'article 2(b)constitutionnel. C'est simplement ne détenait articlb 2(b)inconstitutionnelle en ce moment.

  1. La Cour a déclaré qu'il était prématuré de se prononcer sur la constitutionnalité de l'article 2(b) parce qu'il n'avait pas dans le dossier de l'affaire devant la Cour des informations suffisantes pour prendre une telle décision. La Cour a déclaré que, depuis la loi de l'Arizona gébéralement, et la section 2(b) spécifiquement, n'étaient pas encore en vigueur, il n'existe pas de modèle de pratiques, politiques adoptées, ou de l'expérience avec l'application ou la mise en œuvre de la loi. Outre, there are no interpretations of the law by Arizona courts.  The Court said that it needs this kind of information to determine whether the statute is being interpreted and being implemented in such a manner as to meet constitutional standards, or in such a manner as to violate constitutional standards.
  2. In short, the challenge to Section 2(b) is not yet ripe for a decision.  More needs to happen first.  Until that time all that the State of Arizona has as a result of this decision is a conditional or temporary reprieve on Section 2(b).
  3. The Court noted that under the existing federal law local police already have the right to check with ICE and Homeland Security to determine the immigration status of a person detained or in custody.  Therefore, the Court reasoned, the Arizona statute is not unconstitutional “on its face” – that is, on the basis of the text of the law.
  4. Cependant, a statute can also be held unconstitutional on the grounds of how it is interpreted and applied (i.e. mis en œuvre) in practice.  Specifically, the Court can strike down the use of a law if it is selectively enforced so as to discriminate against certain individuals or classes of people, for example, on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, l'origine nationale, and so on. Selective enforcement violates the equal protection clause of the 14e Amendment to the US Constitution.  The first case in which the US Supreme Court held a state or local law or ordinance unconstitutional on the grounds of selective enforcement was in 1886 in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins.  In that case a laundry licensing law was selectively enforced to discriminate against Chinese laundry owners in San Francisco.
  5. The Court also noted that the police cannot use Section 2(b) to stop or detain people simply in order to check their immigration status or use enforcement of immigration laws as an excuse to make such stop or detention.  Police can only check immigration status if the person is accused of violating a law that is not involved with immigration policies.  But the police cannot bring arbitrary and capricious stops, detentions or arrests in order to justify making an immigration status check.  This, the Court noted, would be constitutionally suspect.
  6. The Court also noted that people who have been stopped or detained must not be held for excessive periods until their immigration status has been determined.  In other words, police cannot hold people beyond the normal time it would take to process the situation were immigration status checks not involved.  If the immigration status has not been determined in the normal time for processing, then the persons must be released and their immigration status determined after release.  For example, the Court said, if a person is stopped for jaywalking and it normally would take only a few minutes to process the summons, the police cannot hold the person for days awaiting an immigration status check.  This, the Court noted, would be constitutionally suspect.
  7. What all this means is that as Arizona law enforcement officials seek to use Section 2(b) – “Your papers, s'il vous plaît!" — they will have to walk a tight bine.  If they mess up and engage in racial profiling, arbitrary and capricious arrests to justify immigration checks, and detain individuals for excessive periods while making immigration status inquiries, the US Supreme Court stands ready to strike down the use of Section 2(b) as applied.
  8. Donc, our collective vigilance in monitoring the situation will be critical.  The case against Section 2(b) is just beginning.  Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s vain attempt to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by claiming Arizona was vindicated by the Court’s decision does not pass the straight face test.
  9. Note:  This case was brought by the US government, not by private individuals.  This case was primarily about the “pre-emption doctrine”:  that is, does the US government have sole authority to make and implement immigration law, or do the 50 states each have an independent right to make and enforce its own immigration laws?Il existe de nombreux cas encore en suspens dans laquelle les particuliers ont entraîné des défis à la loi sur les motifs de refus de la protection égale de la loi en vertu de la 14e Amendement de la Constitution américaine. Ces cas sera de nouveau attaquer Section 2(b).
  10. La Cour a établi un précédent important pour casser l'argument des droits des Etats de que chaque État avait le pouvoir indépendant à élaborer et appliquer des lois sur l'immigration. Nous avons eu la même bataille avant la guerre civile. Et la même bataille pendant le mouvement des droits civiques 5 Justices:

 

L'histoire des États-Unis est en partie fait des histoires, talents, and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here.

The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation’s meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.

* * *

The United States has established that §§3, 5(C), and 6of S. B. 1070 are preempted. It was improper, cependant, to enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that enforcement of the provision in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives.

Laissez votre réponse!

Ajoutez votre commentaire ci-dessous, ou trackback à partir de votre propre site. Vous pouvez également souscrire à ces commentaires via RSS.

Être gentil. Gardez-le propre. Rester sur le sujet. Pas de spam.