.

Does Supreme Court Ruling Now Clarify Immigration Policy?

In light of Monday’s ruling on Arizona's case affirming that immigration is a federal responsibility, is U.S. immigration policy now clear or is it still confusing as to how it will be enforced?

That the immigration policy in the United States is broken is hardly in dispute. What appears to be the issue, however, is how to fix it. States have introduced legislation that is said to be firming up federal legislation not enforced. Much of that, however, was struck down in the Supreme Court decision Monday concerning Arizona’s law. Except for one provision, that being the ability of state law enforcement to question someone’s legal status when stopped for another reason, most of the Arizona law was rejected by the Supreme Court.

According to a report from CNN, the ruling makes it uneconomical for states to keep drafting legislation that the Supreme Court will likely strike down. There are several other states that introduced legislation they claim attempts to do the job the federal government doesn’t, but none have been enacted. In light of Monday’s decision, none are likely to be enacted now either.

The president also reportedly announced Monday that the government was revoking the 287(g) provision in Arizona. It is still in force in 68 other counties in 24 states though, including Gwinnett County. This is the federal progam that allows law enforcement to identify illegal immigrants if picked up for any offense and then turn them over to federal immigration officials for deportation. Funding was cut to these programs in February. However, except for Arizona now, the program remains in force in the other jurisdictions for the moment.

President Barack Obama also recently issued instructions preventing the deportation of people brought to the country by their parents illegally under a certain age. 

So what do you think of the Supreme Court ruling? Does it clarify the issue and make for a more streamline enforcement of U.S. immigration policy? Or has it just cast more confusion as to exactly what the current U.S. immigration policy is?

Brian Crawford June 27, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Glad I could amuse you Deanna. One more point about this story and then I'm done being your boy toy....hahaha. The paragraph about the government ending the 287g program in Arizona implies that this was perhaps punish or retribution for AZ bucking the federal government. AZ Governor Jan Brewer went to great lengths to float this proposition in her statements after the SCOTUS decision was announced. This is not true. The DHS announced in their budget brief released last February that they were phasing out 287g in favor of the more efficient and cost effective Secure Communities program. From the brief: "287(g) Program: In light of the nationwide activation of the Secure Communities program, the Budget reduces the 287(g) program by $17 million. The Secure Communities screening process is more consistent, efficient and cost effective in identifying and removing criminal and other priority aliens. To implement this reduction in 2013, ICE will begin by discontinuing the least productive 287(g) task force agreements in those jurisdictions where Secure Communities is already in place and will also suspend consideration of any requests for new 287(g) task forces." http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/mgmt/dhs-budget-in-brief-fy2013.pdf
Karsten Torch June 28, 2012 at 03:54 PM
Uh huh....pulling the 287(g) program from AZ is not done for retribution. Even though they're the only ones currently that the program's been pulled from. Somehow, regardless of the statement made to the contrary, I choose to call BS. I find it ridiculous that the federal government can choose what laws they choose to enforce or not enforce. And if they choose not to enforce it, why states can't exercise their right and enforce it themselves. I'm also curious what precedent this case will set. Federal jurisdiction, according to the Constitution, has been upheld. So, does that mean that state's jurisdiction will be upheld? Are we to finally see the Department of Education go the way of the dodo? We can only hope.... I'm all for immigration. My parents are both immigrants. Sister. Most of my family. And probably all of you are descendants of immigrants. So yeah, I like bringing in immigrants. But at least sign the freaking registry upon entering. Truth is, these people are here illegally. They're not 'undocumented.' They're criminals. Like I've said before, you want it different? Change the rules. Pass new laws. But don't just arbitrarily decide which rules to follow and which ones to not. Or to selectively enforce who gets affected by the laws. There are no 'priority' illegals. They're all kind of illegal....
Karsten Torch June 28, 2012 at 03:56 PM
I don't know....$12,500 seems kind of cheap compared to what they're costing us in welfare and free medical care. Just sayin....
Tammy Osier July 02, 2012 at 01:53 PM
R- some real like incidents are this: When my son got out of the Army, he thought of moving to El Paso but didn't because his daughter has blonde hair and blue eyes. Seems there's a big problem with kidnapping young girls for sex trade. We've got to get a handle on our borders. That was one of the first things Herman Cain had spoken about if elected. Too bad he was chased off by those afraid of a man like him in office.
Tammy Osier July 02, 2012 at 01:54 PM
real LIFE... wish we had an edit button lol

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »