入了asus的rt-n16# PhotoGear - 摄影器材
S*k
1 楼
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/us/supreme-court-to-rule-on-i
December 12, 2011
Supreme Court to Rule on Immigration Law in Arizona
By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether Arizona
may impose tough anti-immigration measures. Among them, in a law enacted
last year, is a requirement that the police there question people they stop
about their immigration status.
The Obama administration challenged parts of the law in court, saying that
it could not be reconciled with federal immigration laws and policies. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco,
blocked enforcement of parts of the law in April.
The administration challenged four provisions. The most prominent was a
requirement that state law enforcement officials determine the immigration
status of anyone they stop or arrest if officials have reason to believe
that the individual might be an illegal immigrant. The provision also
requires that the immigration status of people who are arrested be
determined before they are released.
The law also makes it a crime under state law for aliens to fail to register
under a federal one. In a brief urging the Supreme Court not to hear the
case, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the United States solicitor general, said this
provision created a state “crime of being unlawfully present in the United
States.”
The third challenged provision makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to
work or try find work. Federal law subjects businesses that hire illegal
workers to criminal punishment but imposes only civil penalties on the
workers themselves.
The Arizona law also allows the police to arrest people without warrants if
they have probable cause to believe that suspects have done things that
would make them deportable under federal law.
The Ninth Circuit blocked all four provisions.
The Constitution gives Congress the power “to establish an uniform rule of
naturalization.”
Mr. Verrilli told the justices that the Arizona law upsets a delicate
balance that includes “law enforcement priorities, foreign-relations
considerations and humanitarian concerns.”
In urging the court to hear the case, Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182,
Paul D. Clement, representing Arizona, said the state law did not conflict
with but, rather, complemented federal policies. The Ninth Circuit’s
decision, Mr. Clement told the justices, had “completely foreclosed Arizona
’s effort to address the disproportionate impact of unlawful immigration in
a state with a 370-mile border with Mexico.”
Justice Elena Kagan indicated that she would not participate in the case,
presumably because she worked on it as solicitor general.
The Supreme Court has recently added other major cases to its docket,
including ones concerning President Obama’s health care law and
redistricting in Texas. In those cases, too, Mr. Clement, a former United
States solicitor general, represents states challenging federal action.
December 12, 2011
Supreme Court to Rule on Immigration Law in Arizona
By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether Arizona
may impose tough anti-immigration measures. Among them, in a law enacted
last year, is a requirement that the police there question people they stop
about their immigration status.
The Obama administration challenged parts of the law in court, saying that
it could not be reconciled with federal immigration laws and policies. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco,
blocked enforcement of parts of the law in April.
The administration challenged four provisions. The most prominent was a
requirement that state law enforcement officials determine the immigration
status of anyone they stop or arrest if officials have reason to believe
that the individual might be an illegal immigrant. The provision also
requires that the immigration status of people who are arrested be
determined before they are released.
The law also makes it a crime under state law for aliens to fail to register
under a federal one. In a brief urging the Supreme Court not to hear the
case, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the United States solicitor general, said this
provision created a state “crime of being unlawfully present in the United
States.”
The third challenged provision makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to
work or try find work. Federal law subjects businesses that hire illegal
workers to criminal punishment but imposes only civil penalties on the
workers themselves.
The Arizona law also allows the police to arrest people without warrants if
they have probable cause to believe that suspects have done things that
would make them deportable under federal law.
The Ninth Circuit blocked all four provisions.
The Constitution gives Congress the power “to establish an uniform rule of
naturalization.”
Mr. Verrilli told the justices that the Arizona law upsets a delicate
balance that includes “law enforcement priorities, foreign-relations
considerations and humanitarian concerns.”
In urging the court to hear the case, Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182,
Paul D. Clement, representing Arizona, said the state law did not conflict
with but, rather, complemented federal policies. The Ninth Circuit’s
decision, Mr. Clement told the justices, had “completely foreclosed Arizona
’s effort to address the disproportionate impact of unlawful immigration in
a state with a 370-mile border with Mexico.”
Justice Elena Kagan indicated that she would not participate in the case,
presumably because she worked on it as solicitor general.
The Supreme Court has recently added other major cases to its docket,
including ones concerning President Obama’s health care law and
redistricting in Texas. In those cases, too, Mr. Clement, a former United
States solicitor general, represents states challenging federal action.
