|
|
Post by billhammond on Dec 17, 2014 19:35:19 GMT -5
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday let stand a ruling requiring Arizona to issue driver’s licenses to young immigrants spared from deportation by President Obama.
The court’s brief, unsigned order gave no reasons, but it nonetheless represented the justices’ first encounter with the Obama administration’s recent efforts to provide relief to immigrants who are in the United States unlawfully. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, also without giving reasons.
The order on Wednesday did not concern Mr. Obama’s most recent move, which makes some four million unauthorized immigrants who are the parents of United States citizens eligible for a new legal status that defers their deportations and allows them to work legally. Instead, the case before the court arose from a 2012 initiative that deferred the deportation of young immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children.
But Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona told the justices in an emergency application that the two programs were of a piece, with both stemming from “the executive branch’s continued expansion of deferred action and refusal to enforce federal immigration law.”
The underlying question in the case, Brewer v. Arizona Dream Act Coalition, No. 14A625, was whether Arizona was entitled to respond to the 2012 federal initiative by denying driver’s licenses to the young immigrants in the second group, sometimes called Dreamers.
In July, a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, put the state’s new driver’s license policy on hold while the case proceeded, saying the policy most likely violated equal protection principles. The state grants driver’s licenses to other noncitizens who are in the United States legally, the court said, and there was no rational reason to treat the young immigrants affected by the 2012 initiative differently.
The court also discussed at length the possibility that the state policy was trumped by federal law, but it did not ground its decision on that point.
Judge Harry Pregerson, writing for the panel, said the state policy “appears intended to express animus” toward the young immigrants.
“Plaintiffs’ ability to drive is integral to their ability to work — after all, 87 percent of Arizona workers commute to work by car,” Judge Pregerson wrote. “It is unsurprising, then, that plaintiffs’ inability to obtain driver’s licenses has hurt their ability to advance their careers.”
In her application for emergency relief, Ms. Brewer argued that both of the Obama administration’s immigration initiatives were unlawful. The executive branch, she said, “does not have the authority to unilaterally create, change or violate federal immigration law.”
Such executive action, she continued, cannot displace state laws. While Ms. Brewer conceded that the Ninth Circuit had not relied on that ground to block the law, she nonetheless urged the Supreme Court to consider the point in its analysis.
In response to the Ninth Circuit’s equal protection analysis, Ms. Brewer said there were good reasons to treat the young immigrants differently, including “the risk of potential liability to the state,” the possibility that the immigrants would improperly use the licenses to obtain public benefits, and the burden of processing the licenses.
The challengers to the law — five immigrants and a group promoting the interests of young immigrants — responded that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling was unexceptional, as 48 states grant driver’s licenses to people covered by the 2012 initiative. (The other state that does not grant them is Nebraska.)
“Arizona is an outlier in its discrimination,” said the brief, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.
The brief added that the case was not the right one in which to litigate Mr. Obama’s executive authority, an issue that was not considered by the lower courts. That question, as Ms. Brewer’s brief noted, is the subject of a new lawsuit filed in Texas by Arizona and more than 20 other states.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Dec 17, 2014 19:51:46 GMT -5
“'Arizona is an outlier in its discrimination,' said the brief, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups."
Well, we're just uncommonly mean and nasty folks.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 17, 2014 20:19:54 GMT -5
I really just do not understand this growing sense that borders and citizenship shouldn't mean anything. It just baffles me. I guess it's the most graphic example of the utility of getting to totally frame the debate. Nobody is going to argue against it anymore if it means getting tagged as a racist.
Well played, I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 20:54:42 GMT -5
“'Arizona is an outlier in its discrimination,' said the brief, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups." Well, we're just uncommonly mean and nasty folks. Not as far as I've noticed but the non-granting of licenses does seem to be an outlying, discriminatory practice. |
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Dec 18, 2014 7:18:34 GMT -5
The criminals getting licenses from the state is an example of aiding in a crime and states that do issue license are no different that a person who aids a criminal. Giving any help to illegal immigrates is criminal, including emergency rooms, schools, food stamps.
While I feel for those brought here as children they are still criminals.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Dec 18, 2014 7:28:02 GMT -5
The criminals getting licenses from the state is an example of aiding in a crime and states that do issue license are no different that a person who aids a criminal. Giving any help to illegal immigrates is criminal, including emergency rooms, schools, food stamps. While I feel for those brought here as children they are still criminals. Too bad they didn't have the illegal immigrant concept back in the 1910s, 1920s, or 1930s. Think of how america could have been saved...! |
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Dec 18, 2014 7:32:08 GMT -5
The criminals getting licenses from the state is an example of aiding in a crime and states that do issue license are no different that a person who aids a criminal. Giving any help to illegal immigrates is criminal, including emergency rooms, schools, food stamps. While I feel for those brought here as children they are still criminals. Too bad they didn't have the illegal immigrant concept back in the 1910s, 1920s, or 1930s. Think of how america could have been saved...! They did. Illegal immigrants stayed hidden and their children born in the US were citizens. They didn't come expecting help from the government in their criminal activity. |
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Dec 18, 2014 7:32:25 GMT -5
... While I feel for those brought here as children they are still criminals. Sorry, I don't think they are. They're normal people like you or me. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Dec 18, 2014 7:37:58 GMT -5
How does this work in other countries?
If I were to stow away on a ship and manage to get myself to Japan, can I get a driver's license there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Dec 18, 2014 7:39:52 GMT -5
... While I feel for those brought here as children they are still criminals. Sorry, I don't think they are. They're normal people like you or me. The law says if you come across the border illegally you are committing a crime. Committing a crime makes you a criminal. So it's a matter of open the borders to anyone or deport the criminals. But in the case of children brought across with their criminal parents I think that after deportation than they shouldn't be denied the chance to immigrate legally. |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Dec 18, 2014 8:08:01 GMT -5
I really just do not understand this growing sense that borders and citizenship shouldn't mean anything. It just baffles me. I guess it's the most graphic example of the utility of getting to totally frame the debate. Nobody is going to argue against it anymore if it means getting tagged as a racist. Well played, I guess. You just refuse to understand that the U.S. must be destroyed to make the world safe for monarchies, dictatorships, socialism and communism. We just can't have a free citizenry able to peacefully overthrow the government every couple of years. Packing the country with poor people will bankrupt the place. It's been part of the plan, along with the takeover of education, for 90 years anyway and it's working. Now get off my lawn, kid. |
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Dec 18, 2014 10:26:05 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand how the Fed has jurisdiction. Drivers license is in the state's bailiwick, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Dec 18, 2014 11:04:28 GMT -5
How does this work in other countries? If I were to stow away on a ship and manage to get myself to Japan, can I get a driver's license there? Good question. And what does England do? When a Moroccan sneaks in, does England give him a drivers' license and allow him to sign up for benefits? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 11:14:09 GMT -5
How does this work in other countries? In the UK, if you have a driving licence from any of a long list of other designated countries but are a resident here now, you pay a fee and get a UK license. If you are a citizen of a country not on that list who resides in the UK, you take and pass a UK driving test and get one that way. |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Dec 18, 2014 11:31:15 GMT -5
Resides legally or illegally?
|
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Dec 18, 2014 11:48:37 GMT -5
We give driver's licenses to other criminals, what's the difference?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 11:52:34 GMT -5
Legally. People with authorization to live and work here. The Arizona DACA plaintiffs have such authorization too.
|
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Dec 18, 2014 11:54:57 GMT -5
Obama is going out on a high note. Oil prices down= $2 gas, Keystone dead but who cares see oil prices, the Mexican vote further solidified, Cuba opened up. I'm starting to think Millring may be right in that
it's going to be a Dem president in the White House for a loooonnngggg time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Dec 18, 2014 12:17:21 GMT -5
I find this "do other countries do this?" question/argument interesting, since there's a considerable range of how citizenship is defined elsewhere. Simple birthright or born-here citizenship is pretty much a New World practice, and much of the rest of the world looks to parental status, generally independent of birthplace, as a primary determinant. Naturalization is all over the place--Switzerland requires ten years of residency along with linguistic skills and cultural familiarity, and other European nations follow similar models with different numbers and quirks.
I wonder how many people who argue that the US should follow some non-USian practice re: citizenship also argue that we should follow, say, Europe (or Japan or most of the developed world) re: nationalized health care.
|
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Dec 18, 2014 12:27:36 GMT -5
I wonder how many people who argue that the US should follow some non-USian practice re: citizenship also argue that we should follow, say, Europe (or Japan or most of the developed world) re: nationalized health care. I wonder how many people who argue that the US should follow some non-USian practice re: healthcare also argue that we should follow, say, Europe (or Japan or most of the developed world) re: citizenship. |
|
