The Supreme Court has struck down most of the controversial Arizona immigration law, but upheld for now a key provision that required police officers to check the immigration status of those they suspect may be in the country illegally.

The provision on mandatory checks during routine stops will now kick back to a lower court for review, and could still be subject to challenge. The rest of the ruling, though, definitively strikes down three other provisions in Arizona's controversial law.

Those provisions had made it a crime for immigrants to look for work without work permits and to not carry their immigration papers, and let police arrest those whom they suspect committed crimes for which they could be deported.

The federal government had claimed the law encroached on its authority to enforce immigration law.

The court’s decision appears to give states such as Arizona a quite limited role in enforcing the laws against illegal immigrants.

Their police can notify federal agents if they have a suspect in custody, but they cannot keep them in a county jail on state charges.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion, which was released Monday, on behalf of the majority.

"Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns," he said. "Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation's international relations."

He added: "The pervasiveness of federal regulation does not diminish the importance of immigration policy to the States. Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful immigration."

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE

Editor's Note: Thus, if the people of Arizona want federal immigration law actually enforced, they have to be more discerning when voting in their choice for POTUS....But the question remains: What is a citizen's recourse when the chief law enforcement official refuses to do his job?


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...