Colorado lawmakers need to get crackin’ on squashing Gestapo immigration reform here


While there is certain to be a long list of inane battles to be fought in the Colorado Legislature next year, wholesale Confederacy-style immigration reform by Colorado state lawmakers such as State Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, Douglas County and The Moon, won’t be an option, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court.

With little surprise but great disappointment to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, the high court ruled that states can’t go making up their own immigration policies, which is a federal matter, which is what most level-headed folks and rational legal experts have been saying all along. So next January, when Harvey and others want to fund detainment camps for Mexicans rounded up in state highway patrol Git-Er-Done raids, we can all tell them to suck eggs.

Also unsurprisingly, the high court upheld a part of the controversial Arizona law allowing police to investigate someone’s immigration status IF they have been arrested on another not-minor matter AND IF police have a “reasonable” suspicion to believe they are illegal immigrants. The key word here being “reasonable,” this is something states like Colorado are going to want to quickly define.

Clearly for many Arizona lawmakers, it’s reasonable to ask for “pay-purrs pleeeeze” if cops encounter someone with dark skin and a Mexican accent. The bar needs to be higher in Colorado, and I hope there’s a truly reasonable class of lawmakers next year to do the job right.


WASHINGTON|  The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona’s crackdown on immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion on checking suspects’ status could go forward.

The court did not throw out the state provision requiring police to check the immigration status of someone they suspect is in the United States illegally. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges.

The decision upholds the “show me your papers” requirement for the moment. But it takes the teeth out of it by prohibiting police officers from arresting people on minor immigration charges.

The court announced that Thursday would be the last day of rulings this term, which means the decision on President Barack Obama’s landmark health care overhaul probably will come that day.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court that was unanimous on allowing the status check to go forward. The court was divided on striking down the other portions.

Kennedy said the law could — and suggested it should — be read to avoid concerns that immigration status checks could lead to prolonged detention.

The court struck down these three major provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers, making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.

The Obama administration sued to block the Arizona law soon after its enactment two years ago. Federal courts had refused to let the four key provisions take effect.

Five states — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah — have adopted variations on Arizona’s law. Parts of those laws also are on hold pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined all of Kennedy’s opinion.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have allowed all the challenged provisions to take effect. Justice Samuel Alito would have allowed police to arrest undocumented immigrants who seek work, and also make arrests without warrants.

Scalia, in comments from the bench, caustically described Obama’s recently announced plans to ease deportation rules for some children of illegal immigrants.

“The president said at a news conference that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’ failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia said.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
9 years ago

‘anything, anytime, anywhere’  huh Dave?

Every column you write is about ‘no laws’ for this country.  Now you want illegals in our country without bonds and laws that apply to them.

There is Federal law about our borders, but since the Federal government won’t enforce them, Arizona and other states decided it was time to do something on their own and try to get rid of the very expensive illegals migrating to their states.  They use public schools (immersion classes for them, they don’t speak the language) why heck, even in-state high education.  Healthcare, shelter, clothing, and food.  All free, all paid for by the taxpayers of this country and the states were most of this kind of legislation if taking place.   Arizona and other states are trying to do the job of the government, which hasn’t acted in 30 years when Regan gave amnesty to I believe 6 million illegals and pledged never to allow amnesty again.  Heard any mention about that lately Davie?

Our government, we the people, have funded a barrier, fence, wall, etc. on our Southern border a long time since, and has it been built, Well no it hasn’t, our federal government won’t act. 

We have LEGAL immigration into this once great country, fill out the paperwork, stand in the queue and wait your turn, and please don’t expect rewards for more bad behavior.