Quote:

---

But while concluding that the federal government has the power to block the law, the court let stand one of the most controversial parts: a provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally. Critics said that law opens the door to racial profiling.

"There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced," Kennedy wrote, making clear that Arizona authorities must comply with federal law in conducting the immigration status checks or face further constitutional challenges."

The Arizona Department of Public Safety and the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police said it wasn't immediately clear whether authorities would begin checking motorists' immigration status while enforcing other laws. They referred questions to the Arizona attorney general's office, which did not immediately return a call Monday from CNN seeking comment, but Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer told reporters she expected the provision would go into effect immediately.

Brewer, a Republican who signed the legislation, called the decision "a victory for the people of Arizona and for America." In an interview on CNN's "John King USA," she said Arizona police and sheriff's deputies have been trained to avoid racial profiling, "and they don't profile." http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-25/politics/politics_scotus-arizona-la
w_1_arizona-immigration-law-immigration-status-arizona-association?_s=PM:POLITICS, of course they don't profile. How silly.

So the next time someone sues for being profiled, it goes back to the Supremes and the whole thing dies. I love it!

By the bye, this is a real relief for Arizona law enforcement. Under 1070, police could be sued if someone thought they WEREN'T enforcing 1070 enthusiastically enough; and they'd get sued for profiling if they DID. Also, according to one law-enforcement officer I heard, the way 1070 was written, the police had to arrest someone, hold them in jail, notify ICE and continue holding them in jail, while the way it's usually done, unless there's a breaking of the law, they just inform ICE like everyon else does, thereby sparing them the difficulties and the Arizona citizens of extra expense, etc. I'll have to find that guy's quote, as it makes it cleare than my abridged version of what he said.

Quote:

---

Arizona's controversial immigration law was designed to keep people out—specifically, undocumented immigrants. But it may have done more than that by deterring tourism and discouraging business in the state. Now that the Supreme Court has made its ruling on the law known as SB 1070, some state business people are now hoping they can just move on.

Some thought the law trampled on civil rights, and the controversy may have driven hundreds of millions of dollars away from the state due to boycotts and a decline in tourism.

The group seems to want the issue finally out of the national spotlight. Jarnagin points to business travel as an area that suffered due to the SB 1070 controversy.

"People planning a meeting, typically they hope to avoid protesters," she says. "When your destination is all over the national news and being perceived as possibly unfriendly or unsafe or whatever the conversation is, perception is reality for people."

Driving all those people away hurt a state already smarting from a painful housing collapse. Meanwhile, non-tourist dollars were diverted from Arizona when organizations, people, and even some cities announced boycotts of businesses headquartered in the state, like U-Haul and Best Western.

By one estimate, the economic effects may have been painful. A 2010 paper from liberal think tank Center for American Progress estimated that the state could lose $217 million in direct spending from a decline in conference attendees, not to mention 4,236 jobs and $388 million in economic output as a result of the law.

"You end up hurting the very people you'd like to be helping. You hurt people who had no influence on the law that was passed," says Garrick Taylor, vice president of communications at the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Still, while these businesses may cheer a reprieve from the controversy, some employers may be finding themselves with a new problem on their hands—a shortage of workers.

Whether because of the immigration law, the economic collapse, or countless other factors, the state's undocumented immigrant population has shrunk dramatically in recent years. As of January 2011, there were 360,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, down from 560,000 in 2008, according to data from the Department of Homeland Security.

Many of those undocumented workers were doing jobs that many native-born Americans don't want to do, says Doug Massey, professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University.

"The wages you would have to pay to get somebody to go out in the desert and harvest watermelons would make the watermelons uncompetitive in markets," he says.

Then again, fewer illegal immigrants means fewer illegal labor practices on the part of businesses, which may boost pay and conditions for other workers.

"[Hiring undocumented workers] seriously erodes wages and working conditions, partly because employers that hire these folks know that there's very little chance that they will get reported by those workers for wage and hour violations or safety violations or anything else," says Peter Cappelli, professor of management at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/06/25/arizona-businesses-hope
-to-put-sb-1070-behind-them appparently it HAS had an effect, and has affected business is AZ.

The only ones who love this law are the for-profit prison business and anti-immigrant right wingers (is that last a duplication?). Thing is, those right wingers hate immigrants and want them all in prison or deported, but at the same time they want the work done CHEAP, so there's little enforcement of employers hiring illegal workers. Having one's cake and eating it, too, as it were.

But hey, Mike and Raptor, you go right ahead fighting over minutiae having nothing to do with 1070, by all means.

Quote:

---

the court has no problem with the mandatory nature of ordering the police to ask for proof of citizenship

---

Quote:

---

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding a piece of Arizona's controversial immigration law portends such a "huge" increase in policing for one department that the chief wondered Tuesday if his agency will be able to handle the workload.

At a time when the Tucson Police Department is down 160 officers because of a weakened economy, the agency now must make up to 50,000 additional phone calls a year to federal officials to verify the immigration status of persons whom officers have stopped and have reason to believe are in the country illegally, Police Chief Roberto Villaseñor said Tuesday.

Other law agencies in Arizona, however, reported "business as usual" a day after the Supreme Court ruling.

Just 70 miles from the Mexican border, the Tucson department may have to spend more than $10 million a year to book and jail up to 36,000 arrestees also suspected of being illegal immigrants -- a more than 7% increase to the agency's $130 million budget, Villaseñor said.

The police chief said he wonders if his 950-officer agency has been dealt an "impossible mandate." The state law, SB 1070, allows citizens to sue his department or others if they fail to enforce federal immigration laws, the chief said.
.....
Sgt. Tommy Thompson said "I am mandated to make a reasonable attempt to contact ICE," Thompson said. "It's 107 in Phoenix today. How long am I going to stand on the side of the road with someone (awaiting an ICE response)? It's a matter of minutes -- 20 minutes maybe, 30 minutes maybe."

"Just for my agency, it will be a huge workload, just making the calls and waiting for a response on what to do," the police chief of Arizona's second-largest city said.

"I'm not sure the federal government is capable of handling all the requests that they will be receiving," Villaseñor added. "I don't know what effect it will have on my agency."

Tuesday marked the first 24 hours that state and local law agencies began enforcing the state immigration law since Monday's court ruling, and law agencies were either engaged in training or rolling out the mandatory immigration checks, said Amy Rezzonico, a spokeswoman for Arizona attorney general's office.

"I'm pretty sure it will be business as usual to some degree," Rezzonico said.
.....
Concerns by lawmen such as Villaseñor unfolded as President Barack Obama and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer squared off about the impact of Monday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the "show-me-your-papers" provision -- but struck down other portions of the state law intended to deter illegal immigration.

Already, the Obama administration has indicated it won't allow Arizona's immigration priorities to become federal priorities. The administration has ended the so-called 287(g) agreements with Arizona, under which state and local law agencies entered into a partnership with the Department of Homeland Security and were delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions.

"If you read the statute carefully, it literally creates an obligation for all law enforcement agencies to determine status of individuals," said Marc Miller, a vice dean and law professor at the University of Arizona. "By making it a mandate and lining it up against the warnings of the Supreme Court, it's created an impossibly difficult question for police and sheriffs. Are we concerned about racial profiling? Absolutely."

But how police will apply the law -- requiring immigration checks while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" of illegal immigration exists -- is "confusing," CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said.

"What does it look like in the real world to have reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally? What is a police officer supposed to do?" Toobin asked. "How to apply that in the real world is kind of mysterious to me."

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said he opposed SB 1070 because if the entire law had been upheld by the federal courts, it would have resulted in overcrowded jails and overburdened state courts.

"The more important thing is how the chief of a law enforcement agency chooses to enforce the law," Dupnik said. For example, other counties do immigration sweeps, but not his, he said.

"Law enforcement did not ask for this law," Dupnik said. "Law enforcement did not need this law."

Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said "Our concern is the public perception of what we are doing," he said. He fears Latinos won't ask for help and witnesses won't come forward, he said.

"The Hispanics will look at us a little differently, and that concerns me," Estrada said.

Merchants and residents of the Latino community reported anxiety and fear among clientele and neighbors.

Phoenix taqueria owner Hector Manrique said Tuesday that business has been dropping since the law was proposed in 2010; he predicted it will get worse now that the Supreme Court has ruled.

"It's bad for the Hispanic community," said Manrique, a native of Mexico who has been in Phoenix since 1990 and has run the Taqueria Guadalajara since 2003.

"It seemed like everybody kind of forgot about it for a little bit and now, all of a sudden, I've got friends who were talking to me yesterday, and they're pretty scared because they've got kids, they've got family to support."

Kelly Ramirez, 31, of Tucson, a real estate broker and business owner, said many Latino immigrants don't know the details of the law, but they do know something has changed.

"They can't really look into it, so what they'll do is they'll hide," she said. "There's going to be less conversation, less help from individuals that maybe aren't doing anything wrong but know of somebody that is." http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/26/us/arizona-immigration/index.html?hpt=hp
_t2, I didn't realize the Supremes left standing the thing where law enforcement could be SUED if someone thinks they're not enforcing 1070 "enough". That's bad news; essentially they're screwed if they do and screwed if they don't.

I also never realized they have to check with ICE every time they pull someone over for a traffic stop or ANYTHING. That's insane! I'm not sure why I didn't realize this; they can't very well give a ticket, take the person's name, then check with ICE when they get a chance, OR arrest someone for a small violation like a busted tail light just to check their status, but the idea of a cop standing in 107-degree Arizona heat so they can call ICE and wait for a response strikes me as crazy. I think Thompson'll find it's not going to be that 20-30 minutes he expects it to be.

My heart goes out to Arizona law enforcement. Think they're going to have a hard time with this. Go Jan Brewer (not!).