US justices block key parts of Arizona law but uphold immigration checks

Obama won a partial victory in the 1070 law, but the Supreme Court has left in place too controversial "show-me-your-papers"

Barack Obama won a partial victory Monday when the Supreme Court overturned the main parts of the draconian Arizona immigration against the law, but left in place the legislation denies the claim, Latinos will result in racial profiling.

By a majority of five against three, the Court blocked the execution of several components SB1070 arguing that the federal government has broad authority to set immigration policy, not individual states.

Obama wanted the Arizona law unconstitutional immigration together. Instead, the eight judges voted unanimously to allow the most controversial measure to move forward, "Show me your papers" section. This will allow the police to check the immigration status people they stop or arrest if they suspect that individuals are in the U.S. illegally.

The court ruled in favor of police power, simply saying it was his idea that the lower courts is discussed. He said that "without the benefit of a definitive interpretation of the courts of the State, it would be inappropriate to assume [the police power] shall be construed in conflict with federal law."

Obama has repeatedly been outspoken in his criticism of Arizona's difficult to introduce anti-immigration laws for illegal immigrants crossing the border with Mexico, and the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to block legislation in Arizona and other states establishing similar measures.

In a statement, the president said: "I am pleased that the Supreme Court overturned key provisions of the Arizona immigration law that this decision was taken without ambiguity that Congress must act on comprehensive reform of immigration .., A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our immigration system - is part of the problem

"At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of other provisions of the Arizona law requires that local authorities responsible for law enforcement to verify the immigration status of anyone they even suspect of being here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals can not be held solely to verify their immigration status. "

he added. "No American should never live under a cloud of suspicion only by what is seen as the future, we must ensure that those responsible for law enforcement in Arizona do not enforce this law in a manner that undermine the civil rights of Americans, according to the court's decision recognizes. "

Arizona

working in Latino communities were divided over whether to celebrate the provisions of the law which had been killed, or deplore the court approval of the most controversial. "We always try to reach an agreement that is a win or vice versa," said Daniel Rodriguez, president of the Phoenix-based pro-immigration group America We.

A former Arizona State Senator Alfredo Gutierrez, he anticipated that once the order had been raised - which could take weeks or months - racial profiling against Latinos propagates through state: "No doubt this will happen, and to a certain extent, we welcome you to bring it to court and let another challenge for him. "

But the Republican governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, who introduced the bill, arguing that the state must act because the federal government's inability to act, said the decision was a victory left in place as the "heart" of the legislation.

The decision to cancel most of the law leaves Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a difficult position, especially since he has publicly suggested that the approach of Arizona was a model for the nation.

Romney, who is visiting Arizona on Monday and will almost certainly be asked about the decision, said: "I think that every State has the duty - and right - to secure our borders and preserve the state of the law, especially when the federal government has not fulfilled its responsibilities. As a candidate Obama had promised to present a plan for immigration during his first year in office. But four years later We are still waiting.

"I would have preferred that the Supreme Court gives more freedom in the United States, not less. Ago And now this decision states that have less power, less freedom to enforce laws on immigration. "

Over the last two weeks Romney was beaten by Obama on the issue of immigration. Obama has an advantage of integrated support two-to-head between Latinos and surveys indicate that the gap has widened since its announcement a week ago Friday to remove the threat of deportation of approximately 800,000 young undocumented.

• Romney has softened his language in primary Republican campaign has adopted a strong anti-illegal immigrant position, speaking of self-deportation and promise to veto any Dream Act, proposed legislation to give the children of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
• However
• Romney vague answer to both move Obama immigration and the judgment of the Supreme Court on Monday suggested he renounced recover a substantial part of the Latino vote, a risky decision to transfer part the electorate in what promises to be a close election. Part of the calculation may be that Latinos, as are the most dynamic sector of the population, the number of votes it has in the past tended to be much lower.

In its decision Monday, the Supreme Court overturned portions of the Arizona law that made it a crime for illegal immigrants to find work or stop recording their presence or the police to make arrests of suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.

In the majority decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy - which tends to maintain the balance on the ground - wrote: "The national government has sufficient power to regulate immigration With power comes fiscal responsibility and national wise. immigration depends on the power of the nation meet its responsibility to base their laws on political will informed by research, reflective discourse, civic rational.

Find best price for : --McCain----Tucson----Kennedy----Anthony----Romney----Arizona----Obama--