Save Our State - Supreme Court's Ruling Could Cripple State Legislature's Pro-Illegal Bills

The supreme court's recent ruling on SB 1070, although restrictive of enforcement measures by states, also re-inforced the feds right to occupy the field of immigration where permissive legislations are concerned also. The language used in their rulings could easily be called to inhibit or overturn current bills in the assembly like AB 1544, the attempt by Perez to authorize illegals to work in California. It might also stop ammianno's bill to deny fingerprint sharing with the feds, and another bill which number escapes me at present that allows illegals to be paid under the California DREAM act

I'll start fleshing these portions out over the next few days here as I digest the ruling

So the news, even the parts that might be considered bad in relation to halting some parts of AZ's attempt to crack down on illegals, also has a silver lining where state's like California and Utah are trying to write their own immigration laws to benefit illegals, the cheap labor lobby, and the liberal vote seekers

Now we just have to figure out how we can profit from this part as much as possible;)

For starters, the court's condensed prelude:

Quote:

2.
The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determinedmust be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88, 115. Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federalinterest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed topreclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when theystand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. Pp. 7–8

Quote:

(a)
Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field inwhich Congress has left no room for States to regulate. In Hines, a state alien-registration program was struck down on the ground that Congress intended its “complete” federal registration plan to be a “single integrated and all-embracing system.” 312 U. S., at 74. That scheme did not allow the States to “curtail or complement” federallaw or “enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.” Id., at 66–67. The federal registration framework remains comprehensive. Because Congress has occupied the field, even complementary state regulationis impermissible. Pp. 8–11

California, being an illegal alien friendly state where lawmakers are concerned, wasn't due to profit from a complete upholding of the 1070 law in the first place. We have no laws that force immigration checks or restrictions on work and such. But, we do have several laws passed lately that infringe on the government's authority to enforce the immigration laws. So this in itself might compel some of these bills in the works right now to be dropped. Likewise, some of the existing one's now have fertile grounds for a challenge