Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona law for now, strikes down other provisions

But the ruling, which reinforced the federal government’s primacy in immigration policy, also vindicated the Obama administration’s decision to challenge the Arizona law almost from the moment it was passed.

The justices will rule on Thursday on the constitutionality of President Obama’s most important priority before the court: the health-care law, his signature domestic achievement. It will be the final day of a term that has been dominated by questions about the power of the federal government.

The immigration decision comes as the issue has taken a central spot in the nation’s political conversation and domestic agenda, even as the numbers of illegal immigrants coming to this country have fallen. It is likely to be just one in a series of court decisions about the role states may play in combatting illegal immigration; five states have adopted laws similar to Arizona’s, and others are waiting in the wings.

Obama recently ignited new controversy by announcing that many immigrants under age 30 who were brought to this country illegally by their parents would not be deported. In an unusual moment Monday, dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia mentioned Obama’s policy as he spoke from the bench to criticize the majority’s decision.

In oral arguments on the Arizona law, the justices had seemed skeptical of the administration’s vision of the subordinate role states must play in immigration matters.

But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy spelled out states’ limited role, even as he acknowledged criticism that the failure of Congress and the executive branch to form a comprehensive immigration strategy has led to severe hardships.

“Arizona may have under­standable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues,” he wrote, “but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down several key parts of Arizona’s tough law on illegal immigrants, but it left standing a controversial provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people they detain and suspect to be in the country illegally.

The 5 to 3 decision upholding the so-called “show me your papers” provision came with a warning that the courts would be watching its implementation. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) declared victory and said police could enforce the law without resorting to racial

profiling.

The court threw out three such provisions in the Arizona law. It said the state cannot make it a misdemeanor if immigrants do not carry registration documents; criminalize the act of an illegal immigrant seeking employment; or authorize state officers to arrest someone on the belief that the person has committed an offense that makes him deportable.

Kennedy wrote for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she had worked on it while serving as Obama’s solicitor general.

Scalia and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote dissents from the decision. In reading his dissent, Scalia made clear the extent of his disagreement.

Barack Obama Immigration speech gets heckled by reporter

President Obama was heckled by a reporter during his immigration remarks on Friday.

Obama announced that the Department of Homeland Security will stop deportations and grant work permits for students who meet certain requirements. The policy change will apply to those who arrived in the U.S. before turning 16, who have been in the country for at least five years, and are under the age of 30.

During his remarks, Obama suddenly addressed a person in the crowd, telling him that he was not yet taking questions. "Excuse me, sir, it's not time for questions, sir," Obama said. "Not while I'm speaking."

At the end of his speech, Obama referred back to the person who interrupted him. "And the answer to your question is sir, and the next time I prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask that question, is this is the right thing to do for the American people...I didn't ask for an argument. I'm answering your question," he said, speaking over the man's protests. "It is the right thing to do for the American people."

The camera flashed to a man in a suit wearing sunglasses. He was quickly identified as The Daily Caller's Neil Munro, who wrote about the news of Obama's announcement on Friday.

ABC's Diane Sawyer, who was anchoring the network's breaking news coverage with George Stephanopoulos, described the man who interrupted Obama as someone who was "clearly considered a heckler." Former George W. Bush spokesman Tony Fratto tweeted, "Reporters don't interrupt presidential statements. Period. @NeilMunroDC should be banned from WH. #fb."

According to the site's masthead, Munro is the White House correspondent at The Daily Caller.  Tucker Carlson, co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Daily Caller, defended Munro in an interview with the The Huffington Post's Michael Calderone shortly after the incident.

"This is what reporters are supposed to do," Carlson said by phone. "They're supposed to get their questions answered.""It's hard to know what's wrong with asking the president a question," he continued.  When told that Sawyer referred to Munro as a "heckler," Carlson said he "doesn't remember anyone saying that about Sam Donaldson," the aggressive former ABC News White House correspondent, if Donaldson interrupted the president. Carlson suggested Sawyer would probably describe Donaldson as "being a tough reporter."

"Politicians don’t get to make a statement and then retreat to a fortified castle," Carlson said, adding that "our job is to find out what's going on with federal government on our time-table."

As for those criticizing Munro for interrupting Obama, Carlson responded that the Daily Caller's "critics ought to make it official and take a gig at the White House."

Munro spoke out about his actions in a post published on the Daily Caller's website.

"I always go to the White House prepared with questions for our president. I timed the question believing the president was closing his remarks, because naturally I have no intention of interrupting the President of the United States," he said.

Later, Munro published a piece about Obama's remarks and reported that the president "declined to take any questions," even though two reporters called out questions to him.

"The president has often used this no-questions strategy when making important or poll-boosting announcements," he wrote.

The full exchange between Obama and Munro was cited in the official White House transcript. When Obama responded to Munro's first interruption, the Daily Caller reporter was quoted as saying, "No, you have to take questions."

Obama Administration To Stop Deporting Younger Undocumented Immigrants And Grant Work Permits(Video)

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration responded to years of pressure from immigrants rights groups on Friday with an announcement that it will stop deportations and begin granting work permits for some Dream Act-eligible students.

"They pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper," President Barack Obama said of those young people in a press conference announcing the policy change.

Some 800,000 people are expected to come forward to receive deferred action from deportation, as first reported by the Associated Press on Friday morning. The policy change will apply to young undocumented immigrants who entered the United States as children, along the same lines as the Dream Act, a decade-old bill that passed in the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate in 2010.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters that the policy change is part of a general shift by the Obama administration to focus on deporting high-priority undocumented immigrants.

"This grant of deferred action is not immunity," she said. "It is not amnesty. It is an exercise of discretion so that these young people are not in the removal system. It will help us to continue to streamline immigration enforcement and ensure that resources are not spent pursuing the removal of low-priority cases involving productive young people."

"More important, I believe this action is the right thing to do," she continued.

The policy change will effectively enable Dream Act-eligible young people, often called DREAMers, to stay in the United States without fear of deportation, and without legislation from a Congress that is unlikely to pass a bill.

Undocumented immigrants who came to the United States under the age of 16 and have lived in the country for at least five years can apply for the relief, so long as they are under the age of 30, according to a memo from DHS. They also must be either an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or armed forces, or a student who has graduated from high school or obtained a GED. Immigrants will not be eligible if they "post a threat to national security or public safety," including having been convicted of a felony, a "significant" misdemeanor or multiple misdemeanors.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as Customs and Border Protection, were instructed in a memo to immediately react by reviewing individual cases and preventing eligible immigrants from being put in removal proceedings. Those already in proceedings could be granted deferred action for two years, and then may apply for renewal. They will be given work authorization on a case-by-case basis.

A senior administration official told reporters on the condition of anonymity that most eligible undocumented immigrants will be required to go to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to provide documents and pay a fee.

Still, there will be no pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants eligible for the policy change, because "Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights," according to the DHS announcement.

The administration has been under intense pressure from immigrant rights groups, some led by undocumented youth themselves, to make an executive order protecting DREAMers from deportation. Previously, though, officials had said the administration did not have the power to make an executive order blocking deportations for undocumented young people.

Asked about that change, a different senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters that this is "the next step of prosecutorial discretion" along the same lines as it is already being applied, and not inconsistent with past statements.

The administration also emphasized that the policy change is no substitute for legislation on the issue. Obama called out Republicans -- some, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), by name, and others, like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), more vaguely -- for supporting immigration reform in the past but opposing it now. Hatch was one of the original cosponsors of the Dream Act in 2001, but voted against it in 2010. In time, Obama said he thinks Republicans will come around to support the bill as well.

"I've said time and time and time again to Congress, send me the Dream Act, put it on my desk, and I will sign it right away," Obama said. "Both parties wrote this legislation."

McCain responded in a statement, calling the action "a politically-motivated power grab that does nothing to further the debate but instead adds additional confusion and uncertainty to our broken immigration system."

The announcement comes several months before the presidential election, where Obama hopes to win a significant portion of the vote from the Latino population, which supports the Dream Act by large margins. The majority of the population at large also supports the Dream Act, as defined by the 2010 bill, although by lower margins. The announcement also comes on the heels of Obama announcing his support for same-sex marriage -- similarly after years of urging from advocacy groups.

Presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he would veto the Dream Act under the 2010 framework, but has expressed some openness to considering upcoming legislation on young undocumented immigrants from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). That plan, which has yet to be introduced, would allow some undocumented immigrants who came as children to stay legally, but without any path to citizenship. A spokesman for Rubio did not respond to a request for comment on the administration announcement by the time of publication, nor did the Romney campaign.

A senior adviser for Romney told MSNBC's Chris Cilliza later Friday that the candidate will "focus intently on the economy," including in his message to Latino voters.

Rubio later said in a statement that the administration's action would hurt "broad support" for the idea that undocumented young people should be helped, but without encouraging unauthorized immigration. He said the new policy "will make [it] harder to achieve in the long run."

"Today's announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem," Rubio said. "And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one."

Republicans in Congress have largely decried legislation on the issue as amnesty. Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said on Fox News Friday that the policy change could be "a backdoor opportunity to allow people to vote" -- though eligible young people would not be given voting rights under the new policy -- and that it should go through the legislative process instead.

Some Republicans plan to swiftly investigate whether the administration overstepped its authority by making the policy change. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) announced in a statement that he will launch "an immediate review into the possibility that DHS will direct Border Patrol agents to conduct selective enforcement" and that it could encourage more immigrants to enter the country without authorization. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the House Judiciary committee, which focuses on immigration, said in a statement that the policy change will serve as a magnet for undocumented immigrants -- although only those already in the country would be eligible.

Some Republicans plan to swiftly investigate whether the administration overstepped its authority by making the policy change. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) announced in a statement that he will launch "an immediate review into the possibility that DHS will direct Border Patrol agents to conduct selective enforcement." Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) later told Mike Huckabee that he plans to sue to block implementation of the policy. Earlier, a spokeswoman for King, one of the biggest critics of the president on immigration reform, did not respond to requests for comment.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the House Judiciary committee, which focuses on immigration, said in a statement that the policy change will serve as a magnet for undocumented immigrants -- although only those already in the country would be eligible.

"President Obama's decision to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants is a breach of faith with the American people," Smith said. "It also blatantly ignores the rule of law that is the foundation of our democracy. This huge policy shift has horrible consequences for unemployed Americans looking for jobs and violates President Obama's oath to uphold the laws of this land."

A spokesperson for Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), who leads the House subcommittee dealing with immigration issues, did not respond to requests for comment.

Democratic supporters of the Dream Act applauded the decision. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), one of the most vocal critics of the administration on immigration, called the announcement a "tremendous first step," while Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said he was "profoundly grateful" and that the policy change "will change [DREAMers'] lives forever." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who introduced the Dream Act in 2001, called it a "historic humanitarian moment."

"This action will give these young immigrants their chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the only country they’ve ever called home," Durbin said in a statement.

DREAMers said on Friday they were cautiously optimistic about the news, but happy that the administration responded to their concerns.

Lizbeth Mateo, an undocumented 27-year-old who works with the National Immigrant Youth Alliance, said she has been disappointed before by seemingly positive announcements from the administration on immigration, such as when it took up stronger application of prosecutorial discretion, with the stated intent to close a number of deportation cases. Although many cases have been closed, immigrant rights groups argue that the policy has fallen short.

Another undocumented advocate for the Dream Act, Gaby Pacheco, said she, too, is waiting to see how far the policy goes in implementation.

"We feel that the work that we have been doing for the past couple of years has really come to fruition," she said. "A community has been able to organize and to speak out, and the president has responded."

U.S. Supreme Court may uphold parts of Arizona's immigration law

Emboldened by signals that the U.S. Supreme Court may uphold parts of Arizona's immigration law, legislators and activists across the country say they are gearing up to push for similar get-tough measures in their states.

"We're getting our national network ready to run with the ball, and saturate state legislatures with versions of the law," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration. "We believe we can pass it in most states."

That goal may be a stretch, but lawmakers in about a dozen states told The Associated Press they were interested in proposing Arizona-style laws if its key components are upheld by the Supreme Court. A ruling is expected in June on the Department of Justice's appeal that the law conflicts with federal immigration policy.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said he was encouraged that several justices suggested during Wednesday's oral arguments that they are ready to let Arizona enforce the most controversial part of its law — a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally. Another provision allows suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without warrants

"The justices sent a clear signal that there's a huge zone for state action in this area," Stein said. "There will be an enormous amount of energy spent in next few months examining the full range of possibilities."

For starters, a ruling in favor of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 would likely enable Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah to put move forward with comparable measures that were enacted but have been on hold pending the high court's decision.

"If Arizona does very well, we'll do very well," said Alabama Sen. Scott Beason, sponsor of a law that in some respects is tougher than Arizona's. In addition to requiring police to determine citizenship status during traffic stops, it directs government offices to verify legal residency for transactions like obtaining a car license, enrolling a child in school and getting a job.

Lawmakers in such diverse states as Mississippi and Pennsylvania said they would be eager to follow the Arizona/Alabama model if the Supreme Court gives a green light.

"You look at poll after poll after poll, whether they're a business owner or employee or small business owner or executive, the majority of Americans support bills like 1070," said Pennsylvania Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican who chairs the House State Government Committee.

Metcalfe has already introduced a bill that incorporates Arizona's law and is waiting for a favorableSupreme Court ruling to bring it up in his committee.

In Mississippi, a get-tough immigration bill passed the House earlier this year but died in a Senate committee. Its backers plan to try again next year, and hope for a Supreme Court ruling that gives them guidance.

"This just ensures to the taxpayers of Mississippi that when we pass the law, we won't end up in a long court battle," said Republican Rep. Becky Currie.

As in Mississippi, South Dakota lawmakers also have rejected a measure based on the Arizona law, but its sponsor, Republican Rep. Manny Steele of Sioux Falls, says he's ready to try again.

"I would be excited to get another bill going back in there, according to what the Supreme Courtdecision is," Steele said.

In Rhode Island, Rep. Peter Palumbo said he was pleased by the Supreme Court's apparent support for allowing states to enforce immigration law.

"It's tremendous," said Palumbo, a Democrat who would like to empower the state police to help federal authorities with immigration enforcement.

In several states where neither major party has a monopoly on power — Iowa, Colorado, Montana and Kentucky, among them — lawmakers said the fate of any hardline immigration bill likely will depend on the outcome of state elections in November.

One of Kentucky's leading critics of illegal immigration, Republican Rep. Stan Lee, said an Arizona-style bill has little chance of overcoming staunch opposition from the Democratic majority in the House.

"Even if the Supreme Court upholds all or virtually all of that, I don't expect to pursue any of that type of legislation unless there's a significant change in the makeup of the House," Lee said. "The votes, as I've discovered, just aren't there."

In Minnesota, Republican Rep. Steve Drazkowski said he'll consider proposing a bill modeled in part on the Arizona law but acknowledged that it could well be vetoed by Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton, whose term runs until 2014.

In Kansas, where Republicans dominate, GOP legislators are split over immigration, preventing action both on proposals to crack down on illegal immigration and a business-backed program to place some immigrants in hard-to-fill jobs in farming and other sectors.

Among the leaders of the get-tough faction in Kansas is Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a former law professor who helped write the Arizona and Alabama laws. Kobach said the Supreme Court arguments bolstered his view that the most controversial part of the Arizona law — the "show your papers" provision — would withstand a legal challenge.

If the Supreme Court upholds key parts of the law, "it will be a huge green light," he said. "All of the other states will have a blueprint that they can copy."

In Virginia, which already has numerous restrictive immigration laws, Republican Delegate David Albo said there may not be room for many more.

"We're already bumping up against the legal limits of what we're allowed to do," said Albo, author of a law that denies adult illegal immigrants non-emergency public benefits such as food stamps and welfare benefits.

In many states, there is little or no prospect for adopting Arizona-style laws anytime soon. In some cases, such as in Idaho, it's because the agriculture industry worries about losing needed workers; elsewhere it's a question of immigrant-friendly politics.

"I can't envision the state adopting the position that we should be enforcing immigrant laws," said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, noting that his state has ample law enforcement challenges on its plate already.

In Illinois, which has some of the most immigrant-friendly laws in the nation, Republican Rep. Randy Ramey has tried four times to propose an Arizona-style law but failed to get a measure out of committee. Heartened by the Supreme Court arguments, Ramey said he may try again despite the odds.

"It encourages me, but doesn't mean anything will move here as long as Democrats are in charge," he said. "They'll just laugh at it."

Stands on the issue don't always follow predictable party lines. Republican Govs. Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Brian Sandoval of Nevada — both Hispanics — say Arizona-style laws aren't needed in their states. Hispanics account for 46 percent of the population in New Mexico, the highest proportion of any state.

"Gov. Martinez fully believes that any policies addressing illegal immigration have to begin at the federal level," said her spokesman, Greg Blair.

There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Of that total, roughly 6.1 million are from Mexico, down from nearly 7 million in 2007, according to a Pew Hispanic Center study released Monday. That decline has coincided with a cooling-off of the immigration debate in some states, such as Tennessee.

"It doesn't seem to have the same numbers that were here a couple of years ago," said state Sen. Bill Ketron, a Republican who has sponsored a number of bills targeting illegal immigrants.

Clarissa Martinez of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization, predicted that most states — regardless of the Supreme Court's decision — would stay away from Arizona-type laws out of self-interest.

"For most of them, the balance sheets do not add up," she said, referring to the Alabama law that has created burdens for some business and caused farmers to complain about lack of workers to pick their crops.

Vermont, where a growing number of Hispanic migrants work in the dairy industry, is among a handful of states overtly welcoming immigrants regardless of their legal status. Last fall, Gov. Peter Shumlin urged police to "look the other way" when the only legal problem might be an immigration violation.

"Vermont is the antithesis of Arizona," said Rep. Suzi Wizowaty of Burlington, who has backed a bill to require police to follow such policies. "Our goal in Vermont is to be the kind of place that welcomes all kinds of people."

The welcome mat is out in Alaska, also.

"We want more immigrants," said Republican Rep. Paul Seaton. "There just aren't people from here to do the work."

___

Arizona’s illegal-immigration law heads to Supreme Court

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the country's toughest illegal-immigration bill into law two years ago, setting off a long legal battle with the Obama administration and inspiring half a dozen states to emulate Arizona and pass similar laws. On Wednesday, the federal government and Arizona will face off at the Supreme Court, where Justice Department lawyers will try to convince the court that the law is an unconstitutional invasion into the federal government's turf.

A federal judge blocked four major aspects of the law before they ever went into effect, including the provision that local police officers check the immigration status of people during stops if they have reason to suspect they lack legal status. Provisions making it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, or for any immigrant to fail to carry immigration papers, were also blocked. Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision and shot down most of the law.

Although public opinion polls showed that most Americans supported the law's provisions after it passed, the minority opposition was passionate, and it set off a national debate about illegal immigration that has permeated the presidential elections. Opponents argued that the law would encourage racial profiling and branded Arizona the "show me your papers" state. More than 100 different parties, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and dozens of states, have filed friend-of-the-court briefs weighing in on the law.

Three interesting twists are likely to make this case even more high-profile—and political—than it already has been. First of all, Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates for the presidency have blasted the Obama administration for suing Arizona in the first place, using it as a way to paint the president as soft on illegal immigration and intrusive on states' rights. Secondly, a familiar face will represent Arizona's case: Paul Clement, the lawyer who argued against Obama's health care law before the Supreme Court earlier this month, will once again take center stage. Lastly, Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case because she was solicitor general when the government first filed suit against Arizona. That means the court could theoretically split 4-4 in its decision. If this happens, the 9th Circuit decision stands and the law will remain blocked. But that outcome would give little guidance to states not in the 9th Circuit that have passed or want to pass laws similar to Arizona's, and would leave unsettled the question of how far states can go in combating illegal immigration.

Here's a brief rundown of each side's line of reasoning:

Arizona's argument

Arizona must prove that its law represents an honest attempt to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing existing immigration laws—and that it isn't trying to create its own immigration policy.

Clement argues in his brief that national immigration law provides for state-federal cooperation, even requiring states to send and receive information about the immigration status of suspects in some cases. The federal government runs a 24-hour database where state and local law enforcement officers can look up the immigration status of accused criminals. This suggests that states can and even should help enforce civil immigration law, he argues, particularly in the scenario where an officer has lawfully stopped someone he suspects of a crime. Interestingly, Clement quotes Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 case where the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law barring undocumented children from K-12 public schools, to support his assertion that states can pass laws sanctioning illegal immigrants.

Clement also briefly dismisses the argument that Arizona's law is interfering with the United States' foreign relations, saying it cannot be an interference if it helps the federal government combat illegal immigration.

The federal government's case

The government hit Arizona particularly hard on two of the law's provisions: criminalizing those not carrying immigration papers, and criminalizing illegal immigrants who are looking for work. National immigration laws make working while unauthorized only a civil offense, and applying for work is not even a civil crime. (Lying on a federal work form about citizenship or providing false documents is a criminal offense.) This, the lawyers argue, is an example of Arizona making its own immigration policy, not just trying to help the federal government enforce its existing laws.

The government's other main argument just might be its strongest: that Arizona's law infringes on the federal government's ability to control foreign relations. (The Constitution makes clear that the states have no legal role in foreign policy and affairs.) Arizona State University law professor Paul Bender tells Yahoo News that this is the government's best shot. "To have 50 states able to decide on their own who they're going to detain and put in jail without the federal government's permission is an invitation to disaster," he says. In the majority opinion, the 9th Circuit mentioned that five out of six Mexican border governors declined an invitation to travel to a conference in Arizona in protest of the law, and that the leaders of dozens of foreign countries and United Nations human rights officials had publicly criticized it. One 9th Circuit judge rejected this argument in his dissent, calling it a "heckler's veto."

The federal government's toughest job will most likely be to convince the justices that the Constitution prevents the policy of requiring police officers to ask people about their immigration status during stops. That's because Clement brings up fairly convincing examples of pre-existing cooperation between the federal and local governments in this case, through the 24-hour database and other programs.

Immigrants trickling back to Alabama despite crackdown

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — Ana Jimenez and her husband were so terrified of being sent back to their native Mexico when Alabama's tough crackdown on illegal immigrants took effect that they fled more than 2,000 miles to Los Angeles, cramming into a two-bedroom apartment with more than 20 other relatives.

Now they are among the families coming back to cities like Birmingham, as the mass deportations never materialized and courts blocked parts of the law. No one knows how many people initially left the state, so it's impossible to say how many have returned. But some illegal immigrants are trickling back, unable to find work elsewhere and missing the place that had been home for years.

Of 18 Hispanic immigrants interviewed by The Associated Press in the Birmingham area, six said they had friends or relatives who had returned to Alabama after fleeing because of the law.

As for Jimenez, she left Birmingham with her husband, father and brother three days after the law took effect. Now, all except her brother are back. Jimenez said through a translator that not much had changed, though she can't reclaim her job at a McDonald's restaurant because managers are checking citizenship papers.

"Everything is the same. I just can't work now," Jimenez said through a translator. She said the family is living off the income of her husband, who installs carpet and flooring.

The Obama administration, immigrant groups and others sued over Alabama's law, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is set to consider arguments about it on March 1. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments a month later over Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigration, which isn't considered as strict as Alabama's.

Republicans who supported the crackdown had said they hoped the tough provisions — which made it difficult if not impossible to legally find work and housing, among other things — would force people to "self-deport" and move out of the state.

Among those who self-deported were Verenece Flores and her husband. They sold their home in metro Birmingham and moved with their three young children to Chicago. But the couple, originally from Mexico and living in the U.S. without legal documents, also could not find work, and relatives told them people weren't being deported after traffic stops as some had feared.

The family is staying with relatives and doesn't have their own place, and Flores remains "a little scared" of the law. But she said she was happy to be back. Flores had lived here for 15 years before the short move to Chicago, and her children are happier and her husband is back working construction jobs.

"I missed everything about it — friends, family, the weather," Flores said. She knows two more families that left Alabama for Washington state only to return.

Estela Fuentes said friends of hers moved to Atlanta because the law required that public schools verify the citizenship status of students, yet they returned late last month after learning courts had put that section of the law on hold. The family was sad throughout its exile to Georgia, she said through a translator.

"One of their daughters cried and cried because she had no friends over there," said Fuentes, who is originally from El Salvador.

And while there are families returning, some officials say they haven't heard anything to suggest the numbers are huge. Zayne Smith, an immigration attorney with the nonprofit Alabama Appleseed legal center in Montgomery, said she had been hearing that some people wanted to wait until after the 11th Circuit considers the case in March.

State agriculture officials who say the new law led to a chronic shortage in agricultural labor said they haven't seen evidence of large numbers of immigrants returning to the state. Many immigrants worked in the state's poultry processing plants or out in tomato fields, planting and harvesting crops.

Gwen Ferreti, a researcher and activist in the Hispanic community, said some immigrants remain wary but are coming back because of their deep ties to the state.

Some initially feared the law would mean that people would be rounded up, or that "you'd be stopped just for being Hispanic," said Ferreti, an anthropologist from the University of Texas who is living in Tuscaloosa, about 60 miles southwest of Birmingham, for her studies. "That has not happened, but people are aware that racial profiling is going on if you are Hispanic. They are still uneasy."

Court won't lift stay on Arizona immigration law

PHOENIX – A federal appeals court on Monday refused to lift a stay blocking major parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect and said the federal government is likely to be able to prove the controversial law is unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down an appeal filed by Gov. Jan Brewer. She had asked the appeals court to lift an injunction imposed by a federal judge in Phoenix the day before the law was to take effect on July 29, 2010.

The U.S Justice Department sued to block the law, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution because enforcing immigration law is a federal issue.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued an injunction preventing four major parts of the law from going into effect pending a trial. Monday's ruling by the three-judge appeals court panel upheld that injunction.

The panel's opinion said the government is likely to succeed in its arguments that Congress has given the federal government sole authority to enforce immigration laws, and that Arizona's law violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. One judge dissented.

Brewer's lawyers said the federal government hasn't effectively enforced immigration law and that the state law will assist federal authorities.

"I remain steadfast in my belief that Arizona and other states have a sovereign right and obligation to protect their citizens and enforce immigration law in accordance with federal statute," Brewer said in a statement.

The governor's office said Brewer, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and their legal team — in conjunction with counsel for the Arizona Legislature — will be considering their legal options, including appealing to a larger 9th Circuit panel or seeking an immediate petition for the U.S. Supreme Court, to lift the injunction.

The bill's author, state Sen. Russell Pearce, issued a statement saying the appeals court ruling was "utterly predictable."

"SB 1070 is constitutionally sound, and that will be proven when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up this case and makes the proper ruling," he said. "This battle is a battle of epic proportions. It is about a state's right to enforce the laws of this land and protect its citizens from those who break our laws."

"We're obviously pleased with the ruling, but we understand that there could be a long way to go with this litigation," said Robby Sherwood, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney for Arizona.

Parts of the law blocked from taking effect while the case works its way through the courts include a provision requiring police to question people's immigration status while enforcing other laws if there is a reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.

Other provisions that are on hold include: 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 a warrant.

In a separate opinion concurring with the panel's ruling, Appeals Court Judge John T. Noonan noted the intent of the state statute is clear and goes beyond what federal law allows.

"If we read Section 1 of the statute, the statute states the purpose of providing a solution to illegal immigration in the United States. So read, the statute is a singular entry into the foreign policy of the United States by a single state," he wrote.

Judge Carlos Bea would uphold two of the provisions — those allowing police to question people about their immigration status and to make warrantless arrests — and wrote a pointed dissent.

"As I see it, Congress has clearly expressed its intention that state officials should assist federal officials in checking the immigration status of aliens," he wrote. He also included a footnote that quoted Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" to criticize what he called the majority's convoluted reasoning.

The passage of SB 1070 last year reignited an immigration debate that has simmered in Arizona and across the nation for years.

Opponents of the law protested in the streets as it was about to take effect and called for a boycott of the state.

Proponents called the law a long-overdue effort by a state that has been overburdened by illegal immigration and a lack of federal action on the issue.

Opponents of the law hailed the decision and said other states considering similar legislation should take note.

"Today's decision rightly rejects SB 1070's assault on the core American values of fairness and equality," said Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project. "Legislators in other states should pay close attention to today's ringing condemnation of Arizona's racial profiling law and refrain from going down the same unconstitutional path."