Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not a slam dunk for either side.

 

[Christo]

So it's pretty safe to say based on the DOJ's challenge to the AZ law, that they couldn't actually find any problems with it? I mean, if the law was as racist as they all claimed it was, couldn't they have worked that angle if it were true?

I don't see this at all. From what I understand, the Department of Justice HAS to challenge the law based on the Supremacy clause, because immigration is a federal, not a state issue. Despite Christo's assertion to the contrary, the question of whether or not an individual state has the right to pass laws which specifically re-interpret federal laws is an open one, and needs to be resolved in court. That is the argument being made. Any federal administration, be it Republican or Democrat, would challenge this law.

When did this happen?

It may/will happen. We discussed this at length in my thread (remember our "whether AZ is bound by a federal court's ruling on the incorporated federal statute" discussion?)

Yes, and as I said, state courts are only bound by SCOTUS decisions. Perhaps you can show where the AZ courts have refused to apply SCOTUS decisions with respect to immigration.

 

[Zow]

A state judge cannot deport an illegal alien. But a state judge can certainly determine whether an alien is here illegally (as that term is defined by federal law) for the purposes of applying AZ law.

But in doing so he is actually interpreting the federal statutes - which, IIRC, state that a determination must be made by a federal fact finder (again, I gotta check my research and unfortunately don't have time right now).

Which they're allowed to do. I'm really looking forward to this research.

Eh, it's basically ripping off an immigration attorney's presentation at a seminar I was at a couple weeks ago.

 

[oneohh]

So it's pretty safe to say based on the DOJ's challenge to the AZ law, that they couldn't actually find any problems with it? I mean, if the law was as racist as they all claimed it was, couldn't they have worked that angle if it were true?

I don't see this at all. From what I understand, the Department of Justice HAS to challenge the law based on the Supremacy clause, because immigration is a federal, not a state issue. Despite Christo's assertion to the contrary, the question of whether or not an individual state has the right to pass laws which specifically re-interpret federal laws is an open one, and needs to be resolved in court. That is the argument being made. Any federal administration, be it Republican or Democrat, would challenge this law.

It just seems like they're proving Arizona's point. The state of AZ needed to create this law to do the job the Feds refuse to do and now the DOJ confirmed this.

Well again I disagree with you. There was no need for AZ to create this law. There is no problem in AZ that demands such a draconian law.

500,000 illegal immigrants and the highest kidnapping rate in North America is certainly a problem that needs to be addressed.Oh, and @ "draconian."

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Here is the DOJ brief

Well, that is certainly a well pleaded complaint before the court in accordance with federal procedure. But, it isn't a brief. Granted, the brief won't be too much different but it will have a ton more legal argument I would think because the complaints background allegations seem, to me, to jump all over the place. Basically, the argument boils down to - immigration policy is solely a federal job and there is a reason we are doing it this way. I don't know if that is good enough, but it might be.

 

[videoguy505]

Why not sue Rhode Island?

 

[timschochet]

The article that Maurile linked referenced a Supreme Court Case, Hines vs. Davidowitz. Per Wiki:

Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) is a case applying the law of conflict preemption. The United States Supreme Court held that a state system of alien registration was superseded by a federal system (the Alien Registration Act) because it was an "obstacle to accomplishment" of its goals.

Under the preemption doctrine, enforcement of a state alien registration law was barred by the federal Alien Registration Act.

Justice Hugo L. Black emphasized the supremacy of federal power over this area of law:

That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787, and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court. When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute, for Article 6 of the Constitution provides that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Federal Government, representing as it does the collective interests of the forty-eight states, is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties. "For local interests the several States of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power."

Not being a legal expert, I don't know if this case applies, but from a layman's perspective (mine) it appears to do so.

 

[Statorama]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them.

My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

 

[Zow]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them. My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

I still don't think this bill will do anything to curtail immigration.

 

[Zow]

The article that Maurile linked referenced a Supreme Court Case, Hines vs. Davidowitz. Per Wiki:

Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) is a case applying the law of conflict preemption. The United States Supreme Court held that a state system of alien registration was superseded by a federal system (the Alien Registration Act) because it was an "obstacle to accomplishment" of its goals.

Under the preemption doctrine, enforcement of a state alien registration law was barred by the federal Alien Registration Act.

Justice Hugo L. Black emphasized the supremacy of federal power over this area of law:

That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787, and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court. When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute, for Article 6 of the Constitution provides that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Federal Government, representing as it does the collective interests of the forty-eight states, is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties. "For local interests the several States of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power."

Not being a legal expert, I don't know if this case applies, but from a layman's perspective (mine) it appears to do so.

It applies. The issue is going to turn on whether the AZ is in conflict with the federal.

 

[oneohh]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them. My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

But think about the Mexicans, Stat. I know they can't all vote, but A LOT of their cousins can.Viva La Raza!

 

[SteevieG]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them. My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

 

[timschochet]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them. My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

No this is wrong. It is not the president who has abandoned Arizona but its legislature. I know the people of Arizona are generally for this law, but they are misguided, and those who should know better have betrayed them. Obama has nothing to do with that, but he is acting in the correct manner- both for the nation and for Arizona, IMO.

 

[oneohh]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them. My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

No this is wrong. It is not the president who has abandoned Arizona but its legislature. I know the people of Arizona are generally for this law, but they are misguided, and those who should know better have betrayed them. Obama has nothing to do with that, but he is acting in the correct manner- both for the nation and for Arizona, IMO.

What part of Arizona do you live in, Tim?

 

[Adebisi]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them. My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

No this is wrong. It is not the president who has abandoned Arizona but its legislature. I know the people of Arizona are generally for this law, but they are misguided, and those who should know better have betrayed them. Obama has nothing to do with that, but he is acting in the correct manner- both for the nation and for Arizona, IMO.

What part of Arizona do you live in, Tim?

He's not from Arizona; he just knows what's best for Arizona. And if you disagree, then you are misguided.

 

[timschochet]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them. My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

No this is wrong. It is not the president who has abandoned Arizona but its legislature. I know the people of Arizona are generally for this law, but they are misguided, and those who should know better have betrayed them. Obama has nothing to do with that, but he is acting in the correct manner- both for the nation and for Arizona, IMO.

What part of Arizona do you live in, Tim?

I don't live in Arizona. What's your point?

 

[timschochet]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them. My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

No this is wrong. It is not the president who has abandoned Arizona but its legislature. I know the people of Arizona are generally for this law, but they are misguided, and those who should know better have betrayed them. Obama has nothing to do with that, but he is acting in the correct manner- both for the nation and for Arizona, IMO.

What part of Arizona do you live in, Tim?

He's not from Arizona; he just knows what's best for Arizona. And if you disagree, then you are misguided.

I have given what I consider to be very sound, very detailed reasons as to why people in support of this law are misguided all throughout this thread. You can accept those reasons or not, but please don't accuse me of not trying to explain my position.

 

[Card Trader]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them. My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

 

[Statorama]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them.

My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

I still don't think this bill will do anything to curtail immigration.

You may be right, and I liked the thought process you laid out in your own AZ thread.Still, it grinds my gears that the Federal Government would get huffy that state government would like to assist them in bringing lawbreakers to justice. The Feds are making Arizona fight for the right to enforce the law. What a joke.

Gallup reports Obama numbers with independents down to 38% approval rating

 

[Card Trader]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them.

My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

I still don't think this bill will do anything to curtail immigration.

You may be right, and I liked the thought process you laid out in your own AZ thread.Still, it grinds my gears that the Federal Government would get huffy that state government would like to assist them in bringing lawbreakers to justice. The Feds are making Arizona fight for the right to enforce the law. What a joke.

Gallup reports Obama numbers with independents down to 38% approval rating

The only good thing about this crap Obama is pulling is that he's losing a lot of votes. Let's face it, the brownie points he's getting from the hispanics are going to be overshadowed by the independents that are against this. I wonder if he knows the illegals, who's "rights" he's fighting for can't vote him in, in a couple of years?

 

[videoguy505]

The article that Maurile linked referenced a Supreme Court Case, Hines vs. Davidowitz.

Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) is a case applying the law of conflict preemption.

Not being a legal expert, I don't know if this case applies, but from a layman's perspective (mine) it appears to do so.

De Canas vs. Bica (1976) would also apply. In this case, the state of California's ban against hiring illegals was challenged by migrant workers under the concept of pre-emption... that it wrongly treaded on federal jurisdiction. The law was upheld 8-0. Brennan's decision referenced Hines:

Hines v. Davidowitz (1941) and Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956), upon which respondents rely, are fully consistent with this conclusion. Hines held that Pennsylvania's Alien Registration Act of 1939 was pre-empted by the federal Alien Registration Act. Nelson held that the Pennsylvania Sedition Act was pre-empted by the federal Smith Act.

Although both cases relied on the comprehensiveness of the federal regulatory schemes in finding pre-emptive intent, both federal statutes were in the specific field which the States were attempting to regulate, while here there is no indication that Congress intended to preclude state law in the area of employment regulation. And Nelson stated that even in the face of the general immigration laws, States would have the right "to enforce their sedition laws at times when the Federal Government has not occupied the field and is not protecting the entire country from seditious conduct."

Moreover, in neither Hines nor Nelson was there affirmative evidence, as here, that Congress sanctioned concurrent state legislation on the subject covered by the challenged state law. Furthermore, to the extent those cases were based on the predominance of federal interest in the fields of immigration and foreign affairs, there would not appear to be a similar federal interest in a situation in which the state law is fashioned to remedy local problems, and operates only on local employers, and only with respect to individuals whom the Federal Government has already declared cannot work in this country. Finally, the Pennsylvania statutes in Hines and Nelson imposed burdens on aliens lawfully within the country that created conflicts with various federal laws.

WSJ's James Taranto writes: "Some of the distinctions Brennan makes cut against the Arizona law. Brennan expressly cited "the predominance of federal interest" in immigration (as opposed to employment law), and the federal government's complaint against Arizona alleges, plausibly, that the state law will impose burdens on legal aliens.But he also makes clear that the power to pre-empt or sanction state laws in an area of federal interest rests with Congress, not the president. This would seem to suggest that if the Arizona law is consistent with federal law and Congress has not expressly barred action by states, the Arizona law should stand.

A large part of the administration's argument, by contrast, is that the Arizona law is inconsistent with federal immigration policy--i.e., with the executive branch's decisions about how to enforce laws passed by Congress. An important question for the court, then, will be whether Congress has delegated its authority to pre-empt state laws by granting discretion over law enforcement to the president.

In other words, this is a case about the balance of power within the federal government, with the Obama administration on the side of expanding the authority of the executive branch."

 

[Zow]

The article that Maurile linked referenced a Supreme Court Case, Hines vs. Davidowitz.

Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) is a case applying the law of conflict preemption.

Not being a legal expert, I don't know if this case applies, but from a layman's perspective (mine) it appears to do so.

De Canas vs. Bica (1976) would also apply. In this case, the state of California's ban against hiring illegals was challenged by migrant workers under the concept of pre-emption... that it wrongly treaded on federal jurisdiction. The law was upheld 8-0. Brennan's decision referenced Hines:

Hines v. Davidowitz (1941) and Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956), upon which respondents rely, are fully consistent with this conclusion. Hines held that Pennsylvania's Alien Registration Act of 1939 was pre-empted by the federal Alien Registration Act. Nelson held that the Pennsylvania Sedition Act was pre-empted by the federal Smith Act.

Although both cases relied on the comprehensiveness of the federal regulatory schemes in finding pre-emptive intent, both federal statutes were in the specific field which the States were attempting to regulate, while here there is no indication that Congress intended to preclude state law in the area of employment regulation. And Nelson stated that even in the face of the general immigration laws, States would have the right "to enforce their sedition laws at times when the Federal Government has not occupied the field and is not protecting the entire country from seditious conduct."

Moreover, in neither Hines nor Nelson was there affirmative evidence, as here, that Congress sanctioned concurrent state legislation on the subject covered by the challenged state law. Furthermore, to the extent those cases were based on the predominance of federal interest in the fields of immigration and foreign affairs, there would not appear to be a similar federal interest in a situation in which the state law is fashioned to remedy local problems, and operates only on local employers, and only with respect to individuals whom the Federal Government has already declared cannot work in this country. Finally, the Pennsylvania statutes in Hines and Nelson imposed burdens on aliens lawfully within the country that created conflicts with various federal laws.

WSJ's James Taranto writes: "Some of the distinctions Brennan makes cut against the Arizona law. Brennan expressly cited "the predominance of federal interest" in immigration (as opposed to employment law), and the federal government's complaint against Arizona alleges, plausibly, that the state law will impose burdens on legal aliens.But he also makes clear that the power to pre-empt or sanction state laws in an area of federal interest rests with Congress, not the president. This would seem to suggest that if the Arizona law is consistent with federal law and Congress has not expressly barred action by states, the Arizona law should stand.

A large part of the administration's argument, by contrast, is that the Arizona law is inconsistent with federal immigration policy--i.e., with the executive branch's decisions about how to enforce laws passed by Congress. An important question for the court, then, will be whether Congress has delegated its authority to pre-empt state laws by granting discretion over law enforcement to the president.

In other words, this is a case about the balance of power within the federal government, with the Obama administration on the side of expanding the authority of the executive branch."

Some good points by videoguy here. I agree with the bolded. I just don't believe it is consistent because I read the federal statutes to require a determination of status as being reserved for a federal fact finder, and the AZ contradicts it by giving the ultimate determination to a state judge.

 

[Christo]

Some good points by videoguy here. I agree with the bolded. I just don't believe it is consistent because I read the federal statutes to require a determination of status as being reserved for a federal fact finder, and the AZ contradicts it by giving the ultimate determination to a state judge.

You keep saying this but have provided no authority to back it up.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Arizona's causes of action ... stand "as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress" in enacting a statute Dow Chemical Company v. Exxon Corporation

Isn't this likely one of the argument the federal government will make?

How does that apply here?

While I'm certain it won't be part of Arizona's formal defense, isn't the entire point of the law stated and otherwise to force the hand of the federal government to enforce the federal immigration laws as Arizona sees fit? All of the "Arizona is under siege" nonsense and the federal government is doing nothing about it. How is that not interfering with the federal government's enforcement efforts, and back to my point a month or so ago the federal government's discretion in prioritizing tasks and resources? But even if you are incapable of seeing how this interpretation of the supremacy clause applies, even if you are ultimately correct and it doesn't apply why did you authoritatively leave it out of your reply to Tim?

You're missing the point. The standard for applying the Supremacy Clause is whether the state law creates an obstacle to the "purposes and objectives of Congress." Not that state law interferes with the Executive branch's failure to enforce the laws Congress has passed. So the first step is to determine what Congress's purposes and objectives are with immigration law. Clearly, the purposes and objectives of our immigration laws are to identify illegal aliens, give them a hearing and deport them if they cannot give a good reason to stay. Seems to me that the AZ law aids the purposes and objectives of Congress rather than obstructing them.

Well clearly there must have been many, many recent congressional oversight hearings challenging the administration, and the one before that, and the one before that, .... on why Congress's clear purposes and objectives with our immigration law have been ignored.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

:

:

A large part of the administration's argument, by contrast, is that the Arizona law is inconsistent with federal immigration policy--i.e., with the executive branch's decisions about how to enforce laws passed by Congress. An important question for the court, then, will be whether Congress has delegated its authority to pre-empt state laws by granting discretion over law enforcement to the president.

In other words, this is a case about the balance of power within the federal government, with the Obama administration on the side of expanding the authority of the executive branch."

I'm not a legal expert, but most laws seem to be written with quite a bit of wiggle room for the executive branch to exercise discretion in the enforcement.

 

[Sinrman]

What an utter waste of taxpayer money. It's been challenged by several others, including *gasp* the ACLU! I guess the administration needs more "face time" and to look better in the eyes of Hispanics... imagine that, politicians pandering to a target group of people?! NEVER!

Proponents of open borders and/or amnesty for illegals better pray this AZ law gets shot down. Because if it doesn't, there are several other states waiting in the wings to pass their own versions. They are just waiting things out to see how it turns out and then they are going to swoop in...

 

[Parrothead]

What an utter waste of taxpayer money. It's been challenged by several others, including *gasp* the ACLU! I guess the administration needs more "face time" and to look better in the eyes of Hispanics... imagine that, politicians pandering to a target group of people?! NEVER! :(

Proponents of open borders and/or amnesty for illegals better pray this AZ law gets shot down. Because if it doesn't, there are several other states waiting in the wings to pass their own versions. They are just waiting things out to see how it turns out and then they are going to swoop in...

18 other states I believe..

 

[quickhands]

The article that Maurile linked referenced a Supreme Court Case, Hines vs. Davidowitz. Per Wiki:

Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) is a case applying the law of conflict preemption. The United States Supreme Court held that a state system of alien registration was superseded by a federal system (the Alien Registration Act) because it was an "obstacle to accomplishment" of its goals.

Under the preemption doctrine, enforcement of a state alien registration law was barred by the federal Alien Registration Act.

Justice Hugo L. Black emphasized the supremacy of federal power over this area of law:

That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787, and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court. When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute, for Article 6 of the Constitution provides that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Federal Government, representing as it does the collective interests of the forty-eight states, is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties. "For local interests the several States of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power."

Not being a legal expert, I don't know if this case applies, but from a layman's perspective (mine) it appears to do so.

On the interior of the United States who do you think the enforcement falls to tim?

 

[otello]

Here is the DOJ brief

Well, that is certainly a well pleaded complaint before the court in accordance with federal procedure. But, it isn't a brief. Granted, the brief won't be too much different but it will have a ton more legal argument I would think because the complaints background allegations seem, to me, to jump all over the place. Basically, the argument boils down to - immigration policy is solely a federal job and there is a reason we are doing it this way. I don't know if that is good enough, but it might be.

I meant complaint.

 

[quickhands]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them. My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

No this is wrong. It is not the president who has abandoned Arizona but its legislature. I know the people of Arizona are generally for this law, but they are misguided, and those who should know better have betrayed them. Obama has nothing to do with that, but he is acting in the correct manner- both for the nation and for Arizona, IMO.

Tim what is your position on sanctuary cities that have laws in direct opposition to US Federal Immigration Law? The president is at the head of Law Enforcement. That is part of his job. Is he enforcing the Law?

 

[Cassius]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them. My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

No this is wrong. It is not the president who has abandoned Arizona but its legislature. I know the people of Arizona are generally for this law, but they are misguided, and those who should know better have betrayed them. Obama has nothing to do with that, but he is acting in the correct manner- both for the nation and for Arizona, IMO.

What part of Arizona do you live in, Tim?

He's not from Arizona; he just knows what's best for Arizona. And if you disagree, then you are misguided.

Insufferable.

 

[SteevieG]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them.

My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

I still don't think this bill will do anything to curtail immigration.

You may be right, and I liked the thought process you laid out in your own AZ thread.Still, it grinds my gears that the Federal Government would get huffy that state government would like to assist them in bringing lawbreakers to justice. The Feds are making Arizona fight for the right to enforce the law. What a joke.

Gallup reports Obama numbers with independents down to 38% approval rating

The only good thing about this crap Obama is pulling is that he's losing a lot of votes. Let's face it, the brownie points he's getting from the hispanics are going to be overshadowed by the independents that are against this. I wonder if he knows the illegals, who's "rights" he's fighting for can't vote him in, in a couple of years?

He'll realize that he's soooo far behind in the polls, destined to be a one & done POS, and make some sort of executive order granting immediate citizenship to them all which will allow them to vote for their new messiah.

 

[Christo]

Arizona's causes of action ... stand "as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress" in enacting a statute Dow Chemical Company v. Exxon Corporation

Isn't this likely one of the argument the federal government will make?

How does that apply here?

While I'm certain it won't be part of Arizona's formal defense, isn't the entire point of the law stated and otherwise to force the hand of the federal government to enforce the federal immigration laws as Arizona sees fit? All of the "Arizona is under siege" nonsense and the federal government is doing nothing about it. How is that not interfering with the federal government's enforcement efforts, and back to my point a month or so ago the federal government's discretion in prioritizing tasks and resources? But even if you are incapable of seeing how this interpretation of the supremacy clause applies, even if you are ultimately correct and it doesn't apply why did you authoritatively leave it out of your reply to Tim?

You're missing the point. The standard for applying the Supremacy Clause is whether the state law creates an obstacle to the "purposes and objectives of Congress." Not that state law interferes with the Executive branch's failure to enforce the laws Congress has passed. So the first step is to determine what Congress's purposes and objectives are with immigration law. Clearly, the purposes and objectives of our immigration laws are to identify illegal aliens, give them a hearing and deport them if they cannot give a good reason to stay. Seems to me that the AZ law aids the purposes and objectives of Congress rather than obstructing them.

Well clearly there must have been many, many recent congressional oversight hearings challenging the administration, and the one before that, and the one before that, .... on why Congress's clear purposes and objectives with our immigration law have been ignored.

What's you're point? Oh, yeah. You don't have one.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them. My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

No this is wrong. It is not the president who has abandoned Arizona but its legislature. I know the people of Arizona are generally for this law, but they are misguided, and those who should know better have betrayed them. Obama has nothing to do with that, but he is acting in the correct manner- both for the nation and for Arizona, IMO.

Tim what is your position on sanctuary cities that have laws in direct opposition to US Federal Immigration Law? The president is at the head of Law Enforcement. That is part of his job. Is he enforcing the Law?

tim doesn't support immigration law or policy and thinks the borders should be wide open so he probably wouldn't care, thinks they are morally bad laws and is ok with the lack of enforcement. In that he's being consistent with his own prior posts.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Here is the DOJ brief

Well, that is certainly a well pleaded complaint before the court in accordance with federal procedure. But, it isn't a brief. Granted, the brief won't be too much different but it will have a ton more legal argument I would think because the complaints background allegations seem, to me, to jump all over the place. Basically, the argument boils down to - immigration policy is solely a federal job and there is a reason we are doing it this way. I don't know if that is good enough, but it might be.

I meant complaint.

Sorry, I didn't mean my post to come off like it seems it did. I wasn't making that argument.

 

[bg0546]

What an utter waste of taxpayer money. It's been challenged by several others, including *gasp* the ACLU! I guess the administration needs more "face time" and to look better in the eyes of Hispanics... imagine that, politicians pandering to a target group of people?! NEVER!

Proponents of open borders and/or amnesty for illegals better pray this AZ law gets shot down. Because if it doesn't, there are several other states waiting in the wings to pass their own versions. They are just waiting things out to see how it turns out and then they are going to swoop in...

18 other states I believe..

Heard the author of this bill on the radio the other day. He said 20 plus other states are considering something similar.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You're missing the point. The standard for applying the Supremacy Clause is whether the state law creates an obstacle to the "purposes and objectives of Congress." Not that state law interferes with the Executive branch's failure to enforce the laws Congress has passed. So the first step is to determine what Congress's purposes and objectives are with immigration law. Clearly, the purposes and objectives of our immigration laws are to identify illegal aliens, give them a hearing and deport them if they cannot give a good reason to stay. Seems to me that the AZ law aids the purposes and objectives of Congress rather than obstructing them.

Another great result from McCulloch v. Maryland. Anyhoo, obviously this is correct. So how about this argument:For the Supremacy Clause to step in, compliance with both state and federal law is impossible and the law stands as the obstacle you mention. It works together in reality I think. But we also know that it will only kick in where the federalCongress intends to act or has acted. But hasn't the Supreme Court held that the act must be unmistakable as well? If so, can Arizona argue that while there is federal immigration law in place, their law:

1. mimics fedearl law such that there is no inability to effectively exdecute both at the same time; and more importantly

2. that Congress has failed to explicity act in terms of enforcement of said laws. Basically they have failed to or have not acted. There is no unmistakable act on the part of the fed.

I think that can be actually proven fairly easily. While the federal complaint cites strawman arguments like political assylum, it basically argues that the government will enforce the laws the way it deems necessary for its own internal policies, which opens up the can that they aren't doing specifically what Arizona is doing with this law. They can't argue that they are enforcing it the same way becaue they aren't, and it would shoot a hole in their original complaint.

:( All I know is that I want to work on cases like this. I need to get a job in a DOJ somewhere and do constitutional briefs and arguments.

 

[Parrothead]

What an utter waste of taxpayer money. It's been challenged by several others, including *gasp* the ACLU! I guess the administration needs more "face time" and to look better in the eyes of Hispanics... imagine that, politicians pandering to a target group of people?! NEVER!

Proponents of open borders and/or amnesty for illegals better pray this AZ law gets shot down. Because if it doesn't, there are several other states waiting in the wings to pass their own versions. They are just waiting things out to see how it turns out and then they are going to swoop in...

18 other states I believe..

Heard the author of this bill on the radio the other day. He said 20 plus other states are considering something similar.

heh.. before it is all over, maybe Obama can sue all 57 states

 

[bg0546]

What an utter waste of taxpayer money. It's been challenged by several others, including *gasp* the ACLU! I guess the administration needs more "face time" and to look better in the eyes of Hispanics... imagine that, politicians pandering to a target group of people?! NEVER!

Proponents of open borders and/or amnesty for illegals better pray this AZ law gets shot down. Because if it doesn't, there are several other states waiting in the wings to pass their own versions. They are just waiting things out to see how it turns out and then they are going to swoop in...

18 other states I believe..

Heard the author of this bill on the radio the other day. He said 20 plus other states are considering something similar.

heh.. before it is all over, maybe Obama can sue all 57 states

And Mexico. Their immigration policies are atrocious!!!!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Bottomfeeder Sports (Jul 6 2010, 10:13 PM):

Arizona's causes of action ... stand "as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress" in enacting a statute Dow Chemical Company v. Exxon Corporation

Isn't this likely one of the argument the federal government will make?Christo (Jul 6 2010, 11:22 PM): How does that apply here?

Bottomfeeder Sports (Jul 7 2010, 06:20 AM): While I'm certain it won't be part of Arizona's formal defense, isn't the entire point of the law stated and otherwise to force the hand of the federal government to enforce the federal immigration laws as Arizona sees fit? All of the "Arizona is under siege" nonsense and the federal government is doing nothing about it. How is that not interfering with the federal government's enforcement efforts, and back to my point a month or so ago the federal government's discretion in prioritizing tasks and resources?

But even if you are incapable of seeing how this interpretation of the supremacy clause applies, even if you are ultimately correct and it doesn't apply why did you authoritatively leave it out of your reply to Tim?

Christo (Jul 7 2010, 01:59 PM) You're missing the point. The standard for applying the Supremacy Clause is whether the state law creates an obstacle to the "purposes and objectives of Congress." Not that state law interferes with the Executive branch's failure to enforce the laws Congress has passed. So the first step is to determine what Congress's purposes and objectives are with immigration law. Clearly, the purposes and objectives of our immigration laws are to identify illegal aliens, give them a hearing and deport them if they cannot give a good reason to stay. Seems to me that the AZ law aids the purposes and objectives of Congress rather than obstructing them.

Bottomfeeder Sports (Jul 8 2010, 05:41 AM)

Well clearly there must have been many, many recent congressional oversight hearings challenging the administration, and the one before that, and the one before that, .... on why Congress's clear purposes and objectives with our immigration law have been ignored.

[Christo (Jul 8 2010, 10:35 AM): What's you're point? Oh, yeah. You don't have one.

My point was that the government would likely argue this-

... the federal complaint ... basically argues that the [federal] government will enforce the laws the way it deems necessary for its own internal policies, which opens up the can that they aren't doing specifically what Arizona is doing with this law. ...

Which it seems they did. Which you never even considered relevant enough to note when Timmy asked about how the supremacy clause worked in practice.This case seems to revolve entirely around whether states such as Arizona can dictate to the executive branch of the federal government how to enforce "Congress's purposes and objectives". It does not seem likely to me to be about whether Arizona officials can simultaneously follow Arizona and federal immigration laws. Ignoring the topic at hand, I don't see any way that any administration would ever not challenge such a law and risk the chaos of 50 states telling the executive branch how to do its job (outside of the constitutional role of the Senate of course). Would a court agree that a state legislator is a better judge of "Congress's purposes and objectives" then the federal executive branch? Absent a history of Congress holding oversight hearings challenging the administration's enforcement of the laws it created, would a court have any reason not to conclude by default that the executive branch was representing "Congress's purposes and objectives"? Would the court really want to see the federal government challenging 50 state laws even a few are fine?

Now maybe this particular law is crafted such that the argument that the federal government's hands aren't being tied by the state and that it doesn't interfere with the federal government's ability to enforce the "totality of the immigration laws" would win the day. Maybe they agree with you that this helps, not hinders federal government's enforcement. I'm not trying to figure out how the court system will tackle this, I just offered what appears to be the argument that the federal government will make.

 

[GroveDiesel]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them.

My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

No this is wrong. It is not the president who has abandoned Arizona but its legislature. I know the people of Arizona are generally for this law, but they are misguided, and those who should know better have betrayed them. Obama has nothing to do with that, but he is acting in the correct manner- both for the nation and for Arizona, IMO.

Wow. I'm not sure how you could possibly come across as more egotistical and anti-democratic. Good to know that you know better than everyone else, especially those that are being directly affected.

 

[oneohh]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them.

My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

No this is wrong. It is not the president who has abandoned Arizona but its legislature. I know the people of Arizona are generally for this law, but they are misguided, and those who should know better have betrayed them. Obama has nothing to do with that, but he is acting in the correct manner- both for the nation and for Arizona, IMO.

Wow. I'm not sure how you could possibly come across as more egotistical and anti-democratic. Good to know that you know better than everyone else, especially those that are being directly affected.

HEY! Get in line, Grove!

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Which you never even considered relevant enough to note when Timmy asked about how the supremacy clause worked in practice.

I know you meant to focus on Christo here and not me, but it seemed that way.... Anyhoo....

This case seems to revolve entirely around whether states such as Arizona can dictate to the executive branch of the federal government how to enforce "Congress's purposes and objectives".

I don't think that is a correct categorization. In order to make that leap the Arizona statute would have to attempt to force federal authorities to do something within the state. Now, states have tried that and been beaten back. That isn't waht Arizona is doing here. They are simply taking federal law, codifying it as state law and actually enforcing it - something the federal government is not doing. It does not seem likely to me to be about whether Arizona officials can simultaneously follow Arizona and federal immigration laws.

So far I haven't seen anything that would make me think that the laws can't work toegher. The only thing that the DoJ argues on that point is political assylum cases which is basically a strawman here.

Ignoring the topic at hand, I don't see any way that any administration would ever not challenge such a law and risk the chaos of 50 states telling the executive branch how to do its job (outside of the constitutional role of the Senate of course). Would a court agree that a state legislator is a better judge of "Congress's purposes and objectives" then the federal executive branch? Absent a history of Congress holding oversight hearings challenging the administration's enforcement of the laws it created, would a court have any reason not to conclude by default that the executive branch was representing "Congress's purposes and objectives"? Would the court really want to see the federal government challenging 50 state laws even a few are fine?

Again, I don't agree with your categorization of what this law is so therefore your conclusion here is questionable. The federal government does not have to file this lawsuit.

Now maybe this particular law is crafted such that the argument that the federal government's hands aren't being tied by the state and that it doesn't interfere with the federal government's ability to enforce the "totality of the immigration laws" would win the day. Maybe they agree with you that this helps, not hinders federal government's enforcement. I'm not trying to figure out how the court system will tackle this, I just offered what appears to be the argument that the federal government will make.

It does seem that they made these arguments, but I don't know if they made them very well.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It does seem that they made these arguments, but I don't know if they made them very well.

My point all along was that this would likely be the argument they would make. I've never argued that it was a slam dunk winning argument.

They are simply taking federal law, codifying it as state law and actually enforcing it - something the federal government is not doing.

Ultimately how does Arizona enforce the federal law without the federal government's involvement? If the federal government is allocating resources to handle Arizona's enforcement that it would not otherwise allocate because of this law, does that alone give it a case? (rhetorical) And wouldn't that alone be enough to warrant filing this suit? (slippery slope defense)

So far I haven't seen anything that would make me think that the laws can't work toegher.

Which is why I don't thing the federal government would emphasize this argument.

I know you meant to focus on Christo here and not me, but it seemed that way.... Anyhoo....

Christo stated that the DOJ doesn't have a case because the laws aren't in conflict, then I asked about the "Congress's purposes and objectives" angle. At which point he started the "So?" game he likes to play.

 

[Christo]

I'm not trying to figure out how the court system will tackle this, I just offered what appears to be the argument that the federal government will make.

No, you made a snarky comment implying that Congress was okay with the Executive branch's inaction with respect to immigration laws because Congress hadn't been holding hearings.

 

[timschochet]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them.

My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

No this is wrong. It is not the president who has abandoned Arizona but its legislature. I know the people of Arizona are generally for this law, but they are misguided, and those who should know better have betrayed them. Obama has nothing to do with that, but he is acting in the correct manner- both for the nation and for Arizona, IMO.

Wow. I'm not sure how you could possibly come across as more egotistical and anti-democratic. Good to know that you know better than everyone else, especially those that are being directly affected.

First of all, I consider you calling me anti-democratic a compliment. I don't like democracy. I don't think the public should be deciding issues like these. I consider myself a constitutional republican in the traditional sense of the word, meaning that the public should elect a legislature who votes laws into being, but that these laws should be overturned when they conflict with the constitution, which should be dedicated to the protection of individual rights. I do not approve of propositions, and I do not approve of laws which interfere with individual rights, no matter how many people support them. On the issue of illegal immigration, I strongly disagree with the majority of the public. I think that I am right and they are wrong. I certainly wish this was not so; I would be much happier if a majority agreed with me. Does this make me egotistical? That's for you to decide.

 

[oneohh]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them.

My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

No this is wrong. It is not the president who has abandoned Arizona but its legislature. I know the people of Arizona are generally for this law, but they are misguided, and those who should know better have betrayed them. Obama has nothing to do with that, but he is acting in the correct manner- both for the nation and for Arizona, IMO.

Wow. I'm not sure how you could possibly come across as more egotistical and anti-democratic. Good to know that you know better than everyone else, especially those that are being directly affected.

First of all, I consider you calling me anti-democratic a compliment. I don't like democracy. I don't think the public should be deciding issues like these. I consider myself a constitutional republican in the traditional sense of the word, meaning that the public should elect a legislature who votes laws into being, but that these laws should be overturned when they conflict with the constitution, which should be dedicated to the protection of individual rights. I do not approve of propositions, and I do not approve of laws which interfere with individual rights, no matter how many people support them. On the issue of illegal immigration, I strongly disagree with the majority of the public. I think that I am right and they are wrong. I certainly wish this was not so; I would be much happier if a majority agreed with me. Does this make me egotistical? That's for you to decide.

Can I get the short version of this?

 

[bg0546]

It really stinks that the poor citizens of Arizona are consistently under seige and the Federal Government not only doesn't care about them, it actively pursues legal avenues to keep other people from caring about them.

My heart goes out to the citizens of Arizona. Your President has abandoned you.

No this is wrong. It is not the president who has abandoned Arizona but its legislature. I know the people of Arizona are generally for this law, but they are misguided, and those who should know better have betrayed them. Obama has nothing to do with that, but he is acting in the correct manner- both for the nation and for Arizona, IMO.

Wow. I'm not sure how you could possibly come across as more egotistical and anti-democratic. Good to know that you know better than everyone else, especially those that are being directly affected.

First of all, I consider you calling me anti-democratic a compliment. I don't like democracy. I don't think the public should be deciding issues like these. I consider myself a constitutional republican in the traditional sense of the word, meaning that the public should elect a legislature who votes laws into being, but that these laws should be overturned when they conflict with the constitution, which should be dedicated to the protection of individual rights. I do not approve of propositions, and I do not approve of laws which interfere with individual rights, no matter how many people support them. On the issue of illegal immigration, I strongly disagree with the majority of the public. I think that I am right and they are wrong. I certainly wish this was not so; I would be much happier if a majority agreed with me. Does this make me egotistical? That's for you to decide.

Can I get the short version of this?

He's an open borders guy to the max. All you need to know.

 

[timschochet]

Can I get the short version of this?

Very briefly-According to all polling, the majority of Americans want us to secure our borders. They want to stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico. They are not in favor of any kind of path to citizenship for illegals. I am in favor of open borders and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. I don't expect I will ever get the former, so the latter is more important to me. In order to get a path to citizenship, I am willing to support tightening the borders, penalizing employers who hire illegals, and deporting illegals who commit felonies once their punishment has been served. But I am in favor of these things ONLY if they come along combined with some sort of path to citizenship for the vast majority of illegal immigrants. This still puts me very much at odds with most conservatives, and I believe most Americans, who regard any path to citizenship as amnesty and simply will not accept it.

 

[Statorama]

"Time for Arizona to counter-sue with a writ of mandamus to force the Feds to do their job."

- The guy in the cubicle next to me