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

[thatguythere]

What?

What no snarky comments about this.....this place is slipping.

YouTube is blocked at work. Cliffs?

The County Supervisor of Milwaukee who is trying to boycott Arizona says that she'd maybe understand why Arizona would pass a bill like this if they actually bordered Mexico, like Texas does.

Had a chance to think about this. If liberals think this way, then their arguments about the law make much more sense. Once they are educated that it does indeed border Mexico, they'll understand the purpose.My bad, I just thought everyone knew that.

New Link Journal/Sentinal made youtube pull video

 

[otello]

what an idiot.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Good op-ed from Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam in The Washington Post. Today's Hispanic immigrants are assimilating more quickly than yesterday's immigrants from China, Italy, etc. Some excerpts:

Most recent immigrants recognize that they need to learn English, and about 90 percent of the second generation speak English, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Research by sociologists Claude Fischer and Michael Hout published in 2008 suggests that English acquisition among immigrants today is faster than in previous waves.

Half a century ago, sociologist Stanley Lieberson showed that most immigrants lived in segregated enclaves, “Little Italy” or “Chinatown,” for several generations. This segregation reflected discrimination by natives and the natural desire of “strangers in a strange land” to live among familiar faces with familiar customs.... That many of today’s immigrants live in ethnic enclaves is thus entirely normal and reflects no ominous aim to separate themselves from the wider American community.

Immigrant intermarriage, then and now, also demonstrates steady progress over generations. In the 1960s, more than half a century after Italian immigration peaked, about 40 percent of second-generation Italians married non-Italians. This pattern characterizes today’s immigrants: 39 percent of U.S.-born Latinos marry non-Latinos, according to the Pew Research Center. Intermarriage among second-generation Asian Americans is even more common. Today’s immigrants are, on average, assimilating socially even more rapidly than earlier waves.

 

[timschochet]

PHOENIX – The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and the state over the nation's toughest immigration crackdown.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix argues that Arizona's law requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic violations usurps federal authority.

"In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the lawsuit says. "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."

The government is seeking an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved. It ultimately wants the law declared invalid.

The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics.

State Sen. Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the bill co-sponsored by dozens of fellow Republican legislators, denounced the lawsuit as "absolute insult to the rule of law" as well as to Arizona and its residents.

"It's outrageous and it's clear they don't want (immigration) laws enforced. What they want is to continue their non-enforcement policy," Pearce said. "They ignore the damage to America, the cost to our citizens, the deaths" tied to border-related violence.

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who opposes the law, said the suit should help settle questions over what states can do when they don't think federal laws are being adequately enforced.

"I hope this galvanizes Congress to gain the moral courage they need to address this (immigration) crisis," Sinema said.

Tuesday's action has been expected for weeks. President Barack Obama has called the state law misguided. Supporters say it is a reasonable reaction to federal inaction on immigration.

Gov. Jan Brewer's spokesman called the decision to sue "a terribly bad decision."

"Arizona obviously has a terrible border security crisis that needs to be addressed, so Gov. Brewer has repeatedly said she would have preferred the resources and attention of the federal government would be focused on that crisis rather than this," spokesman Paul Senseman said.

Three of the five Democrats in Arizona's congressional delegation, who are facing tough re-election battles, had also urged Obama not to try to block the law from going into effect.

Republican Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain of Arizona also lashed out at the administration's decision, saying "the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law."

The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.

Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking and violent kidnappings. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

Obama addressed the Arizona law in a speech on immigration reform last week. He touched on one of the major concerns of federal officials, that other states were poised to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.

"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."

The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.

The law also prohibits government agencies from having policies that restrict the enforcement of federal immigration law and lets Arizonans file lawsuits against agencies that hinder immigration enforcement.

Arizona State University constitutional law professor Paul Bender said the federal government's involvement throws a lot of weight behind the argument that federal law pre-empts Arizona's measure.

"It's important to have the federal government's view of whether state law is inconsistent with federal law, and they're the best people to say that," Bender said.

Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unprecedented and unnecessary."

He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.

"The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview.

___

 

[Statorama]

If the Federal Government would ever start enforcing immigration laws, we wouldn't have this problem.

Is the governments argument that the local police shouldn't enforce any Federal laws? Kidnapping? Bank Robberies? Felony Drug Trafficking?

I still don't know why they would fight this. If they win and continue their "look the other way" attitude about illegal immigration, every border killing will be blood on their hands.

 

[timschochet]

Question for lawyers: though I am admittedly opposed to this law and I hope it is overturned, I also admit ignorance about the Supremacy clause. Does the Justice Department have a point, based on precedence, on this issue?

 

[videoguy505]

Is the governments argument that the local police shouldn't enforce any Federal laws? Kidnapping? Bank Robberies? Felony Drug Trafficking?

I really don't understand the fed's argument here. "Immigration regulation authority rests with the federal government only"? First, it's not regulation but enforcement. Second... can I start counterfeiting money if I only spend it locally? Since it's a federal crime and only the federal government can regulate the money supply... would I be free & clear if only LAPD catches me?

 

[Christo]

Obama addressed the Arizona law in a speech on immigration reform last week. He touched on one of the major concerns of federal officials, that other states were poised to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.

"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."

A national standard means nothing if there's no willingness to enforce it, Mr. President.

 

[Christo]

Question for lawyers: though I am admittedly opposed to this law and I hope it is overturned, I also admit ignorance about the Supremacy clause. Does the Justice Department have a point, based on precedence, on this issue?

No. The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal law trumps state law when state law conflicts with federal law. I fail to see the conflict here. Especially, given the fact that the AZ law incorprates federal law.

 

[timschochet]

Question for lawyers: though I am admittedly opposed to this law and I hope it is overturned, I also admit ignorance about the Supremacy clause. Does the Justice Department have a point, based on precedence, on this issue?

No. The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal law trumps state law when state law conflicts with federal law. I fail to see the conflict here. Especially, given the fact that the AZ law incorprates federal law.

so you believe the lawsuit will fail? Or is it just your opinion that it should fail?

 

[videoguy505]

It's important to note the law is written in parts, and that if one section is deemed unconstitutional (and I'm pretty sure at least one of the parts will be), that doesn't invalidate the rest of the law. So the meat of it could easily survive a challenge.

 

[Christo]

Question for lawyers: though I am admittedly opposed to this law and I hope it is overturned, I also admit ignorance about the Supremacy clause. Does the Justice Department have a point, based on precedence, on this issue?

No. The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal law trumps state law when state law conflicts with federal law. I fail to see the conflict here. Especially, given the fact that the AZ law incorprates federal law.

so you believe the lawsuit will fail? Or is it just your opinion that it should fail?

I believe Roe v Wade is bad law. Obviously, what I believe when it comes to Constitutional law doesn't matter.

 

[greenroom]

Obama addressed the Arizona law in a speech on immigration reform last week. He touched on one of the major concerns of federal officials, that other states were poised to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.

"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."

A national standard means nothing if there's no willingness to enforce it, Mr. President

.

And when has a President enforced it? I love that McCain is all about having Obama correct the mess when McCain has been just as guilty as the rest of the Fed Govt.

 

[Christo]

Obama addressed the Arizona law in a speech on immigration reform last week. He touched on one of the major concerns of federal officials, that other states were poised to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.

"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."

A national standard means nothing if there's no willingness to enforce it, Mr. President

.

And when has a President enforced it?

Who cares? It's Obama's job now.

I love that McCain is all about having Obama correct the mess when McCain has been just as guilty as the rest of the Fed Govt.

McCain is a Senator. It's not his job to enforce the law. It's the President's job to enforce the law.

 

[greenroom]

Obama addressed the Arizona law in a speech on immigration reform last week. He touched on one of the major concerns of federal officials, that other states were poised to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.

"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."

A national standard means nothing if there's no willingness to enforce it, Mr. President

.

And when has a President enforced it?

Who cares? It's Obama's job now.

I love that McCain is all about having Obama correct the mess when McCain has been just as guilty as the rest of the Fed Govt.

McCain is a Senator. It's not his job to enforce the law. It's the President's job to enforce the law.

Well I care. Obama has bigger issues than enforcing a law that has not been enforced in the last 25 years or so. Yet we are having to take time out to try to fix a system that there is not fix for at this time. And yes McCain is a Senator which is part of the Fed Govt who's job it to help serve and protect his people of his state and the United States. So if he has not been doing the job of what his people want then maybe they should vote him out.

 

[timschochet]

Question for lawyers: though I am admittedly opposed to this law and I hope it is overturned, I also admit ignorance about the Supremacy clause. Does the Justice Department have a point, based on precedence, on this issue?

No. The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal law trumps state law when state law conflicts with federal law. I fail to see the conflict here. Especially, given the fact that the AZ law incorprates federal law.

so you believe the lawsuit will fail? Or is it just your opinion that it should fail?

I believe Roe v Wade is bad law. Obviously, what I believe when it comes to Constitutional law doesn't matter.

If you were a federal judge, would you stay enforcement of the law while waiting for it to be decided in the courts? That seems to be the first important decision.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Question for lawyers: though I am admittedly opposed to this law and I hope it is overturned, I also admit ignorance about the Supremacy clause. Does the Justice Department have a point, based on precedence, on this issue?

No. The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal law trumps state law when state law conflicts with federal law. I fail to see the conflict here. Especially, given the fact that the AZ law incorprates federal law.

It is federal law for Arizona officers to dump suspected "illegals" off at federal offices to force federal agents to deal with them?

 

[Christo]

A national standard means nothing if there's no willingness to enforce it, Mr. President.

And when has a President enforced it?

Who cares? It's Obama's job now.

I love that McCain is all about having Obama correct the mess when McCain has been just as guilty as the rest of the Fed Govt.

McCain is a Senator. It's not his job to enforce the law. It's the President's job to enforce the law.

Well I care. Obama has bigger issues than enforcing a law that has not been enforced in the last 25 years or so. Yet we are having to take time out to try to fix a system that there is not fix for at this time. And yes McCain is a Senator which is part of the Fed Govt who's job it to help serve and protect his people of his state and the United States. So if he has not been doing the job of what his people want then maybe they should vote him out.

You realize your answers show a distinct lack of understanding of how the federal government works. We have laws in place specifically addressing this issue. So there is a fix. BTW, Obama isn't the one who actually goes down to guard the border. He has people who do that for him. And like I said, Senators don't enforce laws. Our Senators have done their job. The laws are in place. It's now Obama's job to enforce them. It's silly to give Obama a pass but jump McCain when it's Obama's job. As a matter of fact, it dumbfounds me that you brought McCain into the discussion.

 

[Christo]

Question for lawyers: though I am admittedly opposed to this law and I hope it is overturned, I also admit ignorance about the Supremacy clause. Does the Justice Department have a point, based on precedence, on this issue?

No. The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal law trumps state law when state law conflicts with federal law. I fail to see the conflict here. Especially, given the fact that the AZ law incorprates federal law.

It is federal law for Arizona officers to dump suspected "illegals" off at federal offices to force federal agents to deal with them?

Nice strawman. The AZ law doesn't force federal agents to do anything with them. They're free to let the illegals go. But let's see the Feds try to explain that one away.

 

[Soonerman]

Question for lawyers: though I am admittedly opposed to this law and I hope it is overturned, I also admit ignorance about the Supremacy clause. Does the Justice Department have a point, based on precedence, on this issue?

No. The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal law trumps state law when state law conflicts with federal law. I fail to see the conflict here. Especially, given the fact that the AZ law incorprates federal law.

http://article.nationalreview.com/437656/d...w-kobach?page=1

A law that basically makes a few small, carefully considered changes in police procedure, Arizona’s S.B. 1070, has inspired a vastly disproportionate response. Few laws have ever been so grossly mischaracterized by so many leaders on the left. From President Obama on down, they rushed to the microphone after it was enacted to hyperventilate about an impending police state in Arizona. Excitable bloggers invoked Jim Crow, apartheid, and the Nuremberg laws of Nazi Germany.

Their charges are completely false. Most stem from misunderstandings, perhaps willful and perhaps merely ignorant, of what the law is about and how it works. The false charges have been numerous, but the three most common are the following.

First, and most outrageously, critics incorrectly claim that the law would promote racial profiling. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D., Ariz.) said this, along with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.), Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D., D.C.), and the rest of the race-baiting caucus in Congress. But since so many members of Congress don’t bother to read bills anymore, their error was hardly unexpected. More surprising was the commentary from the country’s top lawyer. Attorney General Eric Holder sternly warned the nation on Meet the Press that the law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” A few days later, when pressed about his comments in a House of Representatives committee hearing, Holder admitted that he hadn’t actually read the law. Another S.B. 1070 opponent, secretary of homeland security Janet Napolitano, says she has not read the law either.

If they had read it, Holder and Napolitano would have seen that S.B. 1070 expressly prohibits racial profiling. In four different sections, the law reiterates that a law-enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status. With this language, S.B. 1070 goes to extraordinary lengths to protect against racial profiling; most state and federal statutes do not include such special protection in their text. In addition, all the normal Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against racial profiling will continue to apply.

Second, critics have declared that the law will require aliens to carry documentation that they weren’t otherwise required to possess. President Obama claimed, “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers . . . you’re going to be harassed.” The president would do well to familiarize himself with current federal immigration laws. Since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens not to keep certain registration documents on their person or not to register with the federal government. The Arizona law prohibits aliens from violating these federal statutes (8 U.S.C. §§ 1304(a) and 1306(e)). In other words, the Arizona law simply adds a layer of state penalty to what was already a crime under federal law.

For legal permanent resident aliens, the relevant document is a green card. For short-term visitors from a visa-waiver country (one of 36 countries whose citizens may visit the United States for up to 90 days without a visa), the relevant document is an I-94 registration receipt, which is placed in their passport at the port of entry. The consequences of violating the Arizona law are the same as the consequences of violating the federal law: a fine of up to $100 and/or imprisonment for up to 30 days. Any American who has traveled abroad knows that just about every country in the world imposes similar documentation requirements on U.S. citizens. It is hardly unfair or unusual to enforce our own laws on the subject.

There’s nothing new about police officers’ taking illegal aliens into custody, in Arizona or elsewhere. The documentation provisions of S.B. 1070 simply give Arizona law enforcement one more option in how to deal with them. Previously, when officers encountered illegal aliens in the course of their normal duties enforcing other laws, they could turn them over to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) for handling under federal procedures, or else make a case under Arizona’s human-smuggling statute. Now S.B. 1070 offers a third course of action: Illegal aliens without documentation can be jailed under state law even if human-smuggling provisions do not apply. If a local police department prefers to turn all illegal aliens that it encounters over to ICE, it can certainly continue to do so.

Third, critics have claimed that the law requires police officers to stop people in order to question them about their immigration status. Here too, President Obama misrepresented the law. Offering the example of a Hispanic family going to an ice-cream parlor, Obama said a police officer might walk up to the father and start interrogating him about his immigration documents. But Section 2 of S.B. 1070 stipulates that in order for its provisions to apply, a law-enforcement officer must first make a “lawful stop, detention, or arrest . . . in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

The original wording made reference to “lawful contact”; this was revised to “lawful stop, detention, or arrest” to make clear that officers could not stop someone simply on suspicion and ask for his papers. So in President Obama’s example, S.B. 1070 might come into play if the person came running out of the ice-cream shop with a gun in one hand and a bagful of money in the other (and then only if race-neutral indicators that the person was an illegal alien came to light). But an officer could not demand identification without the initial lawbreaking that justified the stop.

The law operates in straightforward fashion. If a police officer, during a detention to investigate another offense, develops reasonable suspicion that the subject is an illegal alien, then the officer must take specific steps to verify or dispel that reasonable suspicion. And contrary to the claims of critics, “reasonable suspicion” is a well-defined concept. Over the past four decades, the courts have issued more than 800 opinions defining those two words in the context of immigration violations.

The most common situation in which S.B. 1070 will come into play is during a traffic stop. Suppose a police officer pulls over a minivan for speeding. He discovers that 16 people are crammed into the van and the seats have been removed. Neither the driver nor any of the passengers have any identification documents. The driver is acting evasively, and the vehicle is traveling on a known human-smuggling corridor. Courts have held that those four factors can give an officer reasonable suspicion to believe that the occupants are aliens unlawfully present in the United States.

At that point, S.B. 1070 kicks in and requires the police officer, “when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person” by verifying it with the federal government (ICE maintains a 24/7 hotline for exactly that purpose). Indeed, many police officers in Arizona were already regularly contacting ICE before S.B. 1070 was enacted. Critics of the law evidently think police officers should turn a blind eye to any violations of federal immigration law that they come across. The Arizona legislature and the people of Arizona felt otherwise.

In sum, the law does not make any radical changes. Rather, it gives Arizona police officers a few additional tools to use when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law-enforcement duties. It also ensures that local cooperation with ICE will occur more regularly. Other provisions that have received less media hype prohibit Arizona cities from restricting enforcement of immigration laws (for example, by preventing their officers from contacting ICE), and make it a misdemeanor for an alien who lacks work authorization to solicit work in a public place.

In spite of the law’s narrow scope, Attorney General Holder has taken the extraordinarily unusual step of suggesting that the Justice Department will take action against the State of Arizona after it reviews the law. Presumably, the lawyers who conduct the review will actually read the text of S.B. 1070, and when they do, they will find precious little on which to base a legal challenge.

S.B. 1070 was drafted in the full expectation that the ACLU would sue, as indeed it has. In anticipation of a challenge, S.B. 1070 was designed to withstand any argument that the ACLU lawyers can throw at it — regardless of whether they happen to be working inside the Holder Justice Department or outside of it. Let’s consider their available arguments one by one.

Opponents of the law have been raising a hue and cry about racial profiling, but that argument is a non-starter. Because the initial legal challenge was filed before the law was actually applied, the challenge is a “facial” one — asserting that S.B. 1070 is unconstitutional on its face. Consequently, the challengers are basing their claims on speculation: They hypothesize that police officers might act in bad faith and violate the express terms of S.B. 1070.

The Supreme Court has held that such speculation cannot serve to strike down a law as unconstitutional. In the 1987 case of United States v. Salerno, the Court made clear that a “facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” Here, Arizona need only point out that if its police officers follow the clearly stated terms of S.B. 1070, no racial profiling will occur.

The ACLU’s only remotely plausible argument is that the law is unconstitutional through preemption — meaning that legislation passed by Congress prohibits the State of Arizona from enforcing S.B. 1070. The problem here is that no such legislation exists. While controlling immigration is a job of the federal government, Congress has never enacted a statute that expressly bars states from assisting it in the manner contemplated by the Arizona statute. Without any express preemption to rely on, the challengers must resort to making a more difficult “implied preemption” argument. This is a claim that the Arizona law conflicts with federal law, and therefore interferes with the fulfillment of congressional objectives. However, the numerous judicial precedents supporting the Arizona law will make this an uphill climb.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that states can enact statutes to discourage illegal immigration without being preempted by federal law. In the landmark 1976 case of De Canas v. Bica, the Supreme Court upheld a California law that prohibited employers from knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens. The Court rejected preemption arguments, since “respondents . . . fail to point out, and an independent review does not reveal, any specific indication in either the wording or the legislative history of the [immigration and Nationality Act] that Congress intended to preclude . . . state regulation touching on aliens in general.” States and cities can enact laws discouraging illegal immigration, and can assist the federal government in enforcing federal immigration laws in other ways, as long as their actions don’t conflict with federal law.

In the case of S.B. 1070, the ACLU will be hard-pressed to find any such conflict. Indeed, S.B. 1070 is a mirror image of federal law. The documentation provisions of the Arizona law penalize precisely the same conduct that is already penalized under federal immigration law: “In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).” Because S.B. 1070 matches federal law so precisely, it is protected by the legal doctrine of “concurrent enforcement.” As the Ninth Circuit, which covers Arizona, recognized in Gonzales v. City of Peoria (1983), “where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.”

If the documentation section of the Arizona law isn’t preempted, what about the rest of the law — for example, the section requiring police officers to contact the federal government when they develop reasonable suspicion that a person they are investigating for violating another law is an illegal alien? Here too, Arizona’s law is on solid legal ground. The Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals have all recognized the inherent authority of state and local officers to make immigration arrests.

In Gonzales v. Peoria, the Ninth Circuit specifically held that local police could make such arrests: “The general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. . . . Federal and local enforcement have identical purposes — the prevention of the misdemeanor or felony of illegal entry.” And in 2005 a unanimous Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena recognized the authority of local police officers to inquire into the immigration status of individuals who have been lawfully detained.

Moreover, since the Gonzales v. Peoria decision, Congress has taken numerous steps to promote, not discourage, assistance by state and local police in making immigration arrests. As the Tenth Circuit observed in the 1999 case of United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, federal law “evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.” In 1996, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Congress wisely put in place a federal statutory requirement that federal officials must respond whenever a state or local police officer requests verification of an alien’s immigration status (8 U.S.C. § 1373©).

Congress also began appropriating funds in 1994 for the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), which operates the 24/7 hotline for requests from local police. The purpose of the LESC is to assist law-enforcement agencies in determining whether persons they have contact with are illegal aliens. In fiscal year 2005, the LESC responded to a staggering 504,678 calls from state and local police. That’s an average of 1,383 calls per day. This high volume reflects the fact that police in all 50 states are already arresting illegal aliens, and in most cases transferring them to federal custody. S.B. 1070 does not create state and local arrest authority; it makes that existing authority more systematic and efficient.

The only argument the ACLU has left is the dubious claim that more vigorous enforcement of federal immigration laws in Arizona will conflict with federal purposes, perhaps by compelling LESC personnel to respond to a much larger number of calls from Arizona. But the U.S. District Court for Arizona already rejected that line of thinking in Arizona Contractors Association v. Napolitano (2007), evaluating Arizona’s 2007 law that required all employers to use the E-Verify system to verify the work authorization of employees. According to the court, “the fact that the Act will result in additional inquiries to the federal government is consistent with federal law.” (In that case, Janet Napolitano, as governor of Arizona, defended the law; now, as homeland-security secretary, she opposes S.B. 1070.)

In summary, we’ve heard all these arguments before. Many of the people and organizations that are now declaring S.B. 1070 to be unconstitutional made the same claims regarding previous Arizona statutes: Arizona’s last three major laws concerning illegal immigration were all challenged in court — Proposition 200 in 2004, the Human Smuggling Act in 2005, and the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007. (I assisted in the defense of the last two.) In every case, the Arizona law in question was sustained. Most recently, in 2008 Arizona won an impressive victory in the Ninth Circuit when the Legal Arizona Workers Act was upheld against a preemption challenge. I expect that when the dust settles after S.B. 1070 is litigated, Arizona will still be undefeated in defense of its immigration laws.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Question for lawyers: though I am admittedly opposed to this law and I hope it is overturned, I also admit ignorance about the Supremacy clause. Does the Justice Department have a point, based on precedence, on this issue?

No. The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal law trumps state law when state law conflicts with federal law. I fail to see the conflict here. Especially, given the fact that the AZ law incorprates federal law.

It is federal law for Arizona officers to dump suspected "illegals" off at federal offices to force federal agents to deal with them?

Nice strawman. The AZ law doesn't force federal agents to do anything with them. They're free to let the illegals go. But let's see the Feds try to explain that one away.

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]

Question for lawyers: though I am admittedly opposed to this law and I hope it is overturned, I also admit ignorance about the Supremacy clause. Does the Justice Department have a point, based on precedence, on this issue?

No. The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal law trumps state law when state law conflicts with federal law. I fail to see the conflict here. Especially, given the fact that the AZ law incorprates federal law.

It is federal law for Arizona officers to dump suspected "illegals" off at federal offices to force federal agents to deal with them?

Nice strawman. The AZ law doesn't force federal agents to do anything with them. They're free to let the illegals go. But let's see the Feds try to explain that one away.

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?

 

[Zow]

Is the governments argument that the local police shouldn't enforce any Federal laws? Kidnapping? Bank Robberies? Felony Drug Trafficking?

I really don't understand the fed's argument here. "Immigration regulation authority rests with the federal government only"? First, it's not regulation but enforcement. Second... can I start counterfeiting money if I only spend it locally? Since it's a federal crime and only the federal government can regulate the money supply... would I be free & clear if only LAPD catches me?

The AZ law has state judges determining a defendant's immigration status based on federal law - a power arguably only given to federal judges.

 

[Zow]

Question for lawyers: though I am admittedly opposed to this law and I hope it is overturned, I also admit ignorance about the Supremacy clause. Does the Justice Department have a point, based on precedence, on this issue?

No. The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal law trumps state law when state law conflicts with federal law. I fail to see the conflict here. Especially, given the fact that the AZ law incorprates federal law.

We talked about this a bunch in my other thread.

 

[Novice2]

UPDATE- Justice Department is suing over constitutionality of law

We will sue Arizona because they have no right to do the federal goverments job. Great thinking boss.

 

[videoguy505]

Is the governments argument that the local police shouldn't enforce any Federal laws? Kidnapping? Bank Robberies? Felony Drug Trafficking?

I really don't understand the fed's argument here. "Immigration regulation authority rests with the federal government only"? First, it's not regulation but enforcement. Second... can I start counterfeiting money if I only spend it locally? Since it's a federal crime and only the federal government can regulate the money supply... would I be free & clear if only LAPD catches me?

The AZ law has state judges determining a defendant's immigration status based on federal law - a power arguably only given to federal judges.

Huh?From what I remember from reading the bill, the AZ law says status is determined by ICE. State judges don't get involved at all. If a LEO checks on status with ICE and it comes back bad, they just transport the guy to the nearest federal facility.

 

[Zow]

Is the governments argument that the local police shouldn't enforce any Federal laws? Kidnapping? Bank Robberies? Felony Drug Trafficking?

I really don't understand the fed's argument here. "Immigration regulation authority rests with the federal government only"? First, it's not regulation but enforcement. Second... can I start counterfeiting money if I only spend it locally? Since it's a federal crime and only the federal government can regulate the money supply... would I be free & clear if only LAPD catches me?

The AZ law has state judges determining a defendant's immigration status based on federal law - a power arguably only given to federal judges.

Huh?From what I remember from reading the bill, the AZ law says status is determined by ICE. State judges don't get involved at all. If a LEO checks on status with ICE and it comes back bad, they just transport the guy to the nearest federal facility.

That's how it already works. With the new AZ1070, arguing being illegal is now a crime under Arizona state law. That law is interpreted and applied by state judges. Status can be testified to by an ICE officer, but the ultimate determination of whether status has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (using a federal statute for the standard) is up to a state judge (and, quite possibly, a Justice of the Peace with zero legal training).

 

[Christo]

Is the governments argument that the local police shouldn't enforce any Federal laws? Kidnapping? Bank Robberies? Felony Drug Trafficking?

I really don't understand the fed's argument here. "Immigration regulation authority rests with the federal government only"? First, it's not regulation but enforcement. Second... can I start counterfeiting money if I only spend it locally? Since it's a federal crime and only the federal government can regulate the money supply... would I be free & clear if only LAPD catches me?

The AZ law has state judges determining a defendant's immigration status based on federal law - a power arguably only given to federal judges.

Link?

 

[Guzalot]

The AZ law has state judges determining a defendant's immigration status based on federal law - a power arguably only given to federal judges.

I have to call BS on this. Link or recant.

 

[Christo]

Question for lawyers: though I am admittedly opposed to this law and I hope it is overturned, I also admit ignorance about the Supremacy clause. Does the Justice Department have a point, based on precedence, on this issue?

No. The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal law trumps state law when state law conflicts with federal law. I fail to see the conflict here. Especially, given the fact that the AZ law incorprates federal law.

so you believe the lawsuit will fail? Or is it just your opinion that it should fail?

I believe Roe v Wade is bad law. Obviously, what I believe when it comes to Constitutional law doesn't matter.

If you were a federal judge, would you stay enforcement of the law while waiting for it to be decided in the courts? That seems to be the first important decision.

No. To get a preliminary injunction, the challenger must demonstrate that there is a "substantial likelihood of success on the merits." I just don't see getting over that hurdle at this stage of the proceedings.

 

[Zow]

No. To get a preliminary injunction, the challenger must demonstrate that there is a "substantial likelihood of success on the merits." I just don't see getting over that hurdle at this stage of the proceedings.

I believe they can show a likelihood of success, but I hope you're right - it'd be cool to work on one of these cases (although I my county's prosecutor has said he finds the law unworkable so I doubt he'll even charge it).

 

[Zow]

Is the governments argument that the local police shouldn't enforce any Federal laws? Kidnapping? Bank Robberies? Felony Drug Trafficking?

I really don't understand the fed's argument here. "Immigration regulation authority rests with the federal government only"? First, it's not regulation but enforcement. Second... can I start counterfeiting money if I only spend it locally? Since it's a federal crime and only the federal government can regulate the money supply... would I be free & clear if only LAPD catches me?

The AZ law has state judges determining a defendant's immigration status based on federal law - a power arguably only given to federal judges.

Link?

I don't believe state judges have the jurisdiction to decide federal matters. Either way, my research on this issue is at my office. If I get a chance tomorrow I'll try to give a precise citation.

 

[Hang 10]

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?

 

[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?

 

[timschochet]

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.

 

[otello]

Here is the DOJ brief

 

[Hang 10]

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.

 

[timschochet]

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.

 

[RCon]

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.

This is just wrong. There are, by estimates I've read, approximately half a million illegals in Arizona. According to federal law, it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that doesn't happen. You can say it's not a big problem, or there are bigger priorities, or that it shouldn't be a law in the first place. However, all of that only sugar coats the fact that the law says that there shouldn't be half a million illegals in Arizona and that it's the federal government's responsibility to fix it.

 

[Zow]

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?

1. Not at all. They made, IMO, the strongest constitutional challenge to the bill. There are multiple problems with the bill and I outlined many of the ones I could find in a thread I started like a week ago. 2. The bill, on its face, is likely not "racist." Therefore, it cannot be challenged right now on that grounds. However, if it is carried out in a "racist" way, as some are worried about, than is may be able to be challenged then for being "racist" (i.e. violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment).

 

[Statorama]

Jan Brewer fights back

"Today's filing," Brewer said in a formal statement (full text below), "is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds. These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona."

Although his Democratic party currently has large majorities in both houses of Congress and could call up immigration laws at any time, Obama says he senses no "appetite" for comprehensive reforms there and has refused to address separately the nagging border security issues on the scale demanded by states.

In an uphill election year for Democrats facing high unemployment, a sluggish economic recovery, unhappiness with the landmark healthcare bill and mounting fears over government spending and deficits, even Arizona's three Democrats in Congress asked Obama not to file the suit, to no avail.

On the other hand, within Arizona Brewer's signing of the new law and ardent advocacy of it has vaulted her from a three-way tie in the Republican gubernatorial primary to a dominant lead heading into next month's vote. Last week a poll of Likely Voters in November found 53% favor Brewer, while only 35% like her likely Democrat opponent, Terry Goddard.

Take THAT Barry!

 

[Christo]

Is the governments argument that the local police shouldn't enforce any Federal laws? Kidnapping? Bank Robberies? Felony Drug Trafficking?

I really don't understand the fed's argument here. "Immigration regulation authority rests with the federal government only"? First, it's not regulation but enforcement. Second... can I start counterfeiting money if I only spend it locally? Since it's a federal crime and only the federal government can regulate the money supply... would I be free & clear if only LAPD catches me?

The AZ law has state judges determining a defendant's immigration status based on federal law - a power arguably only given to federal judges.

Link?

I don't believe state judges have the jurisdiction to decide federal matters. Either way, my research on this issue is at my office. If I get a chance tomorrow I'll try to give a precise citation.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

That whacky (and bored) Arizona Legislature.

 

[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?

 

[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).

 

[Zow]

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?)

 

[videoguy505]

"Immigration is my responsibility to shirk"

 

[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.

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."

 

[Christo]

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.