So, it has begun, the lawsuits regarding the constitionality of the Arizona law, SB1070. As reported by CNN:
Washington (CNN) — The Justice Department weighed in on one of the most explosive issues in American politics Tuesday, filing a lawsuit to overturn a tough new Arizona immigration law that has sharply divided people along partisan, ideological and ethnic lines.
It also asked the federal courts to grant an injunction to stop enforcement of the measure before it takes effect late this month.
Arizona’s law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and allows police to question the residency status of people in the course of enforcing another law. It also targets businesses that hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.
Justice Department lawyers argued in its brief that the state statute should be declared invalid because it has improperly preempted federal law.
“A state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws,” the brief states. “The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”
The Arizona law “disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety. … If allowed to go into effect, [the law’s] mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives.”
Arizona is interested only in “attrition” in order to end illegal entries and has not addressed several other federal obligations to deal with immigrants, including removal proceedings, humanitarian concerns and foreign relations, the brief contends.
President Barack Obama said in a speech July 1 that the measure has “fanned the flames of an already contentious debate.” Among other things, it puts pressure on police officers to enforce rules that are “unenforceable” while making communities less safe — in part, by making people more reluctant to report crimes, he said.
I look forward to the political backlash on this one. It seems all too obvious that the Obama Administration is all about ideology, rather than about solving real problems.
I think its more sinister than Obama just making sure he can stay 🙂 . By asserting that only federal employees can enforce existing federal laws, the supremacy clause is being used to go way beyond the issue of Federal versus State law — to the right of only feds to enforce those federal laws. It will never work – until we get a national police system with more and more Federal law enforcement officials in every community. Wait, that does sound like a plan. Never waste a crisis.
Justice Robert’s is loving it today. Can’t wait for this one to be overturned in a much wider context.
Justice Roberts shouldn’t be loving anything. He should deal with the law as the law is written, not based on what he loves or what makes him feel good. Isn’t that what all those senate confirmation hearings have been about? Rule of law rather being an activist judge?
I find the resistence to everything rather scary. Enforce the laws? Who is to enforce the laws? The idea that we could have a patchwork of immigration laws through out the United States is foolish and foolhearty. Who is going to bail the states out if they take care of their own immigration?
So lets see, we have a patch work of abortion laws, a patch work of gun laws, a patchwork of immigration laws. This states rights crap was pretty much settled at Appomattox in 1865.
I have pretty much had it with this wild west mentality in a 21st century world.
So is the Justice Department arguing that the Feds are responsible for facilitating and enforcing all federal mandates, such as in the schools, bus or car standards, handicapped requirements, federal tax laws, consumer protection standards…. No more unfunded mandates?
Or is the argument that the Feds can pick and chose which laws to enforce. It is their failure to enforce the law that has caused this mess – and until now that states have simply absorbed the costs of that failure – in the schools, prisons and hospitals and in the cost of policing. Now, we have a different approach to contain those costs and I guess the Feds are going to have to pay for it.
No Moon the Court can and will rule on the rule of law.
i’ll take wild west over animal farm any day of the week
But you agree with me that Judge Roberts shouldn’t be happy?
I am not saying what the how the rule of law will be settled. You must have read something in to my remarks that wasn’t there. Unlike many bloggers, I don’t see myself as a self appointed Constitutional lawyer. I understand that these cases are built on the Constitution and on other cases that have gone before them.
So I don’t know how a case on AZ having the right to enact and enforce its own immigration would turn out in the Supreme Court. I just know that the justices shouldn’t be lining up now and chosing a side.
e, I don’t see where it has to be either.
YES!!!!! YES!!!! YES!!!!!!
Send this fax to President Obama:
Thank you for the lawsuit against Arizona to stop their racial profiling law. But I won’t be satisfied until we pass comprehensive immigration reform – keep up the pressure!
Click here to send this free fax to the White House
The Justice Department’s actions are proof that the government isn’t going to stay on the sidelines and let states attack our basic human rights. Tell President Obama not to stop with Arizona!
http://act.reformimmigrationforamerica.org/cms/sign/thanks_obama/?akid=447.112661.WpKZDy&rd=1&t=2&utm_campaign=E100706ANXXvA&utm_content=Breaking%3A+Obama+Admin+Sues+Arizona&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email&utm_term=action_link_1
Lets examine just these statements as written.
“A state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws,” the brief states. “The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.” (The state is NOT establishing its own immigration policy but empowering its LEO to ENFORCE FEDERAL POLICY.)
The Arizona law “disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety. … If allowed to go into effect, [the law’s] mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives.” (Is ICE only concerned with nat’l security or public safety or illegal immigration? When Fed’l lands are closed due to illegal aliens conducting illegal ops on fed’l lands, to facilitate MORE border crossing, isn’t that a concern of ALL LEO? How is verifying citizenship status and detaining illegal aliens that HAVE BEEN STOPPED FOR SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY, like, oh….a crime….undermining federal goals of safety. Of course it does undermine their “careful balance” because it will force the feds to enforce current law.)
Arizona is interested only in “attrition” in order to end illegal entries and has not addressed several other federal obligations to deal with immigrants, including removal proceedings, humanitarian concerns and foreign relations, the brief contends. (Uh, guys, that’s why they are helping you round them up so that YOU can do YOUR job. Of course, if they WANT the state to do all of this, I’m sure that can be arranged.)
As to patchworks of abortion laws, etc., that is what federalism is all about. The War of Northern Aggression did NOT dissolve states rights. It prevented secession by force of arms.
Freedom for the slaves was secondary.
The states are SUPPOSED to be 50 experimental labs. Immigration policy IS the province of the Feds. But, by their logic, no state is supposed to enforce a federal law or policy. Perhaps Arizona should therefore stop enforcing any federal mandate or law. Let the FBI, etc, do all of the enforcing. Legalize drugs. Let the feds do all the work. Smuggling. Feds. I’m sure that Arizona could be quite creative. And I think that all 50 states should adopt their law. Word for word. And make the feds sue each state.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/usa_v_arizona.pdf
PWC, actually yer sorta right. The complaint hedges between an arguement of “immigration is TOO hard (but we still own it!)” to this is a matter of foreign policy that the President should have maximum flexibility in wielding (they referenced the stern talking to of Congress by the Mexican President…i kid you not).
There’s also an interesting arguement about showing papers while using commercial travel…which if I read into it the way that I am… seems to blow a hole in the rationale for TSA’s existance (not that I’m complaining – another federal agency that should go as it’s useless to taxpayers).
Essentially the complaint is an arguement of “we use the catch and release system to stay within the spirit of the wishes of Congress and AZ is messing it up for us by making us catch and deport”.
It’s actually amusing. To me it seems like a weak arguement and a worse supremacy case. Fans of big government might be disappointed if the courts cut into federal preemption on a loss.
I think they should’ve instead just kept on hammering on the idea that Congress acted and ~was~ clear that Immigration enforcement is done at a Federal level. I think they’d have more success if they went that route.
But, I wanna see how this turns out. I got the popcorn ready!! 🙂
Cargo, when you read the complaint did you get the idea that there were too many people in a room trying to put too many things in it and not try to irk off anyone???
It’s like a guy sitting on a fence not going one way or the other. Amusing, if you ask me.
This case may end up as precedent for blocking future power-grabs by the federal side of government.
Regardless of how the case turns out, it is still a band-aid.
Instead of continuing Bush’s wars of fiat in Afghanistan and Iraq, we should turn our attention to Mexico. We should either work to cleanup that corrupt narco-terrorist run government, or just declare war and conquer that, perpetually incompetently led nation and straighten them out.
Imagine our collective prosperity if we could convert Mexico to a stable, prosperous neighbor, similar in stature and reliability to Canada.
Marinm, that’s wishful thinking. ICE and immigration judges will deport only as many people as they have resources/time to deport. After having spent a year on a federal grand jury, I can tell you people are indicted for being here over and over and over again. Deportation is absolutely no guarantee that a person will not return. The Feds have their priority – which doesn’t necessarily include jaywalkers and drunks in public.
I imagine the Fed’s lawsuit is an effort to manage case load as well as stop states’ enforcement of immigration law.
J. Tyler, the warmonger.
Like we need another one of those.
Tell you what, Mr. Ballance, we’ll put you on the front lines in the Middle East. Maybe that will satisfy your craving for violence or put you out of your misery.
This lawsuit reminds me of a sandbox fight between kids. The Feds are basically telling Arizona: ‘Stay out of my sandbox. I may not be playing in it right now, nor do I have any intention of playing in it in the future. But you better stay out of my sandbox in case I change my mind.’
@J. Tyler Ballance
I’ve been saying this for some time but got the crap beat out of me for doing so. And I can see that the same thing is happening to you. Good luck. Mexico and the drug lords are as big a threat to this nation as Al Qaeda and the Taliban. People keep blaming the federal government and there is one way to fix that–it is called voting. If representatives and senators are not doing their job as we believe they should, vote them out. The same for the president. I voted for President Obama, but unless things change dramatically, he won’t get my vote next round–not to say I will vote for any Republican that is on the horizon, if there is one. As much as I admire Senator John McCain,he is adrift and somehow has lost touch with reality, Sarah Palin–a walking, talking joke.
In the meantime, there is a lot of blather about immigration, but no one has offered one workable solution. Get rid of them right? How do we do that? And are we talking just about Latinos or all illegal immigrants regardless of where they are from?
George asks a critical question…who is them?
Mr. Howler is also not above declaring war on Mexico. Do I see an army of three?
The concept of states rights was changed inextricably after the Civil War.
The times have changed also. We have 24 hour news, instant satellite, communication is measure in nano-seconds. We are either a country or we are 50 states. The collision course is getting more obvious.
I did not read the entire complaint. I get the gist. They are throwing charges against the wall and hoping one sticks, because they know that the Arizona law is the same as the Fed. law.
As to conquering Mexico……Heck, we should have asked them to just sell us the top states bordering the US,(or portions thereof) when we bailed them out to the tune of $50 billion, back when that meant real money. At least then the border would have been shorter and easier to fence.
There are workable solutions to the illegal immigrant problem. But it is a multi-prong approach and no one seems willing, except Arizona, to get the ball rolling. We have to get illegal aliens to self-deport, we have to deport them when found, we need to modernize our visa programs and deport those illegal aliens when found, we need to allow immigration to ask for papers at will (which, I think they can), we need to stop being so PC about asking “brown people” for papers just because its “racist” when its really about the fact that 80% of illegal aliens come from Mexico and Central America, we need to make it harder to get across the border.
All of these things are possible and doable. Its just that no one in power actually wants to do it for a variety of reasons. If deporting illegals takes too much time or money, then it is the duty of Congress to make it possible, by law or money. It is the duty of Congress to provide for the common defense and if they are unwilling to do so, then the states MUST take up the slack.
Governor Brewer should declare a state of emergency, activate the Guard, and put them on the border with orders to defend her state.
@Moon-howler
The concept of states’rights HAS NOT CHANGED.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Unless the Constitution is changed, nothing has changed. Including the right to secede. Nothing in the Constitution forbids it. The Confederacy was an actual foreign country. The attack on Fort Sumpter, a trap by the Union, was the cause. Not the secession. South Carolina was stupid.
We are 50 United States. The name is the United States of America. We are not a monolithic country ruled by and from the capital.
And I will have to disagree. While nothing Constitutionally has changed, in reality, almost everything has changed.
You are focused on the word ‘states’ and I am focused on the word ‘united.’
“declare war and…. straighten them out”
Seems to me that’s what the US tried in Iraq and is now trying in Afghanistan. Declare war – do you know what you are talking about? Do you have someone near and dear who is or has been fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan? We are not “done” over there and won’t be for a long, long time, and you are suggesting we go to war with Mexico!
What do you think would happen, should we go to war with Mexico and WIN? Sorta like a dog chasing a car and catches up with it. Then what?
Here’s an interesting thing: The Constitution does not explicitly give Congress or the Federal government over immigration. Good discussion of the whole thing with Arizona here:
http://www.qando.net/?p=8955#comments
As to the United States, one cannot be united unless there are separate pieces. We ARE the United States, therefore there is common law and there is state sovereign law. Different forms of contract law, marriage law, etc are throughout the land. I can carry a weapon easily in Virginia, while my rights are curtailed in Chicago and DC. Abortion was made legal through wide interpretations of the meanings of penumbras of the Constitution. But liberal judges want to restrict 2nd Amendment rights because of their version of strict interpretation of state’s rights.
There are federal laws that apply to all states. Unfortunately, we have started to look at federal law as an “easy fix” to difficult problems or to situations that we don’t agree with.
@punchak
Just had a wild thought……
What if we just invited Mexico to join with the United States as a merged country, the Mexican states becoming American states, under the US Constitution?
And they accepted………..I mean, that’s basically what MECHA and La Raza want, in reverse, our states under Mexican law……….so lets pre-empt that…..
@cargosquid Love it. Cancun, Cozumel–all OURS, along with the tax revenue and tourism $$$. And drug lords flee under US jurisdiction.
“I have pretty much had it with this wild west mentality in a 21st century world.”
I’m a lot more worried about Big Brother and centralized power than I am about allusions to the Wild West.
So in the end the people of this country are held powerless by our own federal government to stop the unending flow of uninvited illegal aliens into our midst. Nice, and while we’re at it why worry about stopping the oil flowing into the gulf? Hell, there must be some huge undeclared benefit to that also. I’m sure Obama will let us know once we have all bent to his will!
However, if by chance the law is upheld, then all I can say to the feds is ….. Be Careful What You Wish For!
@Second-Alamo
You still have the right to vote–vote the bastards out if they are not doing their job and put in folks who will–if you can find them.
I still have problems with all you folks who have a problem with too much melanin–looks like profiling, walks like profiling, OMG I think it is profiling. How about all the “other” illegals–Asians and all varieties of Caucasians? Who do we NOT ask for their papers? Is the rule, if they have an accent, you ask for their papers? Or maybe we tattoo all the legals in an obvious place (sort of the reverse of what was done in Nazi Germany), so you can ask them to show their wrist or wherever it is you put the tattoo–must be something that cannot be forged.
As to self deportation–just another name for ethnic cleansing.
Ok George, tell me how the feds are going to determine who is in the country illegally even if CIR is passed without asking everyone for papers, not just the ones the police stop as with the Arizona law? So now what’s your solution to handling THAT dilemma?
I say we raise taxes, spend billions upon billions to secure our southern border because clearly THAT is the only border that matters. I say we invest 500,000 dollars per person who would come across that border illegally. So what if it use to be a civil offense, make it a felony punishable by death, that’ll teach em not to cross the border. Build a fence as high as the empire state building, mine it with explosives, start rounding up people, turn off their water, turn off their electricity, ceny a child born to even ONE “illegal” not a true American. Build the jails, hire the judges, hire the law enforcement, hire more ICE officers, hire more police!
There is no cost too much in order to rid this country of “illegals”, oh come on, lets just be honest, you know people mean those spanish speaking brown people!
Have people LOST their minds???? We are in a serious financial crisis, immigration, is NOT one of our priorities!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, do people really believe that this vulverable powerless population that compromises less than 5% or our total population deserves THIS much attention? Did these people cause the financial meltdown of the banks that led to this global recession? NO, THEY DID NOT!
@Emma
Yep–a great idea–we could gentrify it and have it all to ourselves. Of course, we would hire the Mexicans at wages slightly above those prevalent in Mexico so we wouldn’t have to do the stoop labor. Why didn’t I think of this?
@Second-Alamo
Like I said, tattoo all the legals–solves the problem. If you have an accent and no tattoo, you’re probably here illegally. So prove you’re not. No more innocent until proven guilty.
Elena I was with you 100% up until your third paragraph! Good ideas though.
You are right though, those illegal aliens are saints in all respects. Why this country would be turned around overnight if we just filled all the empty houses with uneducated day laborers. Why this economy would charge ahead, and every yard would be immaculate as an added benefit! Never can have enough grounds keepers I always say. It would be just like back in the good old days when the average level of education in the country was the 6th grade. Come to think of it why aren’t we all standing in line to move to Mexico instead of waiting for years for the change to come to this country.
@Elena
You’re right Elena–these guys who want to get rid of all of “them” are willing to bankrupt the country to do so. They won’t raise taxes–they’re mostly no-tax Tea Partiers or Republicans so they will close down various social programs and schools, etc. to get the money. That is, of course, if all those “thems” decide to “self-deport” whatever the hell that means. Kinda smells a little like ethnic cleansing.
Seriously George, everyone has this issue with asking people for their papers, but the federal government would be forced to establish a method of determining who is illegal so that CIR could then be applied. Are we to believe those illegally in the country would just step forward and admit it? Exactly how would anything change without forcing people to prove they are in the country legally? No one has yet to tackle that issue. Everyone replies with side stepped remarks as you just did. I’m trying to ask a legitimate question, and am hoping for some serious answers.
Of course the answer is that no one will enforce any immigration law that does not stop them at the border. Heaven forbid one gets asked for ID, oh, wait, I get asked for ID when I get stopped by the police for speeding, or a county sticker, or expired tags, or, well, anything the cop can make up…..
So, do we enforce the immigration laws, George? Or is it all just profiling? Should we just open the border and say “Come in, no waiting?” Should we tell those that have played by the rules, “Sorry sucker. They got here first, but, hey, just come on over anyway, and that citizen thing? Don’t worry about it.”
You keep ascribing profiling to the us that want to enforce the laws against illegal aliens because the majority of the illegal aliens are brown. Oh, well. Go ahead. The preponderance of evidence shows that probably 80 – 90% of illegal aliens are from Mexico and points south. Do we act like the TSA and ignore evidence of possible nationality? Oh! I can’t ask him if he’s from Mexico because he has a Mexican accent, I’ll go ask that Chinese guy if he’s from, wait, can’t do that either….oh, there’s a white guy! He’s safe! I’ll check him!”
If you want to call it profiling and ascribe it to racism, go ahead. I’ve been called that and worse, just because I’m a conservative, a Teahadist, and I refuse to be PC.
The choice is clear. Either we enforce our laws, or we don’t. Either we have sovereign borders or we don’t.
Now if you want to make a philosophical argument about the advantages or merits on open borders and how they would help the US, then, that’s another discussion. But, until we change the laws, we must enforce them.
If you don’t like them, vote people in that will ACTUALLY CHANGE THEM, instead of pandering to the Hispanics and advocating amnesty for criminals in order to get a vote.
I would venture to say that most people don’t really know what the immigration laws are or what is involved in immigrating. We say enforce the laws but I am not sure we know what those laws are we want enforced.
I do know one thing. Immigration is a very complicated process and there are volumes relating to laws.
I am curious why AZ didn’t go the route PWC finally took with checking status after arrest. Why isn’t AZ involved with Secure Communities or 287(g). It seems like there are mechanisms in place to approach stricter immigration enforcement. Why go rogue on the rest of the country?
It sounds like election fever to me.
AZ needs to work within the system. I have yet to hear where the money is going to come from to incarcerate all the illegal immigrants AZ picks up. Will ICE come and get the immigrants? AZ cannot deport anyone to my knowledge.
Here is the information on Secure Communities which apparently replaces 287(g).
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/secure_communities.htm
From what I understand, AZ LEO will turn illegal aliens over to ICE. Who have stated that they will not cooperate and process them.
So we have that going for us………..
Hey Moon,
Since you don’t like patchwork laws all over the country, especially immigration laws, will you support federal lawsuits against sanctuary cities,especially those that actually favor those of ‘undocumented status” for benefits?
Got the idea at Redstate: http://www.redstate.com/briangoettl/2010/07/06/if-obamas-arizona-lawsuit-is-successful-sanctuary-cities-will-be-subject-to-federal-lawsuits/
Cargo, I hate saying yes to buzz words like ‘santuary cities.’ I don’t think that municipalities can exempt themselves from the law. I suppose that is a qualified yes. I actually don’t like patchworks of laws most of the time abouut anything other than something real specific to a locality. No fishing off the bridge kind of rules are fine.
ICE told them no because they are operating outside the system. ICE wouldn’t say no if they were participating in 287g or Secure Comminities programs.
AZ can’t make their own laws up and then call on ICE to come clean up after them. There are programs to accomplish the same thing. However, those programs won’t get Jan Brewer re-elected. No battle cry involved.
The 287g program works well in PWC from what I hear.
Immigration law is a federal responsibility and the states need to respect that.
“We are in a serious financial crisis, immigration, is NOT one of our priorities!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ”
Actually Elena a new report is out from FAIR that claims the states (including Virginia) budget deficits are roughly the size of the amounts caused by illegal immigration. Whether you do or don’t like FAIR, I think that any realistic person would have to admit that illegal immigrants are contributing in significant ways to the deficit spending that our government is institutionalizing.
The single biggest cause of deficit spending is social security and medicare, which is in turn driven by high medical costs.
The only groups that are using immigration for election advantage are the Democrats and other liberals who are appeasing the Latino community for its votes. Otherwise, it is about law enforcement, national sovereignty, wage degradation, the transfer of wealth and big government.
The pre-emption tactic has been successfully used by the federal government on several occasions over the years, including by the Bush administration to limit product liability lawsuits. The government also used it to overturn bans on military recruiters passed by liberal California towns.
Federal courts have invoked the Supremacy Clause on immigration issues as well. For example, a federal judge in 2008 struck down a Dallas suburb’s ordinance that banned apartment rentals to illegal immigrants, saying the U.S. government has the ultimate authority to enforce immigration laws.
But courts have ruled that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is pre-empted. Federal law, the framers said, “shall be the supreme law of the land.”
In fact, efforts by many states trying to block the nation’s new health care law run headlong into the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. But immigration is one area where federal authority has generally been upheld.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_enforcement_lawsuit;_ylt=Au8Y.f.TI4TJQmIZs0iI446s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM0MWdmaTN2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNzA3L3VzX2ltbWlncmF0aW9uX2VuZm9yY2VtZW50X2xhd3N1aXQEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMxMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNmZWRzdnNzdGF0ZWE-
Now that would be ironic.
Just curious as to why the Feds wouldn’t file a lawsuit against a ‘sanctuary city’ that has come up with laws to specifically NOT enforce immigration laws but they will file a lawsuit against AZ who is only enforcing already in place immigration laws? Hmmmm….
So, come up with laws which are in line with federal laws you get sued… come up with laws which specifically skirt federal law and you get a pat on the back. Odd…
“The single biggest cause of deficit spending is social security and medicare, which is in turn driven by high medical costs.”
Keep in mind then :
A. Illegal immigrants contribute very meaningfully to high medical costs
B. If you give citizenship to illegal immigrants, i.e. Amnesty, then you now raise the (social security and medicare) spending significantly while creating no new tax revenue to cover it
BAWAAAH……FAIR? Might I make a suggestion to go to some organization a little less biased! Try the Center for Foreign Policy maybe, a well respected organization that might have different research that points to exactly what I am saying, that if you want to go the route of AZ enforcement, you will TIP the scales substantially to immigration lost revenue. Also Rick, MOST working undocumented immigrants pay into social security and medicare yet will NEVER see those contributions as they are under pretend SSN’s. How about those DREAM act kids who are in college, trying to become truly productive members of society.