An interesting article in the NY Times on the challenge against the Arizona law under which local law enforcement get to run about to challenge people suspected of being illegal immigrants. nytimes.com/2010/07/23/us/23arizona.html?hp
[quote]Edwin S. Kneedler, the lawyer for the federal government, argued that the federal government has the sole authority to enforce immigration laws under the Constitution and that Arizona was, in essence, establishing its own immigration policy — which in some cases would be stricter than the federal law and does not take into account either humanitarian concerns or the government’s foreign policy goals.
“The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power,” he said.
With Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed and has fervently defended the legislation, sitting in the courtroom, the lawyer representing Arizona, John J. Bouma, asserted that the state law actually mirrors the letter of the federal law, even if that federal law is not enforced fully in practice. He argued the state had every right to ask its peace officers to call up federal authorities and check on a person’s immigration status during routine traffic stops or other arrests, even if it created a headache for federal authorities.
“You can’t catch them if you don’t know about them, and they don’t want to know about them — that’s what they are saying,” Mr. Bouma said, gesturing to the Justice Department lawyers.[/quote]
Here’s a short piece in which the co-sponsor of the Arizona bill states his strong support for a state law in which people can be “detained” for looking illegal-immigrantish and states his outrage at the privacy implications of highway speeding cameras that catch only persons in the act of breaking an actual law. thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-j … hoto-radar
We haven’t heard the end of this yet, not by a long shot, but . . .
Ha ha. :discodance:
[quote]A federal judge on Wednesday, weighing in on a clash between the federal government and a state over immigration policy, blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law from going into effect.
. . . Judge Susan Bolton of Federal District Court . . . issuing a preliminary injunction against sections that called for police officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times.
Judge Bolton put those sections on hold while she continued to hear the larger issues in the challenges to the law.
“Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced,” she said.
“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” she wrote. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”
. . . Legal experts predict the case is bound for the United States Supreme Court . . . Seven lawsuits have been filed against the law, challenging its constitutionality and alleging it will lead to racial profiling. The Justice Department lawsuit was among the more high profile. . . .[/quote] nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29 … ml?_r=1&hp
Judge Boltons ruling of Wednesday is nothing more than regime fluff. READ the footnotes:
Her decision struck down the provision of the Az law that an LEO MUST check the status of a suspected illegal - but in a footnote it still allows LEOs at their discretion to check status.
Opening nothing more than a further can of worms and a payday for the legal parasites ready to pounce on Gov’t deep-pockets.
She also made a major legal faux pas on the requirement to carry papers.
It’s Federal Law that LEGAL immigrants MUST have their papers on them. She said it was not required.
Poor legal ruling…destined to be shit-canned…but it feels good
WTF are you talking about? My father’s been a legal immigrant in the US since 1936 and he sure as hell isn’t required to carry any papers (except a drivers license when operating a motor vehicle).
Poor ruling? Tell me which of the following points she made do you disagree with.
There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens.
By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.
Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced.
It’s not likely to be shit-canned, because it’s merely an injunction prohibiting the State from taking wrongful, harmful actions until the constitutionality has been clearly decided. Seems like a perfectly sound and reasoanable ruling to me.
WTF are you talking about? My father’s been a legal immigrant in the US since 1936 and he sure as hell isn’t required to carry any papers (except a drivers license when operating a motor vehicle).
[/quote]
[quote]A green card is issued to all permanent residents as proof that they are authorized to live and work in the United States. If you are a permanent resident age 18 or older, you are required to have a valid green card in your possession at all times.
Current green cards are valid for 10 years, or 2 years in the case of a conditional resident, and must be renewed before the card expires.[/quote]
If your father has become a citizen in the time since he immigrated to the US then he isn’t required to produce ID (unless he wants to write a check, drive a vehicle, pay with a credit card, etc). If he’s still a legal resident and not a citizen then he is required to carry a green card on him at all times.
Poor ruling? Tell me which of the following points she made do you disagree with.
There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens.
By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.
Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced.
It’s not likely to be shit-canned, because it’s merely an injunction prohibiting the State from taking wrongful, harmful actions until the constitutionality has been clearly decided. Seems like a perfectly sound and reasoanable ruling to me.[/quote]
You’d be one of the few who believe it to be a perfectly sound and reasonable ruling. I still havent figured out under what legal basis she blocked the portion of the law that prevented illegal immigrants from seeking work. If, by definition, they are illegally here in the US they cannot thereby legally seek work. To legally seek work you have to have an immigration status that allows you to work, i.e. a F1 visa holder (student visa) can’t work if their visa doesn’t allow so. If you don’t have a legal right to be here, which illegal immigrants lack, how can you legally look for work?
To address the three points you brought up, I don’t see any issue with #3. A TRO should have been expected by everyone involved with the case. Judge Bolton punted making an unpopular decision but you’re right, there is no harm in issuing the injunction until the lawyers can better argue the case.
As to number 2, I’m not sure what burden is being placed on legal resident aliens. They are required to carry paperwork of their status at all times, as per the Nationality Act of 1940, so I don’t see what additional burden is being placed on them. If Federal law requires that they have a green card on them at all times and now AZ law requires that also, what exactly has changed? What about the SB 1070 places an additional burden that the Federal requirements didn’t already place?
Now to number 1. That is a compelling argument and concern. It is also irrelevant to the government’s case. The Feds argued preemption, that the Federal government and only the Federal government has jurisdiction to address (or ignore) immigration. That’s strictly a constitutional issue and whether or not legal resident aliens might get arrested has nothing to do with the argument. I would argue that legal resident aliens are not more likely to be wrongfully arrested because when they produce the green card they are required to carry, which demonstrates a legal right to be in the US, they won’t be arrested for an immigration violation.
Here’s a piece by Andrew McCarthy at the National Review. He points out legal inconsistencies in Judge Bolton’s arguments as well as two cases which would support AZ’s arguments: Plyler v. Doe (1982) and Lynch v. Cannatella (1987).
This is the biggest conundrum right wing blowhards have seen in quite a while.
The Az. law they love so much is in direct defiance of the piece of paper (The US Constitution) they cite so frequently in the face of so many other arguments (gun laws, gay marriage etc…).
Could their go to document fail them in their biggest fight of the upcoming election?
[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]This is the biggest conundrum right wing blowhards have seen in quite a while.
The Az. law they love so much is in direct defiance of the piece of paper (The US Constitution) they cite so frequently in the face of so many other arguments (gun laws, gay marriage etc…).
Could their go to document fail them in their biggest fight of the upcoming election?
Or will hypocrisy will once again reign supreme?[/quote]
It’s amazing to me that they get away with such hypocrisy. I find the hatred of immigrants by people on the right appalling, to say the least. There’s no doubt the AZ law will be struck down because the law is so clear about who has power over immigration. Then, they will start talking about “activist judges”…you know, the ones who apply the law, lol.
I don’t understand why the judge made her ruling so complicated. Couldn’t she just have agreed with the federal government and said, “The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power.” Seems that everything else she said is extra and if the previous is established, nothing else matters.
[quote]A federal appellate judge expressed deep skepticism Monday about a Justice Department lawsuit challenging Arizona’s new immigration law, leaving uncertain the Obama administration’s chances of stopping the law from taking effect.
Judge John T. Noonan Jr. grilled administration lawyers at a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He took aim at the core of the Justice Department’s argument: that the Arizona statute is “preempted” by federal law and is especially troublesome because it requires mandatory immigration status checks in certain circumstances.
Judge John T. Noonan Jr. grilled administration lawyers at a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He took aim at the core of the Justice Department’s argument: that the Arizona statute is “preempted” by federal law and is especially troublesome because it requires mandatory immigration status checks in certain circumstances.
“I’ve read your brief, I’ve read the District Court opinion, I’ve heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don’t understand your argument,” Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. “We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That’s not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don’t have an argument.”
“With respect, I do believe we have an argument,” said Kneedler, who asserts that the Arizona law is unconstitutional and threatens civil liberties by subjecting lawful immigrants to "interrogation and police surveillance.’’
[…]
Whatever the result, the panel’s decision is the first step on a long road: legal experts expect the case to reach the Supreme Court. It is unclear when the panel will rule.[/quote]