US Gov't Sues Arizona Over Immigration Law

[sonorakitch]

Guest worker program retroactive perhaps.

 

[Cutlass]

Perhaps institutional inertia. The rate of deportations is slowing quickly. Beside the point though....

Which does in fact show that Obama is enforcing the law much more than Bush. So what's your problem?

 

[useless]

He hasn't totally solved the problem. OBAMA!!!

 

[Ulyaoth]

Look what an evil bigoted fascist Obama is, I thought we voted him in to end politics as usual! What happened to equality? To human rights! Won't somebody please think of the children!The anchor babies that is...

 

[Formaldehyde]

Anyways, stupid post by you for sure.

It's no more "stupid" than your own post where you generated lots of strawmen instead of really addressing the issues.

You certainly seem to have very strong opinions about this if you really don't hate undocumented immigrants as you now allege.

Perhaps it is just that you don't really understand this game we have been playing for decades now. That the produce in the supermarket is much cheaper than it would be otherwise, as well as what it costs you to get your yard trimmed if you don't do it yourself, or even how much a maid costs you if you don't clean your own toilets.

The simple truth of the matter is that most of the people who whine about this are being hypocritical. They like having cheap produce, cheap lawn service, and clean toilets at bargain prices, but they don't want to have to pay for it when one of these "illegal aliens" injures himself while doing so and needs medical attention. And most of all, they don't want the children of these bargain basement employees to be citizens because they likely won't vote for the people who hate them so much.

***And I don't think Florida has 900,000 illegal migrants. Perhaps I'm wrong here?

Yes, you are. It's not that difficult to google to find you for yourself. it probably would have taken less time than it took to write this sentence. You see, unlike Arizona, lots of produce is grown in Florida.

 

[useless]

Look what an evil bigoted fascist Obama is, I thought we voted him in to end politics as usual! What happened to equality? To human rights! Won't somebody please think of the children!The anchor babies that is...

Some people believe it was Bush's bad policies that caused the recession, but it was OBAMA!

 

[sonorakitch]

It's no more "stupid" than your own post where you generated lots of strawmen instead of really addressing the issue.

You certainly seem to have very strong opinions about this if you really don't hate undocumented immigrants as you now allege. Perhaps it is just that you don't really understand this game we have been playing for decades now. That the produce in the supermarket is much cheaper than it would be otherwise, as well as what it costs you to get your yard trimmed if you don't do it yourself, or even how much a maid costs you if you don't clean your own toilets. The simple truth of the matter is that most of the people who whine about this are being hypocritical. They like having cheap produce, cheap lawn service, and clean toilets at bargain prices, but they don't want to have to pay for it when one of them injures himself while doing so and needs medical attention.

Yes, you are. It's not that difficult to google to find you for yourself. it probably would have taken less time than it took to write this sentence.

Hopeless on so many levels. First:
Here are your numbers.

Secondly, what are you inferring by "now allege"? Are you suggesting that I've changed my tune in this thread?

Have I not recognized the contributions of illegal and legal immigrants?

Jesus Forma, a few pages back I illustrated my feelings on this. In a post directed to you. What do you not understand here?

And who said anything about paying for EMC for workers? What the hell are you blathering about?

Whatever. Your post is just another disingenuous attempt at identifying a character that does not exist to further your unsubstantiated point. Typical.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Hopeless on so many levels.

Funny, I was about to say the same thing...

First:
Here are your numbers.

No, here are "my" numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

All states 11,555,000 100 37 515,000
California 2,930,000 25 13 53,333
Texas 1,640,000 14 50 91,667
Florida 980,000 8 23 30,000
Illinois 550,000 5 25 18,333
New York 540,000 5 - -
Arizona 500,000 4 52 28,333
Georgia 490,000 4 123 45,000
New Jersey 430,000 4 23 13,333
North Carolina 370,000 3 42 18,333
Washington 280,000 2 65 18,333
Other states 2,950,000 26 69 200,000

Secondly, what are you inferring by "now allege"? Are you suggesting that I've changed my tune in this thread?

No, I'm suggesting your "tune" has remained basically the same:

They didn't either, and it infuriated me then...

There are other similar quotes in this thread as well.

So your "infuriation" is strictly limited to the federal government instead of the undocumented immigrants you apparently wish to all be imprisoned and/or deported?

Have I not recognized the contributions of illegal and legal immigrants?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Have you? Do you really think I have read every word you have posted in this forum, much less this thread?

Jesus Forma, a few pages back I illustrated my feelings on this. In a post directed to you. What do you not understand here?

Care to quote it if it is actually germane instead of complaining about it?

And who said anything about paying for EMC for workers? What the hell are you blathering about?

You mean one of the most vociferious tea party talking points in this matter is news to you? Really? I'm sure it has been mentioned in this thread at least once, but it is certainly common knowledge, along with the obvious fact they don't want the children to be citizens because they probably won't vote Republican after all this obvious hatred towards them. That's "what the hell I'm blathering about" if you really couldn't comprehend it the first time.

Whatever. Your post is just another disingenuous attempt at identifying a character that does not exist to further your unsubstantiated point. Typical.

You mean it smacks of the truth? That most Arizona Republicans never really complained so vociferously about all this until Obama took office, and now it is supposedly a sudden critical matter of life and death for Arizona and everybody who lives there if we don't "fix" a problem that nobody really wants fixed for quite obvious economic reasons?

You mean you have been completely oblivious to the obvious partisan politics at play here, even though it has been repeatedly mentioned in this very thread? Is that "typical" as well?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Certainly you aren't referring to me now?

Honestly, no. I figured if anyone on "the other side" read the opinion, it'd be you.

That is the part we will disagree on. Nowhere in 1070 does Arizona "expand" enforcement beyond what is currently practiced in the idea that state and local agencies have always aided Federal immigration enforcement! Arizona just puts to paper what has been asked of it (and the other 49 states) by the Feds. In fact, as courtesy to the Feds, Arizona and the other states routinely aid in Federal Prosecution, housing Federal criminals, conducting law enforcement acts alongside the Federal authorities, etc. Read the part in 1070 again regarding what AZ law enforcement intends to do with the suspected illegal residents. Pretty clear to me and many others that this doesn't "expand enforcement" of Federal immigration law any differently than what has been practiced for decades.

The opinion pretty clearly lays it out. Basically, the federal government says what it wants with respect to immigration enforcement -- it has to ask; you can't just start giving it stuff and burdening federal immigration enforcement. Also, it burdens legally-present aliens.

Anyways Cleo, I assume you read the ruling too, so you recognize that the crux of her opinion wasn't solely based on the notion of preemption.

No, it totally was. She didn't even get into the Fourth Amendment stuff.

^Really? Is that accurate? Because what I've read and seen in my days on earth suggest otherwise.

As a matter of law, yes. "[The p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power," from De Canas v. Bica. That doesn't mean state law enforcement can't help, but it can't go beyond what the federal government asks of it, which is what the court here concluded was the case.

Really? What argument than does Bolton have for restricting the liberty of a detained person during immigration status check?

Hmm...sounds like a fourth amendment issue right here Cleo...perhaps I'm mistaken?

Sort of. It certainly sounds like a Fourth Amendment issue, and I can't blame anyone for missing the court's narrow point -- all the language about seizures and liberty and all that -- but what the court is saying is that the detention of legally-present aliens is unconstitutional not because it violates the Fourth Amendment (though it doesn't answer that question) but because it infringes on the federal government's comprehensive regulatory scheme for dealing with immigration, and that comprehensive regulatory scheme is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Of course I did not stumble upon it myself. And actually I haven't heard a peep of it anywhere (and I don't do talk radio...). I have a dear friend--who shall remain nameless--who served on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the 80's-90's (retired now--and yes...quite conservative and lives in my little community). We are talking golf course talk here.. Of course, I didn't think it would be relevant until the opinion issued yesterday. And unfortunately during our 18 holes in the summer sweat he told me of some other rulings too which could help AZ and I didn't have the foresight to remember those. He's a pretty opinionated guy...but then again...most Judges are.

Very interesting! Now I think I understand. Mena might help the State of Arizona in the litigation if a court reaches the merits of the Fourth Amendment issue, and in that context your judge's mention of it makes sense, but this opinion issuing an injunction based on this court's determination that the United States would likely succeed on the pre-emption argument doesn't reach that. So Mena might very well be relevant to the whole dispute, just not this particular part of it.

And, alas, if a statute's unconstitutional for any reason, it's unconstitutional. If the pre-emption argument works (and I, along with most of the legal community, think it will), courts will never have to reach the Fourth Amendment issues.

Cleo

 

[illram]

Perhaps you could illustrate WHERE in the Constitution it prohibits this kind of law? Sources would be appreciated.

See generally US Const. art VI, cl. 2. Basically the law conflicts with federal objectives, exemplified by a myriad of federal regulations and powers dealing with immigration. Supreme Court precedent does the rest. Here is a key passage for the tl:dr crowd. (The cited case, Hines v. Davidowitz, seems to form the basis of most of Bolton's preemption rulings here.)

The United States asserts that mandatory determination of immigration status for all arrestees “conflicts with federal law because it necessarily imposes substantial burdens on lawful immigrants in a way that frustrates the concern of Congress for nationally-uniform rules governing the treatment of aliens throughout the country – rules designed to ensure ‘our traditional policy of not treating aliens as a thing apart.’” (Pl.’s Mot. at 26 (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 73 (1941)).) Finding a state law related to alien registration to be preempted, the Supreme Court in Hines observed that Congress “manifested a purpose to [regulate immigration] in such a way as to protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national . . . system[] and to leave them free from the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” 312 U.S. at 74.

The specific provisions enjoined (for now; remember this is not a final ruling) frustrate the intentions of Congress manifested in current comprehensive federal immigration and naturalization legislation. Ergo those provisions conflict with federal law, ergo they are preempted.

 

[Patroklos]

Nobody here seems to have read the actual opinion.

The issue addressed in the court's opinion is whether some provisions of S.B. 1070 are pre-empted by federal law. That's it! The court concluded that federal immigration law "fills the field" of immigration restrictions, and found that execution of several parts of S.B. 1070 would likely conflict with federal immigration law. A couple notes:

Not at all Cleo, its just that the actual decision is not the only critisism of that persits and thus requires rebuttal.

However, if you guys really agree with this decision, then I suggest that all the states immediately drop all their enforcement of Federal narcotics and firearms laws. Obvioulsy the "field is full." I am sure the Feds would just live that.

 

[Dachs]

Article VI, dude

 

[Patroklos]

Hopeless on so many levels. First:
Here are your numbers.

Secondly, what are you inferring by "now allege"? Are you suggesting that I've changed my tune in this thread?

Have I not recognized the contributions of illegal and legal immigrants?

Jesus Forma, a few pages back I illustrated my feelings on this. In a post directed to you. What do you not understand here?

And who said anything about paying for EMC for workers? What the hell are you blathering about?

Whatever. Your post is just another disingenuous attempt at identifying a character that does not exist to further your unsubstantiated point. Typical.

Forma doesn't actually address anyone on these boards. He quickly recongnizes his betters and thus defaults to a charicature from his imagination. I am not sure he actually even sees any of the text of a user's post, but rather just the user's name and then some manufactured figment of his imagination in the text box.

I just read this entire thread, and you have said nothing racist or bigoted. However, Forma can only reconcile his illogical positions if the entirety of the oppisition is based on racism. Ture, there is little to no evidence of this, but its what he has to do in order to square his his predertermined point of view.

Moderator Action: And this is pretty much the definition of flaming . . .
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Skwink]

Watching AC360. Rev. Sharpten (I think that's his name), like many other critics of the law, are changing what they are arguing about all the time. One minute it's about racial profiling, then the supporter with try to debuke him. Instead of coming back against him, a critic will start arguing about state vs. federal rights. Getting old.

 

[illram]

However, if you guys really agree with this decision, then I suggest that all the states immediately drop all their enforcement of Federal narcotics and firearms laws. Obvioulsy the "field is full." I am sure the Feds would just live that.

State cops don't enforce federal narcotics and firearms laws.

 

[sonorakitch]

As a matter of law, yes. "[The p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power," from De Canas v. Bica. That doesn't mean state law enforcement can't help, but it can't go beyond what the federal government asks of it, which is what the court here concluded was the case.

Cleo

I read De Canas v. Bica (never had before) and found it to be an interesting ruling. Curious why the Supreme Court didn't find California's employment law to be a violation of the commerce clause back then. Some items of interest from the ruling include the courts interpretation that states do have powers regarding immigration and the regulation of it in the workplace...

Needless to say, I do appreciate your insight even if I might disagree with some or most of it. And I'm definitely smart enough to avoid a legal argument with an attorney. As with most legal interpretation, it is certainly a catalyst for argument too. Anyways, it'll be interesting to see what SCOTUS does with SB1070. The current court shows no disrespect for states' rights, thats for sure.

See generally US Const. art VI, cl. 2. Basically the law conflicts with federal objectives, exemplified by a myriad of federal regulations and powers dealing with immigration. Supreme Court precedent does the rest. Here is a key passage for the tl:dr crowd. (The cited case, Hines v. Davidowitz, seems to form the basis of most of Bolton's preemption rulings here.)

The specific provisions enjoined (for now; remember this is not a final ruling) frustrate the intentions of Congress manifested in current comprehensive federal immigration and naturalization legislation. Ergo those provisions conflict with federal law, ergo they are preempted.

Reasonable interpretation of Article VI however clearly dictates that only state laws which conflict Federal law are null and void in my understanding. And again I don't see anything in Judge Bolton's ruling that indicates the Arizona law somehow conflicts with Federal law in such a way to make it void. She seems careful to avoid that IIRWIWRC. The question begs: Is the Arizona law compatible with Federal law? And many, including myself, citing long term cooperation on the matter, believe it is. SCOTUS will probably consider that anyways.

And here's another caveat: when considering the Tenth Amendment, aren't there clear examples throughout history that Constitutional interpretation grants police powers to the states? And if that is true (which seems so), and the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government sole discretion on the regulation of the safety and well-being of state residents, wouldn't this conflict with preemption in this matter?

I'm not a Constitutional professor, but I've read the thing a million times. And I see a clear way out here.

Forma doesn't actually address anyone on these boards. He quickly recongnizes his betters and thus defaults to a charicature from his imagination. I am not sure he actually even sees any of the text of a user's post, but rather just the user's name and then some manufactured figment of his imagination in the text box.

I just read this entire thread, and you have said nothing racist or bigoted. However, Forma can only reconcile his illogical positions if the entirety of the oppisition is based on racism. Ture, there is little to no evidence of this, but its what he has to do in order to square his his predertermined point of view.

Thanks Pat. I'm pretty much done with him...no point. I did appreciate the Florida numbers though....shocker. Stay tuned on that one.

~Chris

 

[El_Machinae]

Moderator Action: Formaldehyde, you're currently degenerating the tone of the thread with constant insinuations about your fellow posters. Trolling is still trolling if it's spread between paragraphs
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Silurian]

From Independent

When news of the last-minute injunction reached the crowd of protesters outside Arizona's state capitol in Phoenix, Patricia Rosas dropped to her knees next to a makeshift Catholic altar, crossed her heart, and said a quick prayer. Then she stood up, and gleefully announced to the world at large: "Now I can get my family back!"

So now she can "get her life back" and not have to worry about being stopped on the street

 

[Patroklos]

State cops don't enforce federal narcotics and firearms laws.

If you think state law enforcement (and local for that matter) are not intimately involved in enforcing federal narcotics and firearms laws then you are simply divorced from reality.

Just like this Arizona law, much of the law concerning narcotics in states is based on Federal statutes. Many times because they get paid money to their law enforcement agencies for doing so.

 

[illram]

Reasonable interpretation of Article VI however clearly dictates that only state laws which conflict Federal law are null and void in my understanding. And again I don't see anything in Judge Bolton's ruling that indicates the Arizona law somehow conflicts with Federal law in such a way to make it void. She seems careful to avoid that IIRWIWRC. The question begs: Is the Arizona law compatible with Federal law? And many, including myself, citing long term cooperation on the matter, believe it is. SCOTUS will probably consider that anyways.

And here's another caveat: when considering the Tenth Amendment, aren't there clear examples throughout history that Constitutional interpretation grants police powers to the states? And if that is true (which seems so), and the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government sole discretion on the regulation of the safety and well-being of state residents, wouldn't this conflict with preemption in this matter?

I'm not a Constitutional professor, but I've read the thing a million times. And I see a clear way out here.

1) Parts of the law do conflict with federal law. That's what the opinion is saying. The Judge doesn't avoid saying that at all. 2) No it's not compatible, that's the point. 3) 10th amendment is irrelevant because immigration is clearly a power granted to the federal government. The 10th amendment has zero to do with this (and with almost everything.) Zero.

If you think state law enforcement (and local for that matter) are not intimately involved in enforcing federal narcotics and firearms laws then you are simply divorced from reality.

Just like this Arizona law, much of the law concerning narcotics in states is based on Federal statutes. Many times because they get paid money to their law enforcement agencies for doing so.

Well I don't think I can be too divorced from reality when for one year I was the one defending them.

The way things work is: state cops enforce state law. Federal cops enforce federal law. Once in a while on big operations the state police will cooperate with the federal police, like say for a huge drug bust or an ICE sweep in gang territory. (That happens in SF believe it or not.)

But your every day local beat cop is not enforcing federal law. Go out on the street and light up a joint in front of your local beat cop. When you get your notice to appear tell me what statute is written on it.

I'm just saying your original point is irrelevant because 90% of the drug enforcement that goes on in this country is people getting arrested on state drug laws; if every state cop tomorrow said "I will not enforce federal drug laws" the status quo would change very much.