Thanks Pookie.
I guess some are saying that the ultimate outcome of this case is that AZ will be allowed to question people regarding their citizenship/residency status but won’t be allowed to punish/detain illegals in any way at all for being illegal.If this *is* the outcome it would be a 99.9% victory for Hussein & Friends.
Hopeful, but you can’t always tell. She knows she is doing this for the record.
Rather than this question: “Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?”
I would have asked: “Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have ILLEGALLY entered or remained in the United States?”
Just me......
Then again, were I the sitting judge, I would have thrown the Feds out of my courtroom for bringing a frivolous suit to begin with.
For the judge’s professional reputation, if she doesn’t find for Arizona, she will eternally be seen as a party pumpkin judge. Lets wait and see if her allegence is to her party or to her profession. Given she is a Clinton appointee I don’t really expect much in the way of professionalism. OTH, she may very well be taking orders from Hillary, so who knows how that angle works out?
Gee....maybe they should have secured the border...
I discussed this case a few days ago, with a Constitutional Law professor.
He said the federal government’s case claims it is a question of “prosecutorial discretion.”
Immigration is federal responsibility, and if the feds don’t want to enforce it, that is their perogative.
I will add: These days the Obama administration is saying they want to enforce immigration by focusing on the highest priority—criminals.
Arizona can argue the state effort is complimentary, aimed at criminal aspects.
I have an idea....why not let ALL the mexicans who WORK and PAY TAXES to stay here....one condition, they can’t vote!
Check this out - precedent for AZ ...
Found this little nugget in the Columbia Law Review. Author is definitely against enforcing immigration laws, but there are three interesting paragraphs in Section II B. And ya gotta remember that this was written BEFORE SB 1070 was passed - so the restriction in the third paragraph is MOOT.
If you wanna read the entire paper it is at:
http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/108/5/Rodriguez.pdf
However, I have posted the three paragraphs here:
“The Tenth Circuit has provided the most analysis regarding state and local law enforcement of federal immigration law. In United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez and United States v. Santana-Garcia, the court of appeals ruled that federal immigration law did not displace state authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law. In Vasquez-Alvarez, the defendant was arrested by an Edmond, Oklahoma, police officer based solely on his illegal immigration status. The court stated that immigration provisions indicated that there was no conflict between state and federal immigration enforcement. While federal law did not itself authorize the arrest of an immigrant by a state officer, it did not displace state authority to do so. In fact, the court noted that the portions of immigration law that outline how states may cooperate with the federal government “evince[ ] a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.”
The Tenth Circuit cited Vasquez-Alvarez two years later in United States v. Santana-Garcia, a case involving a Utah state trooper who pulled over a vehicle that failed to stop at an intersection. While ultimately concluding that the officer had probable cause to stop the vehicle in the first place, the court stated that “federal law as currently written does nothing ‘to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’”
3. State Enforcement. — Even if the Immigration and Naturalization Acts do not preempt state enforcement, an additional element must be present before state officials can enforce federal immigration law: express authorization under state law to enforce federal law. Even in Gonzales, in which the court of appeals stated that state enforcement of civil immigration provisions was preempted by federal law, enforcement of criminal provisions was allowed only if state law authorized such enforcement.”
Thanks Pookie.
Contrary to popular belief, the 9th 10th and 11th Amendments are still valid and in force, for starters.
That the Federal government has encroached and eliminated what were clearly States' Rights over time is beyond dispute and, also contrary to folk wisdom, the Civil War did not repeal those three Amendments and render future debate about their intention unnecessary. If such were the case, those Amendments would be formally repealed and no further uncertainty would result.
But my main argument against Federal preemption is that, if all it takes is to pass a Federal law on any subject, and thus establish permanent jurisdiction over that subject, then the Sates would be out of business altogether, except as enforcers of Federal Law. It does not take much imagination to see the fatal ultimate fate of such a system : Totalitarianism by any of its many names.
Obviously, by the simple expedient of not enforcing a new Federal Law (or ever funding it) there is no State, County or municipal law imagineable that cannot be rendered null and similarly abused.
The fundamental fact and reality is, that by not enforcing their own immigration and citizenship laws, the Federal government has maneuvered itself, "legally," into the position of power to nullify all laws of all lower branches of government.
If a law is not enforced, does it legally and actually exist?
And if it does not exist, can it preempt anything?