Posted on 07/15/2010 10:02:45 AM PDT by iloveamerica1980
From ABC15.com in Phoenix, AZ.: Political insider gives insight about the SB1070 hearing decision. "Does anyone have any indication which way it will go?" Security is extremely heavy at the federal courthouse in Phoenix where the first hearing on challenges to Arizona's new immigration law will be held.
(Excerpt) Read more at dittos-rush.com ...
It would be surprising if the gubmint shysters can’t find an activist leftist judge to give them what they want - at least in the early stages of this process.
as I just posted elsewhere;
My best advice is to wait until Obama moves in a militaristic way. I dont think we will have long to wait. I think Arizona may be the flash point. Obama is suing Arizona over their immigration law in federal court. Many other states want similar laws. What happens if a liberal judge decides against Arizona? I would recommend that Arizona resist and force Obamas hand. I would further recommend that all the other states considering such laws go ahead and pass them in direct disobedience to the regime. This is the key; I think there are several states that are ready to ignore federal statutes (nullification). Once Obama sees that several states are ignoring him he would have to either give up (fat chance) or take some military action. I pray that there are enough good men and women in the police and military that they will refuse to obey Obama.
Federal court is just the first step, the next step will be to immediately file with SCOTUS. I recommend Jan demand an emergency hearing since the lives and wellbeing of American citizens are at stake. She only needs to reference Rob Krentz and the signs put up on federal lands warning citizens to stay away because of the danger.
You're going to hate what happens in this case.
Let's agree that the Federal Gov't is failing to control illegal immigration and something needs to be done.
That said, however, the feds have a very strong Constitutional argument on their side. If you read through the law itself, you'll find numerous examples where the Arizona law oversteps jurisdictional boundaries.
The feds will win that case, and deservedly so.
“immediately file with SCOTUS. I recommend Jan demand an emergency hearing since the lives and wellbeing of American citizens are at stake.”
We need to pray!
Nah. The AZ law is very poorly written, and will be struck down on solid Constitutional grounds. The SCOTUS may review the ruling, but they'll almost certainly uphold it.
The better tactic would be for the several states to sue the Federal government on the grounds that they have obviously failed to control illegal immigration, and that that failure has caused material damage such as crime, undue burdens on state and local budgets, and so on.
” Let’s agree that the Federal Gov’t is failing to control illegal immigration and something needs to be done.”
So, just what is the “something” that needs to be done?
If the Fed refuses to enforce the law it would open up Arizona and other states to out and out invasion. And don’t think it won’t happen!
The Federal gubmint is also mandated with protecting the states from outside invasion isn’t it?
nilla, I have been praying non-stop for years on this thing.
Yeah, sure that’ll work. And how many Arizonans do you expect will lose their lives while it winds it’s way through the courts.
As I noted above, I think the several states ought to file suit against the Federal Government on the grounds that it has failed to fulfill its duty with regard to border control, which in turn has led to material damage to the states in the form of increased crime, budgetary impacts, and so on.
I believe such a case would have to go directly to SCOTUS.
Nevertheless, it's ultimately up to Congress to deal with immigration, and that's obviously a problematic situation.
The Arizona law is almost certainly going to be struck down. The question is, what can be done instead?
I've given you a suggestion. Another would be for Congress to do something serious and effective with regard to the Border -- for example, by going after the Americans who are paying people to come here; and by making it easy to verify the citizenship and/or legal status of those who apply for jobs.
Now I've given you two specific approaches. What can you offer besides more bluster?
“it’s ultimately up to Congress to deal with immigration”
So.........
we’re back to where we are now.
A state, out of desperation is, in effect, defending itself. Just like, on a personal level, we need to be able to protect ourselves with firearms. Just as the police don’t really “protect” us the federal government will not protect the states from invasion. That’s not how the Constitution intended but that is the reality.
“I think the several states ought to file suit against the Federal Government on the grounds that it has failed to fulfill its duty with regard to border control, which in turn has led to material damage to the states in the form of increased crime, budgetary impacts, and so on.”
Just talking about “budgetary impact” won’t cut it. This is an armed conflict on our southern border which our federal government refuses to enjoin.
“the feds have a very strong Constitutional argument on their side. If you read through the law itself, you’ll find numerous examples where the Arizona law oversteps jurisdictional boundaries.”
Would you like to clarify your statement with some facts?
So according to your argument, no federal law can be enforced by the states and the states can’t enact laws that compliment the federal law or more specifically enforce the federal law?
We that is just great because then all “hate crimes”, gun violations, etc. must only be prosecuted by the feds and the states must no longer have any jurisdiction in those cases either.\sarc
By the way, I believe you misread the Constitution. I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution that prohibits the states from protecting its territorial integrity and I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution that gives the feds the sole jurisdiction over illegal immigration based on selective enforcement. Furthermore, the Arizona law reads nearly verbatim of federal law so there is NO conflict between the federal and state law.
Originally posted here.
Let's start out by saying that I agree with Arizona's frustration with the Feds' unwillingness to enforce immigration laws. I suppose this bill has two motives: 1) if they don't do it, we will; and 2) Maybe this will force the Feds to act. Those are fine sentiments.
Unfortunately, this bill looks to be so poorly constructed that Arizona will deservedly lose in court.
Here is the Text of AZ Senate Bill 1070.
Here are some of what I think are the more problematic portions of the law:
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)..
(emphasis mine) The problem here is that Arizona fails to define the criteria for "reasonable suspicion." Is "dark skin and speaks Spanish" a legitimate grounds for reasonable suspicion? Probably not, and I believe this is the underlying basis for the "discrimination" portion of the federal suit. The courts will probably agree with them, and strike this portion of the bill -- effectively gutting it.
Other problems:
Arizona claims a right to collect and maintain information for purposes of "DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE."
Arizona has no authority to determine eligibility for federal benefits. That part will probably be struck down.
The court will also probably find fault with Arizona collecting information for the purpose of: "4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 9 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT."
Again, it is not up to Arizona to make that determination. At most, they can turn the matter over to federal officials, who do have the authority to make that determination.
There's also this clause:
A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
Arizona cannot prosecute somebody on a state level for violation of a federal law, which is what part 2 of this clause requires them to do. At the least, giving the state such authority raises the possibility of violating the 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy.
Also in this section, Arizona is claiming jurisdiction over "ANY PUBLIC LAND" -- including federal public lands (e.g. Grand Canyon National Park). I'm pretty sure they have no jurisdiction over federal public lands.
Next,
B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:
1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
There are significant jurisdictional difficulties here. Arizona probably doesn't have the authority to deputize federal officers to enforce state laws.
That's only through the top of Page 3 of the bill ... and we could go on.
I think you have several things wrongly listed in your “evidence”.
First of all, nearly every state determines eligibility for federally backed or public-benefit programs. For instance, determining eligibility for food stamps, unemployment, medical care. All of these programs are state administered, but federally funded. Also, traditionally, local police DO determine citizenship status whenever an arrest is made. The Arizona law just gives cops the ability to determine if the person is breaking the law based on illegal status.
Secondly, “reasonable suspicion” has been well defined by case precedent. By your argument, if a cop pulls over a white guy in a black trench coat on a hot day in the middle of an all black neighborhood, the cops can’t use reasonable suspicion to ask the guy for id. In the case of Arizona, the cops can only ask for id (or verification of status) if the cops already believe the person committed another crime. This is no different than getting pulled over and showing your driver’s license and is perfectly legal.
Thirdly, every state has trespass laws and can be enforced at the state level. This Arizona law is no different. If someone is trespassing on any public or private land in ANY state, the cops will arrest the violator. This type of trespassing was already enforced under previous Arizona laws.
Finally, your argument about the state “deputizing” federal officer is silly. Please re-read the statute. What is says is that officers that are trained and authorized by the feds to determine status are the ONLY officers that can determine status in AZ besides the feds. This statute is based on the fact that ICE and border patrol actually trains local officers on immigration enforcement. Only these trained officers can enforce those imigration violations (besides the feds of course). This statute is ALREADY federal law and doesn’t deviate at all from what is currently the way things are done. Remember when homeland security threatened to revoke Sheriff Joe’s enforcement authority? Well if Sheriff Joe’s authority is revoked then he can’t enforce immigration violations under federal or the new AZ law.
The Feds are arguing that the AZ law violates the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), one definition of which is:
The clause in United States Constitutions Article VI, stating that all laws made furthering the Constitution and all treaties made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land. Chief Justice John Marshall interpreted the clause to mean that the states may not interfere with the functioning of the federal government and that federal law prevails over an inconsistent state law.
Precedents date back nearly 200 years.
If you've read SB-1070, you can spot numerous instances where AZ does seem to violate that clause (for some examples see above). The Feds have a compelling argument there.
I dont see anywhere in the Constitution that prohibits the states from protecting its territorial integrity
Border control and immigration are and always have been explicitly federal functions, with federal agencies empowered to enforce the applicable federal laws. (I will grant that they are not performing their duty in that regard.)
As such, any state law that interferes with the Federal authorities on border matters would at the least be in direct violation of the Supremacy Clause.
I dont see anywhere in the Constitution that gives the feds the sole jurisdiction over illegal immigration based on selective enforcement.
Not so. If a state claims jurisdiction over illegal immigration, they are also de facto defining the terms of legal immigration. Such an action would violate Article I, Section 8, which empowers Congress "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...."
It would probably also go against certain portions of the 14th Amendment, specifically,
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The problem being, the laws in question are federal laws, over which Arizona has no jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the Arizona law reads nearly verbatim of federal law so there is NO conflict between the federal and state law.
"Nearly" is not "exactly," but even if it were an exact match, Arizona does not have the authority to enforce federal laws. The Supremacy Clause still holds.
Really? And how exactly is it going to be struck down since it’s based entirely on federal law? I guess that means they will strike down federal law and we’ll really have open borders then, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.