Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law

[Reyna]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ARIZONA_IMMIGRATION?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[NYBURBS]

Positioning of the various groups aside, I don't think anyone thought that this law would pass through the courts completely unscathed. However, this is just round one; the case is destined for the Supreme Court.

There are real issues with the way parts of this law were worded, but for me the most interesting question it raises is this:

Can the federal government prevent a State from essentially barring free movement throughout their own State to someone that the federal government didn't grant lawful entry to in the first instance.

I think under a traditional reading of the Constitution the answer is no, the federal government does not have that power under the Supremacy clause. They would have the power to allow anyone to enter, but if they have not granted it in the first place then States have a valid argument regarding not allowing them to roam their own jurisdiction.

However, I don't think 5 justices will agree with the statement I just made, and so I won't be surprised if these portions of the law are permanently struck down by the courts. Even some of the conservatives will side with the federal government, since they tend to be fan bois of increased central powers in many instances.

[hippifried]

Positioning of the various groups aside, I don't think anyone thought that this law would pass through the courts completely unscathed. However, this is just round one; the case is destined for the Supreme Court.

There are real issues with the way parts of this law were worded, but for me the most interesting question it raises is this:

Can the federal government prevent a State from essentially barring free movement throughout their own State to someone that the federal government didn't grant lawful entry to in the first instance.

I think under a traditional reading of the Constitution the answer is no, the federal government does not have that power under the Supremacy clause. They would have the power to allow anyone to enter, but if they have not granted it in the first place then States have a valid argument regarding not allowing them to roam their own jurisdiction.

However, I don't think 5 justices will agree with the statement I just made, and so I won't be surprised if these portions of the law are permanently struck down by the courts. Even some of the conservatives will side with the federal government, since they tend to be fan bois of increased central powers in many instances.
Yes they can. The States really don't have that power. They don't have the power to limit the movement of people at all. This is a federal thing. It's an international border. This isn't a State issue at all & never has been. If the State thinks they can really make a case that this is costing them money, then they should put it in an invoice & send the bill to the feds. Otherwise, they should knock off this Jim Crowe BS & butt the hell out.

As for granting "legal entry": There's a little factoid that everybody likes to ignore. The people you see over & over in that file footage sneaking through the fence are a piss in the pot. The vast vast vast majority of so called "illegal immigrants" came here through a port of entry & just decided to stay.

[NYBURBS]

Yes they can. The States really don't have that power. They don't have the power to limit the movement of people at all. This is a federal thing. It's an international border. This isn't a State issue at all & never has been. If the State thinks they can really make a case that this is costing them money, then they should put it in an invoice & send the bill to the feds. Otherwise, they should knock off this Jim Crowe BS & butt the hell out.

As for granting "legal entry": There's a little factoid that everybody likes to ignore. The people you see over & over in that file footage sneaking through the fence are a piss in the pot. The vast vast vast majority of so called "illegal immigrants" came here through a port of entry & just decided to stay.

That they have that power or not is one of the questions that will end up before the Court, but I'd remind you that:
1) They retain the general police power
2) The privileges and immunities clause of Article 4 refers to citizens of each state. You can not be a citizen of a state if you are not a US citizen or residing legally in the United States.

If the feds say tomorrow that everyone gets to stay, then yea they have no legal argument against it. Also, while in other parts of the country the issue might be persons overstaying visas, I don't think that is the case in Arizona. They have a legitimate problem of persons crossing into the country at their border.

What is going to trip up Arizona is the wording of the law that would essentially require citizens and legal aliens to carry proof of citizenship. If it were merely whether or not they could refuse to allow illegals to freely roam their State then they'd have a much stronger case.

Oh last but not least, I'd agree that a decent percentage of people are expressing or demonstrating some degree of racial animus, but that doesn't diminish the real issue here. There is a problem of violent crime along that border, and as a sovereign state in the Union they have every right to take measures to address that. The anger over this issue is reaching fever pitch, and if the feds were smart they would take affirmative steps to address it rather then get into a pissing match with the states.

[hippifried]

If you'll notice while reading the 14th Amendment, "citizens" is used when referring to privileges & immunities, & persons is used when referring to rights. Can't really use it anyway. The Slaughterhouse cases screwed up & complicated the P & I clause so bad that nobody even tries to apply it anymore. Not that it would be relevant here anyway.

The State has general police power. The police have power to enforce all the laws in effect within their jurisdiction, including federal law. The state does not have the power to mandate that the local police go out of their way & dedicate their resources to track down violators of federal civil misdemeanors as if they were felonies.

The States, including Arizona, do not have a problem with people crossing the border. Look at a map. Every one of those border towns, & some that aren't even marked, have a port of entry & business that spans the line. There's thousands of people crossing the border every single day, in both directions. There's billions & billions of dollars involved in the dynamics of the border, before you even start counting the NAFTA trade. The big ports have automated express lanes nowadays to accomodate the cross border commuters. The real problem happens when the inmates take over the assylum & try to close the border. It's happened before. Business dries up, tax revenue dries up, government expenditures at all levels increase, bad blood is created all around, the loudmouthed klan/nazis cheer, & absolutely nothing is ever accomplished.

People have some wierd notion that a border is some kind of magic line that keeps them away from us. Hogwash! The only purpose of any border is to separate the jurisdiction of government entities. They're not about separating people, stifling people's movement, or restraining trade. The reality is that an international border is no different than a state border, or a county line, or a city limit. They're imaginary lines that designate who you have to deal with or answer to if you screw up or need something. There's no kings claiming ownership of everything & everyone within their realms anymore. Not around here anyway. These are just bureaucratic divisions.

I don't care about the wording of the law. I don't care how the perception is tweaked for public consumption or the courts. It's not the technicality of this law or that law that's screwed up. It's the scapegoat attitude that blames all the ills of society on one or another group of people that doesn't quite fit somebody's definition of "normal".

This is all about racial animosity & nothing else. Today they're whining about drug cartels. Yesterday it was jobs, & street gangs before that. I moved to Arizona 50 years ago. One of the first things I remember seeing when we moved in was a sign on the door of a drug store that said "NO MEXICANS!". That was 1960, in a town of 15 or 20,000 max. I was 9, & being a navy brat, I was totally flabberghasted. We lived there for 7 years before moving to the city, & I only knew 1 actual Mexican. Don't try & tell me this has anything to do with anything else. It got worse during the "white flight" from the east during the late '60s through the '80s. Most people in Arizona are from somewhere else. Most of the loudmouthed whiny assholes can't tell the difference between a Mexican & an Indian, & don't care because they're not white. The only problem AZ really has is too many assholes. If they really want to bitch about people moving in where they aren't wanted, then maybe they should pack up & move back to Jersey or wherever. As far as I know, the hispanic demographic in AZ has always been 30 to 40%. Nothing's changed. The population just grew.

[NYBURBS]

If you'll notice while reading the 14th Amendment, "citizens" is used when referring to privileges & immunities, & persons is used when referring to rights.

I'll look over the rest of your post later when I have more time, but real quick... I was referring to Article IV of the Constitution, which is separate from the 14th Amendment (somewhat). So yes Slaughterhouse smashed the P&I section of the 14th Amendment, but not the Article IV version of it.

[hippifried]

Point still stands. Citizens have privileges & immunities through law. Rights have nothing to do with status at all. A right for one is a right for all. Rights trump P & I.

[hippifried]

Oh ny the way: I heard the Appeals Court (probably the 9th circuit) turned down Gov Brewer's request for an expidited hearing. This won't be back in court until sometime in Nov, after election day.

[NYBURBS]

Point still stands. Citizens have privileges & immunities through law. Rights have nothing to do with status at all. A right for one is a right for all. Rights trump P & I.

Yea but passage into/through the United States is a privilege and immunity of citizenship. It is not an inherent right to anyone that lands themselves in the country. The due process argument you're asserting is not what the federal government based its case upon.

Like I said, the way the law was worded is problematic, since it could lead to citizens being detained in order to prove their status. If they had left it at mandating an immigration check anytime there is reasonable suspicion during a custodial arrest, and then charging them with a crime under state law, they'd be in better shape legally speaking (imo).

9th circuit is going to stomp the law anyways, it's the 9th circuit after all; however, it'll still end up on the Supreme Court's docket prior to the end of their next term.

[NYBURBS]

The State has general police power. The police have power to enforce all the laws in effect within their jurisdiction, including federal law. The state does not have the power to mandate that the local police go out of their way & dedicate their resources to track down violators of federal civil misdemeanors as if they were felonies.

That all depends on the constitution of each individual state. NY has a home rule law section to its constitution, but I don't know if Arizona does. Even in NY there is a clause that the State legislature may override local jurisdictions on matters of state wide public policy (such as the penal law).


The States, including Arizona, do not have a problem with people crossing the border.

That just defies everything I have seen in the news for years, and that includes videos from the border patrol. You're talking about what you saw in the 1960's. This is ~50 years later, and things change. I'll grant you that a lot of the resentment is xenophobic, but charging that doesn't magically make all the real issues disappear.

[hippifried]

I haven't mentioned due process at all. This is all about the State overstepping its power. That was the feds' argument too. Movement isn't the issue. States don't have the power to bar the movement of people. The feds don't either really. You seem to be trying to turn this into some sort of "States' rights" issue. It isn't of course because... Well... First & foremost, I guess, would be that States don't have rights.

You keep talking legal technicalities & language, but that's not really the issue either. Laws like this create a sort of attainder. The State is making an assumption that people are a problem simply because of who they are, without regard to what they've done. It's an attempt to make people prove their worthiness to exist. The State & local authorities are already empowered to check someone's status when they're under arrest for a crime. I want the State to show cause for creating a criminal class of people who've done nothing worse than a minor civil misdemeanor. Listening to the hype, one would think that lacking proper paperwork to exist was some sort of felony, bordering on terrorism.


9th circuit is going to stomp the law anyways, it's the 9th circuit after all; Meaning what, exactly?


That all depends on the constitution of each individual state. NY has a home rule law section to its constitution, but I don't know if Arizona does. Even in NY there is a clause that the State legislature may override local jurisdictions on matters of state wide public policy (such as the penal law).& the feds can override the States on matters of national public policy. That's what this is. Thanks for making my point.


That just defies everything I have seen in the news for years, and that includes videos from the border patrol. You're talking about what you saw in the 1960's. This is ~50 years later, and things change. I'll grant you that a lot of the resentment is xenophobic, but charging that doesn't magically make all the real issues disappear.Not news. Punditry. (Lou Dobbs' show on CNN was never a "news" program.) I'm talking about what I've seen from the '60s through the present, & nothing's changed. Xenophobia is the only reason for any of this "resentment". Resent what? What issues?

[NYBURBS]

I haven't mentioned due process at all. This is all about the State overstepping its power. That was the feds' argument too. Movement isn't the issue. States don't have the power to bar the movement of people. The feds don't either really. You seem to be trying to turn this into some sort of "States' rights" issue. It isn't of course because... Well... First & foremost, I guess, would be that States don't have rights.

Whether you call it State's rights or powers of the States, it is the same thing. You can't in one breath say that the Federal government has sole power/authority on some issue and then in the next say that States have none in other aspects. I will grant you that the ability to restrict movement of citizens would be generally limited to emergency situations (i.e., hazmat leak in an area), but there is total authority to restrict which non-citizens may enter the country and where they may go during their stay.


You keep talking legal technicalities & language, but that's not really the issue either. Laws like this create a sort of attainder. The State is making an assumption that people are a problem simply because of who they are, without regard to what they've done. It's an attempt to make people prove their worthiness to exist. The State & local authorities are already empowered to check someone's status when they're under arrest for a crime. I want the State to show cause for creating a criminal class of people who've done nothing worse than a minor civil misdemeanor. Listening to the hype, one would think that lacking proper paperwork to exist was some sort of felony, bordering on terrorism.

Laws and legal technicalities are what will decide this case, not what you think happens to be moral or the "right thing to do." States are able to check on a person's immigration status during arrest, but none until Arizona attempted to make a separate state offense for being there illegally. What I was pointing out was that they'd be under much better legal footing if they checked upon arrest and then charged them with that state offense, rather then during minor non-custodial stops.




the feds can override the States on matters of national public policy. That's what this is. Thanks for making my point.

Yea as I mentioned previously, the feds are within their power to grant amnesty to everyone in the country, but so long as they have not it is a valid legal question if Arizona can criminalize being within their borders w/o having attained permission from the feds to enter the country.


Not news. Punditry. (Lou Dobbs' show on CNN was never a "news" program.) I'm talking about what I've seen from the '60s through the present, & nothing's changed. Xenophobia is the only reason for any of this "resentment". Resent what? What issues?

I don't watch Lou Dobbs or Fox or anything else along those lines. I've seen these videos from a wide range of news/information sources.



Meaning what, exactly?


I meant that the 9th circuit is the most overturned court of appeals in the country. It is widely known that they gravitate toward a fairly extreme "left" (for lack of a better term) viewpoint, and thus are unlikely to sympathize with this law. At the end of the day it will still go to the Supreme Court regardless of what the 9th circuit does.

[hippifried]

Whether you call it State's rights or powers of the States, it is the same thing. You can't in one breath say that the Federal government has sole power/authority on some issue and then in the next say that States have none in other aspects. I will grant you that the ability to restrict movement of citizens would be generally limited to emergency situations (i.e., hazmat leak in an area), but there is total authority to restrict which non-citizens may enter the country and where they may go during their stay.
That total authority lies with the feds & not with the individual States. This isn't complicated.



Laws and legal technicalities are what will decide this case, not what you think happens to be moral or the "right thing to do." States are able to check on a person's immigration status during arrest, but none until Arizona attempted to make a separate state offense for being there illegally. What I was pointing out was that they'd be under much better legal footing if they checked upon arrest and then charged them with that state offense, rather then during minor non-custodial stops.
The State doesn't have the power to create such an offence in the first place. It's not within their purview. The Articles of Confederation went in the round file. The States are NOT autonymous or sovereign.



Yea as I mentioned previously, the feds are within their power to grant amnesty to everyone in the country, but so long as they have not it is a valid legal question if Arizona can criminalize being within their borders w/o having attained permission from the feds to enter the country.
The question isn't valid at all. You're promoting, in your roundabout way, warmed over "Jim Crowe", based on national origin. The States do not & can not have the power to criminalize people based on who they are. We settled this back in the '60s.



I don't watch Lou Dobbs or Fox or anything else along those lines. I've seen these videos from a wide range of news/information sources.
It's still contextualized in punditry. The questions remain:
Resent what? What issues?



I meant that the 9th circuit is the most overturned court of appeals in the country. It is widely known that they gravitate toward a fairly extreme "left" (for lack of a better term) viewpoint, and thus are unlikely to sympathize with this law. At the end of the day it will still go to the Supreme Court regardless of what the 9th circuit does.
The 9th is the biggest of the 13 circuits, with the biggest case load, & with jurisdiction over nearly 20% of the population. So if that's an accurate statement about them being overturned, then you need to go back & check the per capita stats. As to their "left" viewpoint: Hogwash. Not widely "known" at all. Just widely spouted from the right. It's unsupportable hyperbole. There's a difference between news & punditry.

[Faldur]

The 9th circus is well know for its judicial activism. I would disagree with "hogwash", currently 59% of the judges were appointed by democratic presidents. Thats the lowest the percentage has been in the history of the court.

[hippifried]

Bullshit. You want "judicial activism"? Take a look at the SCOTUS under Roberts.

I mean really, guys. Let's see the examples. Give me something other than parroted talking points from the blogisphere or media punditry.

Regardless... This lower court ruling will be upheld because there's no case for overturning it.

[Faldur]

Examples are opinionated, your going to see your view in them, and I mine. I parrot no one, I think and speak for myself.

Example: Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (year 2003 80% of circuit 9 judges appointed by democratic presidents)

I complete disagree with the ruling finding "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism, and I am sure you will disagree with me. My opinion is the words are "ceremonial and patriotic nature" as found by the 2010 9th circuit, 69% appointed by democratic presidents.

[NYBURBS]

That total authority lies with the feds & not with the individual States. This isn't complicated.

The total authority over Naturalization lies with the feds (immigration being an accepted part of that). The police power belongs solely to the States, and therefore their ability to pass laws criminalizing certain conduct (i.e., being within their State when the feds have not granted entry) is arguably within their power. It is complicated, regardless of how black and white you'd like it to be.


The State doesn't have the power to create such an offence in the first place. It's not within their purview. The Articles of Confederation went in the round file. The States are NOT autonymous or sovereign.

Hippi, go read any court decision involving State authority, you will find them referred to as the "Sovereign." It is a legal term defining a sovereign State that is within a compact with other States (which form the United States). They give up a certain amount of sovereignty and retain the remainder. The last 80 years may have chipped away at a great deal of it, but it's still the original set-up of the Constitution.


The question isn't valid at all. You're promoting, in your roundabout way, warmed over "Jim Crowe", based on national origin. The States do not & can not have the power to criminalize people based on who they are. We settled this back in the '60s.

Actually, I think immigration reform is needed, including making it easier for ppl to legally gain entry. However, I can see the big picture, and there are very important and fundamental legal questions presented here.


The 9th is the biggest of the 13 circuits, with the biggest case load, & with jurisdiction over nearly 20% of the population. So if that's an accurate statement about them being overturned, then you need to go back & check the per capita stats. As to their "left" viewpoint: Hogwash. Not widely "known" at all. Just widely spouted from the right. It's unsupportable hyperbole. There's a difference between news & punditry.

While judicial viewpoints aren't really well defined using terms left/right (which is why I said "for lack of a better term"), they are generally regarded as holding a fairly progressive/expansive centralized power view point on the whole. They are also overturned more than the other circuits. As for per capita, they are busier than the other circuits, but most cases that go to the Supreme Court arise out of conflicts in the various circuits (so 9th ruling conflicts with 2nd circuit ruling, etc). So really it's their view point in relation to that of the other circuits that often gets rejected.

[hippifried]

The total authority over Naturalization lies with the feds (immigration being an accepted part of that). The police power belongs solely to the States, and therefore their ability to pass laws criminalizing certain conduct (i.e., being within their State when the feds have not granted entry) is arguably within their power. It is complicated, regardless of how black and white you'd like it to be.
"The police power belongs solely to the States"???????? & Homeland Security is... What? C'mon dude... I didn't just get off the boat.

The State doesn't have the authority to criminalize something under federal jurisdiction that's not even a crime to start with. That's right! Being WOP (Ellis Island acronym for With Out Papers) is a civil misdemeanor. A paperwork violation. An infraction of the rules, but not a crime. There's a real big difference, but of course you already know that. This isn't the least bit complicated. The State overstepped.



Hippi, go read any court decision involving State authority, you will find them referred to as the "Sovereign." It is a legal term defining a sovereign State that is within a compact with other States (which form the United States). They give up a certain amount of sovereignty and retain the remainder. The last 80 years may have chipped away at a great deal of it, but it's still the original set-up of the Constitution.
That's just what some of the states like to call themselves. It doesn't mean anything, & there's no mention of state "sovereignty" in the Constitution. It's a myth, perpetrated by the likes of John Calhoun & Jefferson Davis. Calhoun was wrong. The states don't get to nullify because they're not sovereign. This was settled in the 1860s.



Actually, I think immigration reform is needed, including making it easier for ppl to legally gain entry. However, I can see the big picture, and there are very important and fundamental legal questions presented here.
Nothing's going to get accomplished as long as this hate campaign has traction & interferes with any kind of civil discussion. The klan/nazis need to shut the hell up, & the media needs to stop giving them credence & repeating their lies. Bitch slapping them in court is a first step. Legal questions aren't a problem. The law is actually on the side of sanity. It's just a matter of having the balls to stand up to the assholes. Looks like we finally have that again.



While judicial viewpoints aren't really well defined using terms left/right (which is why I said "for lack of a better term"), they are generally regarded as holding a fairly progressive/expansive centralized power view point on the whole. They are also overturned more than the other circuits. As for per capita, they are busier than the other circuits, but most cases that go to the Supreme Court arise out of conflicts in the various circuits (so 9th ruling conflicts with 2nd circuit ruling, etc). So really it's their view point in relation to that of the other circuits that often gets rejected.
I don't give a shit about any of the left/right hyperbole. What's the per capita overturn rate of the 9th circuit compared to the other 12 circuits? You brought it up. You made the comment. It's a simple question. If you don't know, just say so.



Faldur,

The 9th Circuit merely upheld precedent in the Elk Grove case. The Roberts Court found a technicality in Newdow's child custody, & weaseled out of having to make a decision by ruling that he didn't have standing to bring the suit in the first place. The 9th Circuit ruling forced schools to change their policies. Now, anyone who doesn't want to participate, can beg off or omit the reference to God with impunity. That's why the 9th Circuit shot down the latest Newdow suit this past March. Establishment no longer applied. You need to look past the hype.

[NYBURBS]

"The police power belongs solely to the States"???????? & Homeland Security is... What? C'mon dude... I didn't just get off the boat.
The police power is a legal term, it's not about enforcement agents per say. The feds have agents, but they don't have the general police power.


The State doesn't have the authority to criminalize something under federal jurisdiction that's not even a crime to start with. That's right! Being WOP (Ellis Island acronym for With Out Papers) is a civil misdemeanor. A paperwork violation. An infraction of the rules, but not a crime. There's a real big difference, but of course you already know that. This isn't the least bit complicated. The State overstepped.

Yes they do have the power to criminalize conduct parallel to federal law. There are exceptions, and those are termed preemption. Btw there are both civil and criminal penalties for entering/remaining in the US unlawfully. 6 months imprisonment first time, 2 years second time, for unlawful entry.


That's just what some of the states like to call themselves. It doesn't mean anything, & there's no mention of state "sovereignty" in the Constitution. It's a myth, perpetrated by the likes of John Calhoun & Jefferson Davis. Calhoun was wrong. The states don't get to nullify because they're not sovereign. This was settled in the 1860s.

Really? Then why do Article III judges refer to them as sovereigns? Here is a fresh example, the recent ruling refusing to throw out Virgina's lawsuit against the health care law: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Hudson-ruling-on-health-care-8-2-10.pdf



I don't give a shit about any of the left/right hyperbole. What's the per capita overturn rate of the 9th circuit compared to the other 12 circuits? You brought it up. You made the comment. It's a simple question. If you don't know, just say so.

I already stated that they are the busiest circuit court, but I also explained that most cases that end up before the Supreme Court is due to what is termed "splits in the circuits." The Supreme Court tends to favor the interpretation of other circuits over that of the 9th. It's really not a hard concept to grasp.