July 6, 2010

"[T]he Arizona law would place a undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities."

According to the Washington Post, that assertion is at the core of the federal government's lawsuit challenging Arizona's new immigration law. So... the federal government has massively failed to deal with the problem of illegal immigration, but at least the failure is spread fairly equally among the states. Even though Arizona may only want to take responsibility for its its own problem, it can't do that without referring the cases to the federal government and straining and unbalancing federal resources. The courts are supposed to buy the paradox: Because the federal government can't do very much about a problem — or chooses not to do much — an individual state can't act either, no matter how bad things get within that state.

But let's think this through. I'm just trying to grasp what the argument is, so discuss this with me. Brainstorm. Argue. Consider this: The federal government has responsibility for immigration, and it has expressed, through written law and real-world efforts, an extremely lax policy toward illegal immigration. Given that federal policy and the supremacy of federal law, one could argue that it is not within the state's proper power to dictate a different policy and impose it on the federal government (by referring a lot of new cases of individuals violating federal law).

It will be interesting to hear how the lawyers for the federal government make their argument. Assuming it's not legally ridiculous, is it politically wise? To make it work legally, won't they have to own pathetically weak enforcement as a deliberate and important policy? Won't they have to be very clear that Arizona must shut up and accept the current situation? Who will get better political leverage out of this lawsuit — those who favor stronger enforcement of immigration law or those who favor leniency?

184 comments:

lyssalovelyredhead said...

I'm still trying to process this as well, but (and correct me if I'm wrong), wouldn't the gov't's logic mean that no state authorities could enforce *any* federal laws (at least without specific direction from the feds)?

- Lyssa

Also, has the supremcy clause been applied in any way like this before? I can't think of how, but it's not an area of law that I'm well-read in.

AllenS said...

Why anyone would try to find a reason to allow illegal immigration is an absolute mistery to me. What does Feingold think? Any politician who doesn't think that we should deport illegals should be removed from office.

WTF?

Chase said...

To make it work legally, won't they have to own pathetically weak enforcement as a deliberate and important policy?

Hell YES.

Obama and the Democrats will lose big on this one. It is a major fuck-up for them in November. It's not enough alone to tip the scales to Republican rule, but it surely adds to the Dems out-of-touch with voters that poll after poll shows. Caveat - the West may find heightened Hispanic movement towards the Dems because of this, but the rest of the country will be hopping mad, and the Dem voting numbers will not match the highly energized Arizona-supportin' voters in the rest of the country.


So, Obama and boys, bring it on!

Bru said...

Okay, I've read the complaint, and I'm left wondering if the federal government has opened itself up to a claim for failing to protect Arizona from an invasion in violation of Art. IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Const.? Am I nuts in thinking this, and if so, why?

HDHouse said...

You have a border situation, neglect for years from the 70s onward, worsened horribly by the 8 years of Bush incompetency and now so out of control it would take all the kings soldiers and all the kinds men to address.

First step is, however, to stop the local stuff and get out of the way. don't patrol the borders. patrol the streets. the border force has doubled and probably needs to redouble but you must remember that the prior putz has caused such a mess there is little resource and almost no money to do this right.

they can't argue it. the entire thing seems crazy. and arizona is partly on the side of absolutely right and partly on the side of looney.

Another fine mess you've gotten us into.

ohmy.

Big Mike said...

Let's see if I get this right. Arizona's law is unenforceable because Holder's DoJ is weak, foolish, and incompetent. Does that about sum it up?

Kevin said...

Won't they have to be very clear that Arizona must shut up and accept the current situation?

Imagine that the Federal government was refusing to enforce the civil rights laws. Do you think that the courts would hold that states could not enforce civil rights laws, because the Federal government had preempted them?

Big Mike said...

@HD, the response to you is that if Obama didn't think he was good enough to clean it up, he should never have run for office. Regardless of whether the problem dates back to 1776, he is the President, and arguing that he's not good enough to get the job done, however accurate it may be, is not an acceptable response.

ddh said...

Choosing not to enforce a law is the Federal Government's policy, so Arizona can do nothing to contravene policy. Of course, the question then would be whether policy trumps the law.

John Lynch said...

If that's all they got...

So unfunded mandates to the states are OK, but the reverse is not.

rhhardin said...

John and Ken, interviewing the guy who wrote the law in the second hour today.

Wait for Podcast for 7/6 6PM to turn up, near the beginning of the hour.

His claim is that the Federal government is putting their policy into a lawsuit and will certainly lose.

DKWalser said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

Oops, John and Ken 6PM Eastern, = 3PM Pacific time, as it will appear on the site.

traditionalguy said...

The Democrat Regime's argument seems to be that it creates an embarrassment for them to continually release so many Mexican citizens back to the State instead of to Mexico. The State's argument is that it creates an embarrassment for them to be a part of a country that refuses to enforce its borders. They are both right.

Dead Julius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mesquito said...

Let me be clear:

A city may defy our immigration laws by declaring itseld "sanctuary" an the Obama Justice Department does nothing. An aremed, uniform member of a fascist, racist organization can position himself at a polling place on election day, and the Obama Justice Department drops the charges.
But a State legislates in harmony with federal law, and it is sued?
Serioulsy. I want my country back.

Scrivener said...

The wording of the Arizona law was pretty deliberate in tracking federal law. The Feds are forced to argue that the Arizona does not conflict with the Federal LAW, but with the policy of the executive in ENFORCEMENT OF the law.

The Supremacy Clause, textually anyway, only sets the Constitution, the federal law, and treaties as trumping state law. Absent a conflict between the Arizona law and one of these sources, they will have to argue that immigration has been field preempted. Field preemption is either explicit or implied if the regulatory scheme is pervasive enough to warrant an inference that Congress did not intend the states to supplement it.

There's obviously no explicit field pre-emption here, and it seems that the argument that the feds are deliberately absent from this area would strongly argue against any implication that Congress did not intend states to supplement immigration law.

Not to mention the fact that virtually every state has SOME statutes on the books for illegal immigrants, a fact that the Feds have known about for a very long time. (See, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101401266.html, for examples)

Given that context and history, how do you argue with a straight face that there is a Constitutional issue here?

lemondog said...

Can a state sue the federal government for not protecting the state under the governments federal mandate?

With so many other problems why is the Obama administration expending energy on this issue. Does it not know how to prioritize?

With high unemployment why doesn't Obama apply 'stimulus' and expand government payrolls with more federal cops?

BTW howz the Gulf oil thingy comin' along?

Dead Julius said...

If you read what Obama & Co have to say about immigration on their campaign website, it's clear that they want to have a new immigration law, not enforce the existing one.

In fact, it is one of their six principal issues.

In Obamaland, it is essential that all problem be solved by Barack Obama, not by pesky uppity states trying to steal the spotlight.

david7134 said...

It is time for the states to begin to consider secession. Somehow we have become completely detached from the Federal government and they have a different agenda than us. I live in Louisiana and the issue here is that the Feds want allow us to protect ourselves from the oil spill. Or maybe the government wants the greatest amount of damage possible. Either way, it is past time to get out before they can harm us to a greater extent.

mesquito said...

With so many other problems why is the Obama administration expending energy on this issue. Does it not know how to prioritize?

Of course it can prioritize. It's priority is to politicize the Justice Department to drive up turnout it in it's dwindling base og support.

Anglene said...

AllenS: Why anyone would try to find a reason to allow illegal immigration is an absolute mistery to me.

Huh? The PTBs in both parties are open-borders dingbats and they've already decided that the status quo shall be maintained. Obstructing lawsuits with their looney-tune arguments are just a way to pretend that they really do want to secure the border but, gosh darn it, they just can't figure out a way to do it without bankrupting city, state, and country (heh, like that every stopped 'em), or being big ol' meanies and violating the True Meaning of America (which the flyover trogs Just Don't Understand).

Government by concern troll. What's the mystery?

garage mahal said...

It's not enough alone to tip the scales to Republican rule, but it surely adds to the Dems out-of-touch with voters that poll after poll shows.

The polls I seen showed Gov Brewer and Gov Perry of Texas in deep trouble since SB1070. The hard Right that favors SB070 would never for a Democrat in a million years anyway.

From the PPP polling:

"With white voters Perry led 54-36 then and leads 55-35 now. With black voters White led 81-12 then and 70 -7 now. But with Hispanics Perry has gone from leading 53-41 to trailing 55-21....there is no doubt the (Arizona) immigration bill is popular nationally. But if it causes Hispanics to change their voting behavior without a parallel shift among whites then it's going to end up playing to Democratic advantage this fall."

Flexo said...

Haven't read the complaint, but it sounds as if the assertion is the illogical equivilent of arguing that it is illegal to call 911 if there is a house on fire because the fire department might have to come out and do its job, which would burden its ability to respond to other calls.

Essentially arguing that it is an undue burden to put them in a position of having to enforce federal law, rather than violating the law by failing to enforce it.

mesquito said...

If you think there's is a snowball's chance Texas is going to elect a Democrat governor in 2010, I want aome of what you're smoking.

Dead Julius said...

But securing America's borders is not a complete solution. Businesses that deliberately hire and exploit undocumented workers must be held accountable...

We must also require those here living illegally to admit they broke the law, register, pay taxes, pay a fine, and learn English before they can get in line to earn their citizenship.


That's what an Obama campaigner wrote for his BarackObama.com blog last Thursday, right after quoting Obama speaking about he was supposedly enforcing the current law.

Isn't it unsettling that the President says one thing in a speech, and then allows his supporters to explain-- on his namesake website!-- that he actually means something else?!

From the same link:

Progress has been made, but as the President noted, making comprehensive reform a reality requires the cooperation of the Republican Party-- cooperation we've seen in years past.

It's already the Republicans' fault if the effort to make a new law fails.

Scott said...

So the Attorney General has the authority to not enforce a law that doesn't suit him? Is this authority vested in the AG by the Constitution? I don't recall reading that anywhere.

Leland said...

Well, if the argument is an undue burden to the federal government in enforcement, then I think California just found the argument for legalizing medical marijuana.

edutcher said...

OK, Professor, riddle me this. Isn't Holder (and The Zero) refusing to deport any illegals handed over to him by AZ nonfeasance in office and thus impeachable?

"a undue burden"? Sounds like the WaPo is getting its copywriters from Appalachia High.

garage mahal said...

It's not enough alone to tip the scales to Republican rule, but it surely adds to the Dems out-of-touch with voters that poll after poll shows.

The polls I seen showed Gov Brewer and Gov Perry of Texas in deep trouble since SB1070. The hard Right that favors SB070 would never for a Democrat in a million years anyway.


Can't speak to Perry, but Rasmussen had Brewer up by about 9, last I saw.

MayBee said...

Can a state still deny a drivers license to someone who refuses to produce immigration documents?

(as Arizona does)

blake said...

After this, we'll go on to prove that black is white, only to be killed at the next zebra crossing.

(With apologies to Douglas Adams.)

sol said...

illegal immigrants are like an oil spill in the gulf. There is nothing we can do to keep them off our shores and if a state does solve this problem, it makes us look ineffective.

Lem said...

I'm no lawyer but the weakness of the Federal Case against Arizona reminds me of a quote from former VP Al Gore that may help elucidate.. a cursory search came up with an opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer in the WAPO.

"There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law."

-- Al Gore, seven times (in one form or another), White House news conference, March 3

"Controlling legal authority." Whatever other legacies Al Gore leaves behind between now and retirement, he forever bequeaths this newest weasel word to the lexicon of American political corruption.

Gore is talking here about his phone calls from the White House soliciting Democratic campaign contributions. Now, he cannot say, "I have broken no law," because Section 607 of Title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code states very clearly there is to be no solicitation of campaign funds in federal government offices. Gore broke the law as written, as understood and as practiced. His defense? Apparently, that there are no cases testing the law. So there
.

The Feds seem to be saying that they have the controlling legal authority not to enforce the laws of the land.. oh yea, Arizona is quaking quaking in their boots.

David said...

"I'm just trying to grasp what the argument is . . . "

My initial hypothesis is "stupid" but I'm open to other points of view.

Methadras said...

In essence what the fed is saying is that they should be the ones who determine who and who is not an illegal alien or as I call them, invaders. So if AZ has its peace officer corp deliver unto Obama who they think is a foreign invader, then that is bad according to them? So is this the crux of the feds lawsuit?

AJ Lynch said...

Obama's bigger problem, with this suit, is that large numbers of his base are unemployed or under-employed and they don't support open borders.

AJ Lynch said...

Plus let's face it. The fed suit is so lame because they have no real legal basis to appeal and / or the DOJ staff is just dumb and lazy when this is the best they could do. Hell even Hdhouse said he agrees with 50% of the AZ law.

holdfast said...

How about Arizona seeks a writ of Mandamus against the Feds, requiring them to "do their job" and enforce the law at the border? Has anything even remotely similar been done in the US?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The Arizona law is not pre empting Federal law. They aren't deporting or processing immigration laws.

The Arizona law is allowing the law officers to turn the 'suspected' illegals over to the Federal authorities for processing.

If the Feds want to admit that that they either can't handle the processing of the law or won't enforce the laws, I doubt that is a winning strategy.

In addition the person who make the claim that the Federal Government is violating Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution, is correct.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

In that case I think that Arizona, New Mexico, California, Texas and many other border states have a case to sue the Federal Government.

Jason (the commenter) said...

If states can't report crimes to the federal government then it should be illegal for individuals, too. That means no more reporting work-place violations to OSHA, people buying tanks of fertilizer to Homeland Security, or writing angry letters to the FCC about cuss-words.

Now that I think about it, why am I paying taxes? I'm overburdening the federal government's bureaucracy!

Dead Julius said...

This piece from National Fascist makes a convincing case that the federal lawsuit is meritless.

Why would experienced knowledgeable lawyers file a meritless lawsuit?

I think you'll find much more of interest by trying to answer that question than by trying to find merit where there ain't any.

ark said...

If the federal government succeeds in overturning the Arizona law, doesn't that have the side effect of doing away with the California automotive emission controls and other environmental regulations?

Peano said...

Wouldn't it be something if the Supremes found a mandamus issue at the bottom of all this? And issued a write directed at one Eric Holder?

How sweet it would be.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"But let's think this through. I'm just trying to grasp what the argument is ..."

Good fucking luck with that.

You won't find an argument.

You'll find a lot of table pounding. Because the people opposing this aren't intelligent enough to formulate a cogent argument against the Arizona law.

Having said that the Republicans should take careful note of the strategy at play here: delay, delay, delay.

Democrats file suit and use the courts to slow Republican advances. That's smart. They use all the tools available to them in our society to undercut the advancement of America and conservatives.

Nothing wrong with that. The rules are the rules. The game is afoot. Democrats wouldn't file such a poorly thought out complaint if they had anything in mind except trying to run the clock down.

They know they've lost.

Revenant said...

The polls I seen showed Gov Brewer and Gov Perry of Texas in deep trouble since SB1070.

Brewer's support among Arizona likely voters:

March: 20%
April: 26%
[at this point she signs SB1070]
May: 45%
June: 61%

A 35% increase in public support equals "deep trouble", does it? Interesting.

The hard Right that favors SB070 would never for a Democrat in a million years anyway.

71% of Americans and 89% of Arizonans are "hard right"? Goodness! The Democrats are in real trouble this year, then. :)

From the PPP polling:

PPP is the Democratic Party's polling firm. I'm shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that they're predicting dire results for Republicans.

HDHouse said...

Scott said...
So the Attorney General has the authority to not enforce a law that doesn't suit him?"

I dunno but you can ask Bill Mitchell and Pedro Gonzales...those two spring to mind pretty quick...

HDHouse said...

oopps..that's the pitcher or something for the Sox...

That Gonzales fella..the suck up to Bush...you know.

I'm very sorry.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"f the Feds want to admit that they... won't enforce the laws, I doubt that is a winning strategy."

Not only that, it's a fucking impeachable offense. If Barack Obama declares that he won't enforce our laws, he should be removed from fucking office - forcibly if necessary.

The man swore an oath. If he can't live up to that, he should resign. If he refuses to live up to that, we should do our duty and throw off this government and provide new guards for our future security.

Just like our forefathers did at the barrel of a gun.

virgil xenophon said...

The sense of puzzlement by many here over the idiocy of the Administration's claims in this case are understandable; but once one realizes that these people have ABSOLUTELY NO SHAME and are perfectly capable of uttering the most outlandish things--of lying thru their teeth with a straight face--and then daring anyone to challenge them, to call them on it--then it all becomes clear. This is the Chicago thug way and they simply can't help themselves. Besides, its gotten them the Presidency, right?

This law-suit is ALL political, ALL about firming up their Hispanic base and firing them up in time for the Nov. elections. Besides, they just might get lucky in the courts as an added bonus, so why not. And with a compliant press unwilling to highlight their idiocies, they figure they can get away with it.

Just look at the wording of the judges decision voiding Obamas drilling halt. He eviscerated the Government's argument. Were Bush President his exact wording would have been splashed from one end of the country to the other for days on end. But what really happened w. Obama as POTUS? With the exception of the blogosphere, Fox TV and talk radio, the judge's decision vacating the moratorium sank out of sight in the MSM like a stone drooped in deep water.

Obama & crew think they can brazen thru ANYTHING. Witness Salazar's immediate reflexive announcement that he intended on ignoring the Fed Dist. Judge and issue a new moratorium anyway before an appeal of the original finding was completed.

Once one realizes that Obama et al REALLY DO think the Chicago way works everywhere and at all times the rest is easy...

HDHouse said...

and I think that guy who tried to bail out Nixon was John Mitchell...so long ago...so many repubican crooks..

who can tell....

i am so sorry

damikesc said...

As was asked elsewhere, if AZ's law is deemed unconstitutional, how can a state legally help with terrorism laws? Drug laws? Wiretapping? All AZ does is mimic federal law, almost verbatim, and report violators to the officials you're supposed to report them to.

The Feds DO train local law enforcement to assist with immigration, to boot.

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2044

Good luck with that lawsuit, Obama. You're just insuring that nobody will ever take a chance on a Democrat in office again. From making NASA more concerned about protecting Muslim feelings over space exploration to simply overturning bankruptcy laws, to this laughable suit...why take the chance again, America?

AJ Lynch said...

Ark asked:

"If the federal government succeeds in overturning the Arizona law, doesn't that have the side effect of doing away with the California automotive emission controls and other environmental regulations?"

I think that is a brilliant question! I'd like to see on eof the lawyers here answer it.

AJ Lynch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

HD: Is it your view that any wrong doing by a Democrat is negated by an earlier wrong doing by a Republican? That seems to be your view of how an argument is presented and won.

Pastafarian said...

This is a great thread, with a lot of great points that I would never have come up with, even if I were sober.

Great points by lyssa, and DKWalser (there's a new one, welcome to the party, buddy); and even garage mahal makes a good point, by revealing how the Democrats are essentially selling our sovereignty for a few Hispanic votes.

But more to the point, and perhaps not entirely off-topic:

Has anyone here ever tried Patron tequila?

You see, I'm getting ready for the annual pilgrimage to North Carolina in a couple of weeks. (I'm from Ohio, and we all go to North Carolina in the summer. The entire state migrates like a flock of insane butterflies, seeking out the hottest fucking place they can find this side of Hades).

Anywho, I'm working on my margarita recipe, because I plan on remaining drunker than a monkey for two weeks; and I've stumbled upon manna from heaven itself.

I speak of Patron tequila, my friends.

If all tequila were like this, I'd be an alcoholic. If everything from Mexico was like this, I'd give not a fig about illegal immigration -- I'd welcome being absorbed by our new Mexican overlords.

A.W. said...

basically the FG is saying... it is our policy to have things be the complete clusterfrak it currently is. Like you know how there are parts of Arizona where illegal immigration is so out of control that citizens are told not to go there? Yeah, that is intentionally, according to the brief.

Forget the legal merits of the argument, but, um, isn't that politically a really, really bad argument?

But at the same time, lets talk about the law. what they are really arguing for is something new. They are not arguing that the law of the FG should preempt it. they are arguing that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion on the federal level should dictate the amount of discretion on the state level. That is not, and has never been our system.

Lem said...

The Feds are like HAL the computer in 2001..

Just what do you think you're doing, Arizona?

Pastafarian said...

HD, that's Pedro Martinez, future hall-of-famer.

Martinez, Gonzales; all the same to you, huh, amigo?

By the way -- word verification is damned hard when you're properly drunk.

Dead Julius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Synova said...

The political leverage will be on the side of the federal government except where people already are on the side of Arizona.

It's enough that the federal government has stated publicly that it will sue, that it cares about the horrible, racist, Arizona law.

Whatever happens in court, whatever arguments that are made, and no matter if it does actually end up all being based on the notion that it's wrong to force the feds to enforce their own laws... who's going to listen to that but a few law professor bloggers and a handful of political hobbyists?

Richard said...

To make it work legally, won't they have to own pathetically weak enforcement as a deliberate and important policy?

Doesn't matter legally. The border will never be sealed, everyone knows it, and no one can change that fact. The majority has tried to motivate its gov't to seal the border, and the majority has failed to motivate its gov't to seal the border. The rest is academic ponderings and wasted effort. This fight is lost. Turn the page.

damikesc said...

People might wonder why discrimination was not mentioned in the suit since that was the SPECIFIC problem mentioned by Obama for weeks now.

Also, they might wonder why a state enforcing federal law and sending suspects to the Feds is suddenly illegal...especially since the Feds train police to do exactly that.

I'd also like to see, just once, Obama end up on the side of America.

Peter V. Bella said...

Arizona decides to do something about illegal immigration. The United States Government decides to stop them.

How nice.

GMay said...

"Is it the possibility of enlarging that (hopefully loyal) group by making illegal immigrants into voting citizens?"

When you can't get the votes from zombies, car trunks, and the Black Panthers, you gotta do what you gotta do.

GMay said...

Random Pissant Country vs. An American State

I'm so glad this administration is focused like a freakin' LASER on jobs and the economy.

lucid said...

I'm not a lawyer, so this may be ridiculous. But wouldn't it make sense for Arizona to eschew the constituional issue and focus on the statutory issue?

Arizona could argue that there are laws on the federal books and that they are simply acting to recognize and affirm the federal laws by referring violators through a process that identifies them.

For example, shouldn't a state refer violations of federal civil rights laws to the federal goivernment agency responsible for enforcing them? Don't referals to the appropriate jurisdiction happen all the time?

damikesc said...

If this law is struck down, no, you won't see anybody reporting anybody to any Federal authorities.

Obama is trying to cause anarchy.

Elliott A said...

Since when does any member of the administrative branch have the authority to decide which laws are to be enforced? Can any ideological group gaining power make such decisions? Could they ignore civil rights laws and deny white people jobs as happens in South Africa? Could they ignore corruption in and with their most ardent supporters? How about ignoring labor laws? Not stopping people from physically blocking abortion clinics, or schools or hospitals would be tempting. Etc.

I think we are fast approaching the point where we are almost all mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. It might look like the 60s again

Bart DePalma said...

This appears to be Justice's argument:

1) Congress enacted a series of immigration laws which prohibit foreign citizens from entering the United States except under certain conditions.

2) Arizona enacted a law which expressly enforces federal immigration law.

3) Justice claims that the state law which expressly enforces federal immigration law violates the Supremacy Clause because it is contrary to the Obama Administration's policy of not enforcing the federal immigration law and :::gasp::: might create work for the border patrol deporting illegal aliens.

Amazing reasoning there guys.

Last time I checked, the Supremacy Clause did not state that presidential policy preempted state law.

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quayle said...

(Sorry, its been a long day)

One hole in the government's argument is that immigration enforcement by definition isn't a geographically partitioned or provisioned act and has no longitude and latitudinal component.

The catch and release portion of immigration enforcement is inextricably liked to each known or suspected incident of violation.

I'd bet my bottom dollar that the government's own geographical resource allocation is determined by prior incident statistics.

Which means that any new incident anywhere has the effect of placing an "undue burden" on the the government by changing the enforcement density and allocation.

Therefore the government's argument is really reduced to claiming, not that a new incident happened in Arizona so its an undue burden, but that it happened at all - that one more incident was added to the government's prior burden.

Which to me seems to make the government's argument discriminatory it if is claiming that is doesn't have to take a new Arizona incident but is also doesn't have to tell other states to not render a new incident.

Put simply, why is the government's current distribution of resources any kind of steady state or approved baseline the change of which is a burden?

traditionalguy said...

In all seriousness, the law suit states that there is an issue of the AG's administrative discretion used by this commited pro-Mexican Federal Administration as a pre-emption the local state's administration of its law enforcement. Holder's team is correct. The only remedy here is impeachment. Let's get it started after November.

Quayle said...

In fact, if anything, one could argue that Arizona is the relieving federal government's burden by stepping up and using its own resources in areas that the government would normally have to police anyway, allowing those federal resources to be moved to improve the situation elsewhere.

Jim said...

Here's the giant hole in Obama's argument that Arizona is going to drive a convoy of trucks through: the DOJ has been running a program for years teaching local law enforcement how to enforce immigration law.

Obama can't simulataneously argue that locals don't have any business dealing with immigration issues when the feds have been training locals how to do it FOR YEARS NOW.

Frankly I don't know what garage is smoking with his "this is a problem for Republicans" horsehockey. Even he can't be stupid enough to buy this spin when every poll taken on the issue shows 60+% support for the bill both in Arizona and across the country. If he does, then he's far less intelligent than he's ever been given credit for being.

This is DISASTROUS for Democrats already facing widespread electoral unrest. It's yet ANOTHER issue on which Democrats find themselves opposite public opinion. 60% want repeal of ObamaCare. 60% want a law like Arizona's in their own state. 60% oppose cap-n-tax.

There's a storm a-brewing, and garage is going to wake up in mid-November to a whole new world he's not going to enjoy...AT ALL. And since evidently he doesn't read anything other than the daily DNC talking points, he's never going to see it coming.

Fen said...

illegal immigrants are like an oil spill in the gulf. There is nothing we can do to keep them off our shores and if a state does solve this problem, it makes us look ineffective.

To carry that further, Janet Napalatono says securing the border is pointless because we wont stop EVERY illegal immigrant.

By the same "logic", cleaning up the oil spill is pointless because we wont stop EVERY drop of oil from making landfall.

Really, these idiots make a good arguement for tar and feathers.

Hagar said...

It looks to me like the DoJ argument boils down to "We don't care what statutes Congress has passed regarding immogration. We are not going to enforce them, and Arizona isn't going to make us!"

I am not sure that this is going to work out as well for the Democrat Party as they think. The clips we see on TV every night, etc., are hugely embarassing to the established Hispanic population, who tend to be very traditional and conservative in their views, and of course, on the economic side, poor Hispanics are the first to suffer from the competition for jobs.

Lem said...

The Gulf Oil spill is "referring" too much oil for Obama to handle ;)

because the mail never stops.. they just keep coming and coming and coming.. and there is never a let up.. is relentless.. every day there is more and more.

themightypuck said...

As you allude to in your post Prof. Althouse, the government's reasons for a law in an appellate court are not the same as their reasons when they enact the law.

themightypuck said...

I'll add that I agree with pretty much everyone that it is politically stupid to fight this. There is NO upside.

Old Dad said...

HD said,

"I am so sorry."

Damn, he made sense twice in the same thread. I think you misunderstimate you're sorriness. I blame Bush.

Greg Kemnitz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim maguire said...

I can't find the citation, somebody v. Baltimore, establishing the (treasonous) judicial concept of sovereign immunity, but I think Justice's argument is a species of this--government cannot be held to any standards of performance and the Arizona law will force them to do a better job than they'd prefer to.

Outrageous, but probably legally sound.

edutcher said...

HDHouse said...

and I think that guy who tried to bail out Nixon was John Mitchell...so long ago...so many repubican crooks..

As opposed to all the crooks of the last 2 Democrat administrations. Be interesting to see all the investigations coming out of this administration alone.

These guys can't move on.

Alex said...

Look if the Democrats want illegal immigration to be their political Waterloo - they're welcome to it. The nice thing about this upcoming election is it puts Hispanics on records as being pro-illegals and anti-American. It will wake up a lot of white Democrats to the truth.

kathleen said...

How can you have federal policy that runs contrary to written federal law? It's meaningless, nonsensical and arbitrary. It's too much to expect states to conform to policy rather than laws the government is making no effort to repeal.

Big Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Mike said...

@garage, do I understand your post at 6:20 to mean that you are okay with non-enforcement of the current immigration law because some large block of voters takes umbrage at its enforcement?

Does this mean you agree with Holder that laws do not have to be equally applied to everyone regardless of race, creed, or national origin?

Alex said...

The fact is the only whites who support illegal aliens are the old-line hippies and young urban hipsters. The rest are waking up fast.

Dead Julius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dead Julius said...

Somebody should thank Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay for holding the courthouse doors open for Eric Holder here.

I refer, of course, to the federal involvement in the Terry Schiavo case. From 2005! Not so long ago...

The libertarians (Bob Barr!) voiced their warnings about this being an attack on federalism back then, but they were ignored.

Just like with zombies, when you think stupid governmental actions are gone for good, they rise out of their Republican grave and come back to life as the Democrat Undead.

garage mahal said...

Big Mike
No, I was only citing poll data, and in a general sense, I think demographics are working heavily against conservatives. And there certainly doesn't seem to be any outreach program to these rising demographic groups, to say the least. Blacks, latinos, unmarried women, professionals, unaffiliated or secular, millennials - these were all solid Democratic votes in 2008, and are gaining in numbers. By 2020 there will be 90 million millenials of voting age, who voted by a 66-32 margin in 2008 for Obama. Unaffiliated or secular voters, not white evangelicals, are the fastest rising "religious" group in America, 75% of those voted for Obama.

mc said...

virgil xenophon is correct.

If they succeed and create more anarchic opportunity in the ensuing litigious storm...So much for opportunity.

If they fail...Where will you read about it?

LonewackoDotCom said...

This is definitely an interesting intellectual argument, and one that most people should spend a lot of time thinking through!

Now, for those of you who want to actually do something, here are five highly effective ways to do something about the suit. None of those involve having to make a legal argument; I wrote that before the suit was released to the public.

If you want to help Arizona, please don't get distracted by either dim supporters or wily opponents. Instead, just concentrate on doing at least one of those five points, even if all you do is send the list to your social network.

Scott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

I love how HDHouse blames Bush in order to defend A PRESIDENT WHO DOUBLES DOWN ON EVERYTHING BUSH DID.

Democrats live in Bizarro World.

Rialby said...

Garage: "I think demographics are working heavily against conservatives. ...Blacks, latinos, unmarried women, professionals, unaffiliated or secular, millennials"

In reverse order, "millenials" - young people always vote liberal, there's no way around it. They're not wise enough to understand conservative arguments.

Blacks will always vote for a black candidate. They're also more likely to vote for liberals because liberals promise that they cannot maintain their victim status and may end up getting something for free out of it.

Unmarried women - we'll see how well that fares for them after they see their taxes rise, cost of living rise and standard of living fall.

Latinos - well here's the crux of the problem isn't it. Do Latinos in this country truly believe in unmitigated illegal immigration into this country? Well, that's a step beyond the issue of losing their votes. That's a question as to whether we've lost control of over our own borders.

SMGalbraith said...

The federal government can argue that Arizona's law will disrupt its ability to enforce immigration law and secure the border by requiring more resources to be diverted to that state and away from other more vital regions.

In doing so, Arizona is hamstringing Washington's ability to use resources wisely and more equitably.

Yes, it will take quite an effort to make that latter claim with a straight face. But that's what law school is for.

Dead Julius said...

Here is what Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has to say. Seems pretty reasonable. I especially like this bit:

The best thing government can do is to create a stable, predictable environment, governed by an easily understood set of rules or laws. We do not need to make this more complicated than it already is.

Even Al Sharpton has chimed in, saying that "Arizona is attempting to... bring us back to an era of state’s rights". Like Jim Crow laws, presumably. That's some Democratic black magic in action right there.

It seems like the most interesting aspect of this lawsuit is how people react to it; it's like a Rorschach Test.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

AllenS said...

Why anyone would try to find a reason to allow illegal immigration is an absolute mistery to me.


The leadership of both parties, and I include my beloved Dubya in this, have chosen to encourage illegal immigration for one reason and one reason only. That is the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. Without the masses of relatively young wage earners from Mexico, the whole racket comes crashing down sooner rather than later, and generations of politicians will come due for gibbeting.

Eric said...

Arizona should start deporting illegals to Washington DC.

bagoh20 said...

"but at least the failure is spread fairly equally among the states."

This is demonstrably untrue.

Is the argument that anything the government fails at controlling is therefore illegal to report to them?

Free at last, thank god, we're free at last!

You lawyers are just too freaking smart for me. I don't even understand the arguments. Or at least why they are considered arguable.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Invasion? Check.
Domestic violence? Check.

Mandamus on this basis would be an interesting approach, especially since Article VI lists the first supremacy as the Constitution itself.

Dead Julius said...

The complaint is posted here btw.

chr1 said...

So, federal laws are on the books that regulate illegal immigration. They are not enforced well. Arizona passes its own law which tries (and may arguably fail or succeed) to regulate the flow of illegal immigration.

The federal government then files a lawsuit against teh State of Arizona for passing the law...but what have they done to enforce the laws on the books? What is the President doing that acts in the best interests of all of us?

I'm not convinced at the moment, and I certainly don't trust Obama nor the DOJ not to back this up into a political mess.

Why pick this fight? Is it close to his heart?

'purgies' The new puke-inducing cracker for bulimics on the go

Revenant said...

Why pick this fight? Is it close to his heart?

They are betting that the illegals will wind up being granted a "path to citizenship". So in another ten or twenty years, you'll have another ten or twenty million Democratic voters.

They're willing to tell the current American voters to go fuck themselves, if it means that big of a payoff in the long run.

Adam said...

The concept of an "undue burden" on federal enforcement of federal laws is intriguing. The argument might be construed to say that Arizona's stepped up efforts will cause a diversion of illegals into other, nearby states in the absence of any change in total federal enforcement resources, so that the "undue burden" would be the one falling on New Mexico, California, Texas, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado as more federales are sent to Arizona to deal with the consequences of its law. The federal government, by this interpretation, is acting on behalf of Arizona's neighboring states.

If this is the argument that the DOJ whiz kids have in mind, then it raises a couple of obvious issues:

1) If the other states were to enact laws similar to Arizona's, then the distribution of enforcement resources would revert to something close to the status quo ante; Arizona would no longer be placing an undue burden on its neighbors. If this started to happen, just how many states could the feds sue before looking completely ridiculous?

2) The easy way to eliminate a disparate impact on Arizona's neighbors is to hire lots more border guards. But rather than engage in wholesale job creation, Obama/Holder are letting this crisis go to waste. It seems unlikely that arcane points of constitutional law are the motivating factors.

Dead Julius said...

I read the [motherfucking] complaint and I'm no lawyer but...

How is DOJ's argument distinct from De Canas v. Bica?

Seems like the Supreme Court settled this issue back in 1976... didn't they?

Cedarford said...

Kevin - "Imagine that the Federal government was refusing to enforce the civil rights laws. Do you think that the courts would hold that states could not enforce civil rights laws, because the Federal government had preempted them?"

Pretty much along my thinking. If we have people arguing that we have an imperial Presidency and presidential policy trumps all Congressional law if such law is deemed inconvenient ----where are all those Leftist "Rule of Law!!" types now??

Amazing.

We have Obamites arguing that a sitting President can pick and choose what Federal Law states must comply with or enforce over what "burden" it places on agencies of the Federal Executive branch??

The same argument could be made later if some future President wishes to block states from enforcing Fed Law related to the EPA, civil rights, air travel, etc. etc.

For those that wish to single out Obama..no, this story goes back to the 1965 Immigration Act when parties wishing for Open Borders formed their cabal.
That would be the Catholic Church, Republican corporatists, Teddy Kennedy liberals, Agribiz, progressive Jews who wanted transnationalism..not "artificial national borders" blocking Jews from opportunity, power, and cheap labor mass immigration could be exploited for. And, as the numbers swelled, Open Borders hispanics joined the cabal.
George W. Bush was as bad as Obama about Open Borders, if not worse. Others were equally Republican whores. Like "Amnesty John" McCain and "those who wish to stop noble Hispanics from getting here are racists" - Lindsay Graham.

Cedarford said...

The other strange group in this is blacks.
No other group has been harmed like blacks by cheap, unskilled illegal labor. Black employment has been wiped out in whole industries.
Dumb black leaders hail this as justice for the Brown-Black coalition, explaining that blacks who are displaced by illegals can just count on the "unlimited resources" of the Fed government and states to ensure that the checks for doing nothing come to the mailbox every two weeks. Food will always be free, housing will always be free, and blacks will always find good, government jobs.

What dumb black leaders fail to foresee is the financial resources are drying up with present uncontrolled debt. Amnesty will mean that hispanics can apply to all the government drone jobs from DMV in states to Pentagon grass cutters that blacks think are eternally "Their Jobs".

For now, each black leader obeys the instructions of the progressive Jewish, black, and liberal white Elites - telling them to deliver "their people" to dutifully vote for foreign invader sanctuary and Open Borders. And the lower strata of blacks listens to the "Black Leaders" and cut their own throats and kid's future.

Methadras said...

Lem said...

The Feds are like HAL the computer in 2001..

Just what do you think you're doing, Arizona?


Julio, Julio, how do your fields of lettuce grow?

Luke Lea said...

When a government refuses to enforce a law that passed and which most Americans support, is that protected federal policy?

Who is responsible for enforcing the law -- the executive, the legislature, the people?

In fact doesn't the President have a Constitutional responsiblity to see that the laws are faithfully executed? Or am I just dreaming?

Luke Lea said...

What it comes down to is: does the President have the right to choose which laws he will and will not enforce?

Shall becomes Shall (if he likes)?

former law student said...

The supporting brief is here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/DOJ-AZ-brief-7-6-10.pdf

The Arizona statute violates the Supremacy Clause three ways: only Congress can make immigration law, the statute affects U.S. foreign policy, and last and probably least, enforcing the statute messes up ICE's priorities. Here it's fairly evident that the Bisbee P.D. is not going to pick up a bigtime narcotraficante, while Sheriff Arpaio's men are likely to funnel mostly day labor seekers from Home Depot parking lots all over town.

If all that SB1070 was about was enforcing federal law, there would be no need to write an SB 1070, and no seeking injunctions.

Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Near as I can figure it's a lame attempt by the DoJ to prove to the Democratic party base they're "doing something" while not actually doing anything, because they filed an incredibly lame suit.

But it seems misguided in that it convinces their opponents and swing voters they're "doing something" the voters dislike.

Kev said...

Really, these idiots make a good arguement for tar and feathers.

Well, there is a pretty good source of tar in the Gulf at the moment. Perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone...

Clyde said...

So, let's see: Eric Holder's DOJ says that prosecuting a case against an Arizona law trying to enforce our immigration laws is good, but prosecuting the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation is bad.

If you are not a "person of color" in the U.S., you will not be getting "equal justice under the law" until Holder (and his boss, Obama) are gone. We've got a bunch of affirmative action hires running the place (see NASA's Charles Bolden as well, saying that making Muslims feel good about themselves is NASA's primary mission) and all of a sudden, all of those white males are starting to look pretty good in retrospect.

Politically incorrect to say, of course, but it's the damn truth.

WDOR said...

garage mahal needs to get his facts straight.

Trying to argue that the Arizona law "hurts" Rick Perry (whom I'm no fan of) in Texas is nonsensical. If he was listening or lived in Texas he'd know that neither Perry nor any of the Republican leadership in the Texas legislature (House or Senate) has approved of the Arizona law. Rather, Perry issued a statement in opposition to having such a law passed in Texas, much to my dismay:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6983315.html

Of course being the politician that he is, I'm sure Perry will change his position and say his initial comments were taken out of context or that after careful review of the law it is now worth pursuing.

As far as polls showing Perry in trouble vis-a-vis Bill White, you must be joking. While he's not terribly popular among all Republicans, Perry will easily beat White this November, if nothing else because the base that White needs never comes out for off-year elections in Texas. It won't be close.

Paul said...

It seems to be the Democrat assumption that Mexican-Americans in the US do not want us to enforce our border, so we mustn't do it our they'll be angry. Doesn't that demonstrate how unwise we have been to let in so many of them, and a good argument for not letting in any more? We're allowed a huge fifth column with strong revanchist convictions to take root in this country. It's too late for California, obviously, but maybe we can salvage some of the other Sand States.

With this latest DoJ argument,I finally understand why the federal government has no problem with sanctuary cities--they're saving ICE a lot of paperwork and overtime by not reporting illegals.

It seems obvious to me that Obama is trying to create a revolutionary climate in the country by ramming through unpopular left-wing legislation and demonstrating his contempt for the rule of law and public opinion. But perhaps I overlooked something--anyone have an alternative explanation? (Not you, Garage, I skip over your posts.)

former law student said...

It seems to be the Democrat assumption that Mexican-Americans in the US do not want us to enforce our border

Republicans know that the more fearful illegal immigrants are of getting picked up, the more valuable they are as workers, because any complaints -- about inadequate pay, say, or unsafe working conditions -- send them right back over the border.

Revenant said...

Republicans know that the more fearful illegal immigrants are of getting picked up, the more valuable they are as workers, because any complaints -- about inadequate pay, say, or unsafe working conditions -- send them right back over the border.

As opposed to Democrats, who pay their illegal-immigrant employees the same wages as legal American workers, with full benefits and healthcare?

Or is it just that you are stupidly using the word "Republican" when you mean "business owner"?

Andi said...

Nothing in the Arizona law compels the U.S. government to prosecute, deport, or even process, those individuals referred. Heck, the Feds could simply assign a GS1 greater to politely say, "no thank you" at the door. I hardly think that qualifies as an undue burden.

LutherM said...

The scene is in TECHNICOLOR. The voice says, "I am the mighty OBAMA. Never mind the words of the law. YOU can NOT enforce law. Only the mighty OBAMA can enforce law. When the mighty OBAMA ignores the law, it is CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN !!!"
This argument convinces four members of the "Supreme" Court

DADvocate said...

won't they have to own pathetically weak enforcement as a deliberate and important policy?

The crux of this situation. They don't want to enforce the law. The Dems are looking for future voters and many businesses are looking for cheap labor.

edutcher said...

Anent garage's claim demographics are against Conservatives.

Consider what James Taranto calls the Roe Effect. Many of the people garage mentions, "(b)lacks, latinos, unmarried women, professionals, unaffiliated or secular, millennials", abort their kids or only have one or two 'designer' babies.

Conservatives not only don't, they have three or more in many cases. The millennials will wise up as they get out into the real world and the professionals, hardly as monolithic as garage wants to believe, will change their tune as The Zero gores their ox right in the second chakra.

Pogo said...

`When I interpret a law,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Patrick said...

Can we stop calling them "Illegal Immigrants" and start calling them "Illegal Democrats"?

It's what they are, after all, and this would make Obama's actions a lot easier to understand.

Stan said...

Obama argument -- I have chosen to ignore my Constitutional responsibility to enforce federal law on immigration. My choice to avoid my responsibility thus legally bars Arizona from enforcing federal law.

Lem said...

It seems to me if anybody has an "undo burden" it is Arizona by virtue of their geography.

I have news for Arizona and Israel.. Obama says you are on your own.. I'm busy.. (or something)

Remember how Spike Lee said Obama needed to "go off" on BP about the oil spill?

This suit is Obama "going off" on Arizona about the people spill they are dealing with every day.

Anglene said...

Paul: It seems obvious to me that Obama is trying to create a revolutionary climate in the country by ramming through unpopular left-wing legislation and demonstrating his contempt for the rule of law and public opinion. But perhaps I overlooked something--anyone have an alternative explanation?

I think you're imputing way too much intelligence and foresight here. Never attribute to machiavellian (or alinskian) plotting what you can attribute to good old-fashioned myopic class obliviousness.

Obama's policies here are no different from Bush's, and they and their ilk are serenely confident that the "bitter clingers" are, and will remain, the law-abiding, civic-minded folks that they are.

If they begin to murmur, their highnesses think that all they have to do is commission a few prattling op-eds in the NYT or WaPo telling the grumblers to stop being, like, so uncool and nativist and shit, and all will be well.

Were George or Louis or Nicholas trying to create a revolutionary climate? No, but they went right on provoking. What we have here is a stupid, crapped-out elite doing the sorts of things stupid oblivious crapped-out elites always do on the road to ruin.

Mick said...

At the core of this argument is the false notion of "birthright citizenship" of the children of illegals. It is a false notion because it is derived from the blurring of 14th Amendment "jurisdiction" by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark 112 years ago.
If the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to embed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 into the Constitution, enforced on the states, then "Jurisdiction" would be defined as owing no allegiance to any other foreign power, mirroring the citizenship pledge of those naturalized, and CRA 1866.
Anchor babies owe no political allegiance to this country. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents (see the Elian Gonzalez case), and then Mexico (or wherever their parents are a citizen of).
"Birthright citizenship" is a big draw for illegals to come to the US. There is even a "US Birth Tourism" industry, capitalizing on the false notion of "birthright citizenship".
Could the SCOTUS, tired of Obama dodging his lack of Natural Born Citizenship, and looking for a way to cure a serious Constitutional Crisis, de facto declare Obama ineligible by defining Natural Born Citizen as one born in the US of US Citizen PARENTS in the dicta of this case? Obama has opened himself up here if Roberts chooses to use it.

The Monster said...

Choosing not to enforce a law is the Federal Government's policy, so Arizona can do nothing to contravene policy. Of course, the question then would be whether policy trumps the law.

I don't see anything in the Constitution that says a state can't contravene "policy"

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Congress has made certain laws which, if done in accordance with the Constitution, are supreme over any state constitution or laws. But I do not see a word about a "policy" decision of a POTUS, secretary of whatever agency, or any other bureaucrat having supremacy over state constitutions and laws.

The AZ law simply says that LEOs are to ascertain whether a person already being detained for some other reason is in violation of the supreme law as made by Congress, and if they are found to be in violation, turn them over to the appropriate Federal agency to deal with that violation. There is no way that violates supremacy.

bagoh20 said...

"Why pick this fight? Is it close to his heart?"

When watching what this administration picks to fight about, you can clearly hear voices of the activists on the left. Not on everything, but the President jumps on just enough to keep them from going off the reservation.

I didn't get this impression from W. It wouldn't have helped since the mood of the country was not ready for a strong conservative and he wasn't one anyway.

Times have changed. The activism is on the right now and this President is out of touch. Not that he has a choice. He was never in the least moderate, except for those wanting to be fooled. He knows on which side his bread is buttered, but it has fallen buttered side down this year.

A.W. said...

Mick

your idiot birther rants have NOTHING to do with this case at all.

Big Mike said...

@garage, I shut down the computer last night before your 10:12 post.

I still regard your discussion of polling data to be orthogonal to the question of equal enforcement of the law. Your remarks suggest that Republicans should quietly go along Holder's DOJ for fear of losing votes among a particular ethnic group. That's the sort of calculation I've come to expect from a Democrat, but that should sort of calculation is repulsive. People need to stand equal before the law, or there is no law.

And as for the millenials, they may very well grow up and vote for sanity. Heck, I voted for Carter when I was their age -- and after witnessing the devastation of his economic policies I've never voted for another Democrat for president, and after Obama I probably never will.

Hagar said...

Pogo has it right.

Plus this. I recently was pulled over for speeding, and the first thing the cop asked me for was proof of citizenship, i.e. driver's license and proof of insurance.
Now, "illegal aliens" cannot show these documents, so then - according to the Obama Democrats - the cops must just let them go?
Doesn't this discriminate against citizens?

Pogo said...

"Mick
your idiot birther rants have NOTHING to do with this case at all.
"


I would copy this and save it for later.
It can be applied to virtually all of his posts.

c3 said...

As an AZ resident,a centrist and someone fairly liberal as regards immigration, its been fun reading these comments.

You have a border situation, neglect for years from the 70s onward, worsened horribly by the 8 years of Bush incompetency

Utterly ironic statement given the "last chance" for a comprehensive immigration bill came and went under Bush. Republicans won't touch it now and we now see how mightly the Dems struggle with it.

The wording of the Arizona law was pretty deliberate in tracking federal law. The Feds are forced to argue that the Arizona does not conflict with the Federal LAW, but with the policy of the executive in ENFORCEMENT OF the law

Support it or not, but the writers of the law put a lot of effort into lining the law up with federal statutes. Of course, great irony here that our former Governor who consistently complained that the executive branch (under Bush) was shirking its border responsibilities, is now the "man" in charge of enforcing said policies.

The polls I seen showed Gov Brewer and Gov Perry of Texas in deep trouble since SB1070.
Gosh Garage. At times you seem like someone on the left honestly grappling with issues without a partisan prejudice. At other times, not. Now I see the problem, you're reading the wrong sources. SB 1070 has been an unexpectedly and bountiful gift to Gov. Brewer. She was fairly quiet on the issue as it worked it way thru the AZ legislature. She became the face of the bill when she signed it. And she's been riding it ever since (once she realized how much it helped her) Now you can argue about long term polling issues among hispanic voters but in the short run, gravy.

It is time for the states to begin to consider secession.

Yes, that would certainly help a state on the border with Mexico in its effort to stem illegal immigration. (/sarcasm off)

I dunno but you can ask Bill Mitchell and Pedro Gonzales...those two spring to mind pretty quick...

Mr. House, check the spring in your mind, please.

Obama is trying to cause anarchy.

in spite of what you've read, violent crime is down on the AZ border and throughout the state.

Many of the people garage mentions, "(b)lacks, latinos, unmarried women, professionals, unaffiliated or secular, millennials", abort their kids or only have one or two 'designer' babies.

WTF!!

Finally, I'll just say that the admin response to Arizona efforts to affect immigration have been misguided at best. From initially not meeting with Gov. Brewer, to filing a suit against the employer sanctions law (I thought Dems were against employers taking advantage of cheap labor) to initiating a suit against SB 1070 (when several suits were already in the courts), its been one screwup after another. And with overwhelming support for SB 1070 and similar efforts in AZ, throughout the West and frankly throughout the country, BO has stepped into it, everyone can smell it and he can't scrape off his shoe now.

c3 said...

As an AZ resident,a centrist and someone fairly liberal as regards immigration, its been fun reading these comments.

You have a border situation, neglect for years from the 70s onward, worsened horribly by the 8 years of Bush incompetency

Utterly ironic statement given the "last chance" for a comprehensive immigration bill came and went under Bush. Republicans on't touch it now and we now see how mightly the Dems struggle with it.

The wording of the Arizona law was pretty deliberate in tracking federal law. The Feds are forced to argue that the Arizona does not conflict with the Federal LAW, but with the policy of the executive in ENFORCEMENT OF the law

Support it or not but the writers of the law put a lot of effort into lining the law up with federal statutes. Of course, great irony here that our former Governor who consistently complained that the executive branch (under Bush) was shirking their border responsibilities, is now the "man" in charge of enforcing said policies.

The polls I seen showed Gov Brewer and Gov Perry of Texas in deep trouble since SB1070.
Gosh Garage. At times you seem like someone on the left honestly grappling with issues without a partisan prejudice. At other times, not. Now I see the problem, you're reading the wrong sources. SB 1070 has been an unexpectedly and bountiful gift to Gov. Brewer. She was fairly quiet on the issue as it worked it way thru the AZ legislature. She became the face of the bill when she signed it. And she's been riding it ever since (once she realized how much it help her) Now you can argue about long term polling issues among hispanic voters but in the short run, gravy.

(continued)

c3 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
c3 said...

(several comments coming in a row)


As an AZ resident,a centrist and someone fairly liberal as regards immigration, its been fun reading these comments.

You have a border situation, neglect for years from the 70s onward, worsened horribly by the 8 years of Bush incompetency

Utterly ironic statement given the "last chance" for a comprehensive immigration bill came and went under Bush. Republicans on't touch it now and we now see how mightly the Dems struggle with it.

The wording of the Arizona law was pretty deliberate in tracking federal law. The Feds are forced to argue that the Arizona does not conflict with the Federal LAW, but with the policy of the executive in ENFORCEMENT OF the law

Support it or not but the writers of the law put a lot of effort into lining the law up with federal statutes. Of course, great irony here that our former Governor who consistently complained that the executive branch (under Bush) was shirking their border responsibilities, is now the "man" in charge of enforcing said policies.

c3 said...

The polls I seen showed Gov Brewer and Gov Perry of Texas in deep trouble since SB1070.
Gosh Garage. At times you seem like someone on the left honestly grappling with issues without a partisan prejudice. At other times, not. Now I see the problem, you're reading the wrong sources. SB 1070 has been an unexpectedly and bountiful gift to Gov. Brewer. She was fairly quiet on the issue as it worked it way thru the AZ legislature. She became the face of the bill when she signed it. And she's been riding it ever since (once she realized how much it help her) Now you can argue about long term polling issues among hispanic voters but in the short run, gravy.

(It is time for the states to begin to consider secession.

Yes, that would certainly help as state on the border with Mexico in its effort to stem illegal immigration. (/sarcasm off)

c3 said...

I dunno but you can ask Bill Mitchell and Pedro Gonzales...those two spring to mind pretty quick...

Mr. House, check the spring in your mind, please.

Obama is trying to cause anarchy.

in spite of what you've read violent crime is down on the AZ border and throughout the state.

Many of the people garage mentions, "(b)lacks, latinos, unmarried women, professionals, unaffiliated or secular, millennials", abort their kids or only have one or two 'designer' babies.

WTF!!

Finally, I'll just say that the admin response to Arizona efforts to affect immigration have been misguided at best. From initially not meeting with Gov. Brewer, to filing a suit against the employer sanctions law (I thought Dems were against employers taking advantage of cheap labor) to initiating a suit against SB 1070 (when several suits were already in the courts), its been one screwup after another. And with overwhelming support for SB 1070 and similar efforts in AZ, throughout the West and frankly throughout the country, BO has stepped into it, everyone can smell it and he can't scrape off his shoe now.

countercultureconservative said...

Libs ferociously defend the Federal government’s authority over immigration law if Arizona attempts to enforce those Federal laws, but are considerably less constitutionally-minded when so-called sanctuary cities defy Federal immigration law. No Federal lawsuits from the Democrats in Washington will be forthcoming in cases like that. Funny how that works.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@garage, do I understand your post at 6:20 to mean that you are okay with non-enforcement of the current immigration law because some large block of voters takes umbrage at its enforcement?

By that logic, garage would be just fine with re-instituting segregation in the former Confederate States.

garage mahal said...

I still regard your discussion of polling data to be orthogonal to the question of equal enforcement of the law. Your remarks suggest that Republicans should quietly go along Holder's DOJ for fear of losing votes among a particular ethnic group

No, just that shouting about illegals constantly doesn't accomplish anything, and surely hurts politically. Latino citizens who can legally vote are a huge and growing demographic, I'm not sure what the GOP says to them at this point. Deportations are way up in 2009-2010, what is it you think Holder is up to here again?

A.W. said...

c3

why the multiple postings? delete a few, please.

SDN said...

I almost hope that AZ loses this case, because the result should be the states saying, "OK, let's apply that reasoning to a host of Federal laws the states won't enforce: gun laws, EPA regs, the new healthcare mandate.... "

Good times.

Hagar said...

The assumption that the established Hispanic population will identify with and sympathize with the "illegals" is likely to backfire on the Democrats. They may not be able to bring themselves to actually vote Republican - there are still the issues of the great land grant swindles and 150 years of discriminatory practices, etc., to forget - but many may well decide to sit this one out.

c3 said...

why the multiple postings? delete a few, please..

AW, hopefully you mean the first duplicate (now gone).


Google Chrome (or was it Blogger?) wouldn't let me put the whole thing in one post.

former law student said...

The AZ law simply says that LEOs are to ascertain whether a person already being detained for some other reason is in violation of the supreme law as made by Congress, and if they are found to be in violation, turn them over to the appropriate Federal agency to deal with that violation. There is no way that violates supremacy.

Hassling foreign nationals just for being foreign nationals can only be done under the authority of the federal government, because of the Supremacy Clause, the Naturalization Clause, etc.

Plus this. I recently was pulled over for speeding, and the first thing the cop asked me for was proof of citizenship, i.e. driver's license and proof of insurance.
Now, "illegal aliens" cannot show these documents, so then - according to the Obama Democrats - the cops must just let them go?
Doesn't this discriminate against citizens?


First of all, should we even be paying attention to comments left by admitted lawbreakers? People who cannot conform their conduct to the law are birds of a feather, differing only in degree, not in kind.

But let us proceed to review the two glaring errors: First, a drivers license is not proof of citizenship, only of residency. If it were proof of citizenship I wouldn't have had to shell out for a passport just to go to Canada.

Second, the police officer was entitled to look at your drivers license because you were violating a driving law. Moreover, you accepted this as part of the deal when you applied for a drivers license, giving up some liberty in exchange for being able to exercise the driving privilege. All people -- immigrants, citizens, or whatever --who drive without a license are subject to the same sanctions.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Second, the police officer was entitled to look at your drivers license because you were violating a driving law

True. And the same goes for illegals who are stopped violating the law. The police are not allowed to stop you for just breathing. You must be in the process of being lawfully stopped or in custody.

THEN they also can be asked for their proof of identity. For "legal" immigrants the federal law requires that they carry their immigration papers until they are citizens...>THEN they also can show their driver's licenses, just like you and me.

Moreover, you accepted this as part of the deal when you applied for a drivers license, giving up some liberty in exchange for being able to exercise the driving privilege. All people -- immigrants, citizens, or whatever --who drive without a license are subject to the same sanctions.

Agreed. And all immigrants should be subject to the laws as well.

Law breakers whether citizens driving without licenses or immigrants without immigration papers...AKA ILLEGAL ALIENS, should be punished.

No exceptions.

Isn't it great when we find common ground?

Hagar said...

Bullshit.

For the cops, driver's license, insurance certificate, and possibly vehicle registration, though I have never been asked to show that, is all the "proof of citizenship" they are going to ask for.
And the Arizona law specifically states that the cops can only ask for that if the "suspect" has already broken some other law, such as a speeding infraction, expired license plates, or whatever.
The cops need the information on these documents to write the ticket, so, if they cannot ask to see these documents, which must be the result of what you are arguing, they cannot write the ticket.
And if you say they can so ask for the documents, but the driver cannot produce them, then what exactly do you propose the cops should do next?

Brian said...

First of all, should we even be paying attention to comments left by admitted lawbreakers? People who cannot conform their conduct to the law are birds of a feather, differing only in degree, not in kind.

You must lead a charmed life, FLS, to have never had an infraction of the law, ever. Never got a speeding ticket, huh? Never got pulled over because your tag had expired, huh? Never had the cops cite you for making too much noise at a party? Or public drunkenness?

Because if anything like that happened, by your standard, we can ignore any and all comments you have ever left.

c3 said...

For an interesting discussion on this see this from Reason

They have the interesting dilemma of being both vocal about loosening tight immigration law AND limiting federal authority and power.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And if you say they can so ask for the documents, but the driver cannot produce them, then what exactly do you propose the cops should do next?

What do they do now?

Teresa in Fort Worth said...

"Why pick this fight? Is it close to his heart?"

No, he's just a child having a temper tantrum....

Teresa in Fort Worth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
former law student said...

dbq -- where I live, illegals ride bikes. On the sidewalks, so they don't have to interact with cops at all. Some take buses.

The guy standing in the shade at Home Depot would -- in the absence of an ordinance prohibiting it -- ordinarily would not give a policeman an excuse to question him.

Hagar said...

Evasive and non-responsive.

Where I live, the illegals need pickups to haul their tools and equipment. Nobody but little children and the fluorescent spandex crowd ride bicycles (but don't get me started on that; it's the most outrageous example I can think of for expending large amounts of general taxpayer funds to placate a vociferous well-to-do, but quite un-deserving, minority!)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The guy standing in the shade at Home Depot would -- in the absence of an ordinance prohibiting it -- ordinarily would not give a policeman an excuse to question him.

That's true. As such, there would be no interaction between him and the law under the Arizona statute.

Your point?

Hagar said...

DBQ takes the words out of my mouth - again.

And if an illegal is riding a bicycle, you are implying that the cops would be entitled to ask him for the documentation necessary to write a ticket for any traffic violations - right?

RebeccaH said...

I sympathize with your confusion. I've failed to understand the many blunders and stupidities of the Obama administration for quite some time now. Suing Arizona is just another one.

Megaera said...

Er, hate to mention this fls, but in just about every municipality I've ever seen, from my long-vanished youth to the present, it has been illegal to ride bicycles on the sidewalk, which is the exclusive province of pedestrians. Police will just about always turn a blind eye to children riding on sidewalks because of the safety factor, but your bike-riding illegals are painting targets on their backs as long as they're not on the hard-surface street. Feel free to check any set of municipal ordinances that may apply: I think you'll find that they interdict sidewalk riding across the board, and for pretty obvious reasons.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Scrivner has it right, that a claim of statutory preemption will fail because the statute was carefully tailored to not facially preempt the federal statutes, but rather work in harmony with them.

This leaves a sort of field preemption. But that seems to be based on the theory that the Executive is using prosecutorial discretion to not enforce the federal laws, and that decision not to prosecute overrules state statutes to the contrary.

But, if that is the argument, one problem I see is that the immigration laws, or, more accurately here, enforcement of such, would be a moving target for states. They may pass a law during one Administration that is perfectly legal because it is in conformity with that Administration's enforcement of immigration laws. The state laws would then become preempted when a subsequent Administration decided not to enforce the immigration laws on the books. And then, what about 2013, when (presumably) a Republican is now in the White House? Would the state law now be un-preempted?

I would suggest that this is one reason that preemption usually operates with federal bills passed into law, and not Executive actions.

jr565 said...

Uh oh, looks like Arizona isn't the only RACIST state that Obama is going to have to sue. Now it's Rhode Island.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2010/07/06/ri_troopers_embrace_firm_immigration_role/

Those damn bigots who hate the Mexicans! Will the bigotry never end? Can we boycott them too? Please please!

Mick said...

A.W. said...
Mick

"your idiot birther rants have NOTHING to do with this case at all."


Of course it does silly. the next step for AZ. is to invalidate "birthright citizenship" for children of illegals ( because the USC guarentees no such thing). "Birthright citizenship" and by extension, the idea that Native born equals Natural Born, eligible to be POTUS, is about to be questioned also. "birthright Citizenship" is one of the main reasons that the illegals keep coming. We need to stop feeding the bears.

former law student said...

Feel free to check any set of municipal ordinances that may apply

My home town does not prohibit riding bicycles on the sidewalk. They must yield to pedestrians however.

former law student said...

Where I live, the illegals need pickups to haul their tools and equipment.

Where I live neither busboys nor day laborers need tools or equipment.

HDHouse said...

@Mick...

Just for giggles, define Natural Born for me.

former law student said...

As such, there would be no interaction between him and the law under the Arizona statute.

All the fellow has to do is fit the description of s suspect in a crime -- Hispanic male 5-4 to 5-8, wearing jeans, or suchlike -- or perhaps be a potential witness to some crime, to lawfully be stopped by the police. All that a policeman would need would be a likely pretext.

c3 said...

the guy standing in the shade at Home Depot would -- in the absence of an ordinance prohibiting it --

Well there's loitering. Ironically in the Valley of the Sun, Tempe, a liberal university town, does a lot of the enforcement to shoo away the druggie panhandlers on Mill.

I don't expect many of the Home Depot guys to disappear. I still see them in there usual spots. Sheriff Joe is the only who's gone after such loiterers (during his periodic, heavily hyped sweeps). I don't see many other police departments bothering. They have other things to do and they can do without the publicity.

Other than all of the political theater I honestly do see things changing much in AZ with SB 1070.

Mick said...

HDHouse said...
"@Mick...

Just for giggles, define Natural Born for me."


Those Born in a country of parents who are it's citizens.

Those born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction of the US and no other foreign power.

Natural Law, Vattel's Law of Nations.

ted409 said...

come spend some time in arizona
were armed to the teeth just to carry on normal daily activities
phoenix the state capitol is second only to mexico city in the number of kidnapings
zeta have already had fire fights all the while wearing uniforms that are exacrt duplicates of the phoenix pd uniforms./
phoenix pd officers are requesting permission to bring their personal assault weapons to work just to meet the level of force they encounter on patrol .
arizona has passed a law that anyone can carry a concealed weapon WITHOUT A PERMIT
and this wingnut thinks its the right thing for feds to run illegal alien laws . if they were we wouldnt be packing so much firepower everywhere we go. i have guns in my car my house just to have a fighting chance
i have a front door security screen with a deadbolt and regular lock then a front door with steel on both sides solid wook door with another dead bolt nd regular door handle and the same on the back door 1 357 magnum pistol and 1 9 millimeters i dont answer my door i look out the window to see who it is before unlocking the
and that jag off in the white house thinks were safe

Revenant said...

All that a policeman would need would be a likely pretext.

Well, we certainly can't have criminals being questioned on likely pretexts. Who knows what that could lead to. Arrests, maybe, or even -- horrors! -- convictions.

Hagar said...

fls,
You and Mick should get together. It might be the beginning of a beautiful friendship!

The Monster said...

@FLS

Hassling foreign nationals just for being foreign nationals can only be done under the authority of the federal government, because of the Supremacy Clause, the Naturalization Clause, etc.

You keep asserting this, but it's not what the constitution actually says. I quoted the Supremacy Clause verbatim. It doesn't say that state/local authorities are not allowed to investigate whether someone is in violation of US law and turn that person over to the Federal authorities. It simply states that the laws Constitutionally enacted by Congress are supreme.

Today, President Obama is visiting Kansas City. MO state troopers, KCMO police, etc. will no doubt be working security in addition to Secret Service and other Federal agents. Suppose, God forbid, that somehow someone is able to get a gun past the perimeter security, and appears about to use it in an assassination attempt. By your logic, the state/local cops would have to stand idly by, since hassling a potential Presidential assassin can only be done under the authority of the Federal government. Do you really want to establish that standard for the Supremacy Clause?

sonicfrog said...

OK. I'm way late to this party.

Even though Arizona may only want to take responsibility for its its own problem, it can't do that without referring the cases to the federal government and straining and unbalancing federal resources.

This is ironic. Back in the early 90's, Calif Gov Pete Wilson tried to sue the Federal Govt over unfunded mandates, saying that it was unfair for the Fed to enforce a mandate on the state without paying for it, thus straining state resources. The state lost. And the case concerned... drum roll please... illegal immigration!

HDHouse said...

Mick said...
"Those Born in a country of parents who are it's citizens.

Those born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction of the US and no other foreign power."

some more questions Mick:

1. of parents?? that means BOTH parents have to be US citizens? So wife A marries guy B and he is from England...his kids can't or can be citizens? by birth? or naturalization process?

2. Only those born here and not subject to a foreign power...etc. (paraphrased)

So then the other country's right of ownership of the citizen supercedes our law and constitution...Mexico for instance lays claim to a child born here ..

Just trying to be clear if that is what you mean.

The Monster said...

A marries guy B and he is from England...his kids can't or can be citizens? by birth? or naturalization process?

Those kids have the right to claim citizenship in either the US or UK when they reach adulthood. In the meantime, they are Schroedinger's Citizens. And there is plenty of evidence to warrant interpreting the Constitution to exclude them from POTUS.


So then the other country's right of ownership of the citizen supercedes our law and constitution...

No, because our Constitution explicitly qualifies the statement as "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That isn't "superseding" it; it's FOLLOWING it. The intent of the amendment was to recognize the citizenship of the freed slaves, not to grant it to the children of, say, ambassadors, consuls, or other foreigners physically within our borders, but who never subjected themselves to US jurisdiction.

Ian said...

Much as I agree with the prevailing point of view expressed in these comments, I fear that precedent may be on the side of the federal government.

"The supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution… and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court."

From Hines v. Davidowitz, a Supreme Court decision that struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring aliens to register with the state and carry an ID card.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

From Hines v. Davidowitz, a Supreme Court decision that struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring aliens to register with the state and carry an ID card.

However, the State of Arizona isn't requiring anyone to do anything that isn't already required by Federal Law.

The Arizona law is allowing law enforcement officers while in the course of their duties to inquire about the legal status of the person. The legal status as defined by existing Federal laws and if found to be out of compliance with that existing law, they are authorized to turn the person over to the Federal authorities according to the existing immigration laws.

Arizona is not adding anything new to the Federal law AND they are not processing Federal laws.

Mick said...

HDHouse said,

some more questions Mick:

1. of parents?? that means BOTH parents have to be US citizens? So wife A marries guy B and he is from England...his kids can't or can be citizens? by birth? or naturalization process?

2. Only those born here and not subject to a foreign power...etc. (paraphrased)

So then the other country's right of ownership of the citizen supercedes our law and constitution...Mexico for instance lays claim to a child born here ..

Just trying to be clear if that is what you mean.


If wife A is a US Citizen and Husband B is British, then their child has dual allegiance at birth. At the age of majority the child could be naturalized US Citizen by election (not by oath) basically by residence in the US. That child could also claim British citizenship at majority by residence or other affirmations like receiving a British passport (as Obama may very well of done in order to travel to Pakisan, a former British Commonwealth, so why do we not get to see his passport?).

I think you are confusing Natural Born Citizenship with citizenship. Natural Born Citizenship is a cuircumstance of birth in Natural Law, where the child is born solely subject to the jurisdiction of the birth nation (because both parents are citizens). Natural Born Citizenship is the requirement, not US Citizen.
In the child's minority the jurisdiction of the child goes through the parent first and then the nation of the parent's citizenship. Possession by territory is how the law is applied with regard to that child if born with dual nationality. That child would be naturalized automatically if Father (B) was naturalized a US Citizen. If the father didn't naturalize and took the child to live in his home country, that child would have to abide by any military requirements, etc of the father's country (see Perkins v. Elg (1934)).

By the law of nations (A1S8C10), and natural law this is how citizenships are determined and meshed. Just like we claim that children of 1 US Citizen parent living abroad can receive birthright citizenship (not Natural Born Citizenship), so can other country's whose citizens have birth in our territory. If 2 Mexican Citizens (not American) give birth in the US, that child, by a correct reading of the 14th Amendment, is not subject to the jurisdiction, and protection of the US. The child may become naturalized by the parent's naturalization, or by election if the parents become legal residents, or naturalization by oath at the age of majority. Remember jurisdiction of a minor goes through the parent first. If the arents traveled outside of this country, the US would have no claim of protection, since they would travel on a Mexican passport.
Carefully read Perkins v. Elg, as it discusses Naturalied Citizens, American Citizens, and the circumstance of Natural Born Citizenship. If you look at US Code, dual citizenship is strongly dicouraged in very literal terms.

Mick said...

The Monster said,

"Those kids have the right to claim citizenship in either the US or UK when they reach adulthood. In the meantime, they are Schroedinger's Citizens. And there is plenty of evidence to warrant interpreting the Constitution to exclude them from POTUS."


Give that Monster a cigar. By the way, if the father were to naturalize as a US Citizen BEFORE the birth of that child in the US, that child would then be a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS.
Natural Born Citizens are the most naturally occuring citizen, and need no statute (including the 14th Amendment) to determine their citizenship. Get it?
The framers wanted to make sure that The CIC of the Armed Forces was born solely within the jurisdiction of the US from birth, to guarentee the highest probability of allegiance and attachment to country. Foreign influence in the 2 highest offices was to be avoided at all cost.

Paulina said...

Since Pres Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986 there have been 15 years of Republican and 8 years of Democratic administrations that have done nothing about illegal immigration. So why, after 18 months, is it all Obama's fault?

That being said, let's look at another point: What should be the response of the US Gvt if Kansas decided to write Nuclear weapons treaties with Russia? They should sue, as this would be unconstitutional under the supremacy clause. What Arizona has done is EXACTLY the same thing.

One more thing: everyone is touting this bill as a way to 'enforce the border". Please, someone, explain to us all how this law in any way stops illegals from crossing the border.