July 12, 2010

The NYT says Democratic governors "voiced deep anxiety" about Obama's lawsuit against Arizona.

When the lawsuit was filed, my main question was whether it would serve the political interests of the Democratic Party:
Assuming it's not legally ridiculous, is it politically wise? To make it work legally, won't [the Obama administration] 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?
Now, it seems the Democratic governors are answering my question:
While the weak economy dominated the official agenda at the summer meeting here of the National Governors Association, concern over immigration policy pervaded the closed-door session between Democratic governors and White House officials and simmered throughout the three-day event.
At the Democrats’ meeting on Saturday, some governors bemoaned the timing of the Justice Department lawsuit, according to two governors who spoke anonymously because the discussion was private.

“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs,’ ” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said in an interview. “And all of a sudden we have immigration going on.”

He added, “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”
Did the NYT use the word "anonymously" as some kind of anti-Bredesen joke? He's such a nonentity! Or were there 2 other governors who were ass-cover-y enough to demand anonymity as they breached the privacy understanding, and the NYT mentioned them just before quoting Bredesen to make Bredesen look indiscreet/bold? Or — this is awkward but most likely — were the 2 anonymous governors the ones who revealed that there was a lot of anxiety and simmering at the private meeting, and Bredesen's quote, technically, doesn't refer to the meeting. It's just his direct expression of the anxiety that was also expressed at the meeting.

(The Althouse blog, making reading the New York Times more annoying than it would be if you slogged though it alone. That's how I try to help — by heightening annoyingness. I hope you enjoy the pain.)

Meanwhile:
The lawsuit contends that controlling immigration is a federal responsibility, but polls suggest that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law, or at least the concept of a state having a strong role in immigration enforcement.

Republican governors at the Boston meeting were also critical of the lawsuit, saying it infringed on states’ rights and rallying around [Arizona Governor Jan] Brewer, whose presence spurred a raucous protest around the downtown hotel where the governors gathered.
They had to throw in that "raucous protest," didn't they? Was it, like, one guy? Because I notice there isn't a word about the size of the protest. Yet the polls only "suggest that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law." Why "suggest"? The polls I've seen show strong support for the law. Perhaps even raucous support.
“I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that almost every state in America next January is going to see a bill similar to Arizona’s,” said Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican seeking re-election.

But the unease of Democratic governors, seven of whom are seeking re-election this year, was more striking.

“I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” said Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat who was facing a tough fight for re-election and pulled out of the race earlier this year. “This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.”
Oh, shut up, Bill. The West... get over yourself. The proper term is "some of those states in the middle."
The White House would not directly respond to reports of complaints from some Democratic governors.
Indirectly, however, the answer is, as noted, shut up.

100 comments:

Peter V. Bella said...

The White House does not care what others think. Their attitude is they won. They have all the marbles. They can do and say as they please. Damn the consequences.

The governors are more attuned to the voters than the WH. They know their is fear, anger, and loathing spreading across the land. The WH refuses to listen. That is the problem with putting tyros in charge. They want to be heard but refuse to listen.

As to the NYT, there is nothing you can do to make it more annoying. They do a very good job all by themselves.

HT said...

I support Arizona's efforts to enforce immigration laws. But I did notice that in this particular blog entry there was some tension set up between what the people want and what the lawsuit is about. If we are talking only about the lawsuit, shouldn't we stick to the Constitution and leave polls out of it?

Chase said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chase said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
E Buzz said...

Obama is so dreamy, and professorial!

Chase said...

The New York Times v. the People of the United States

My favorite part of all this is how the York Times finds the Constitution to be what matters here in it's support of Obama on this issue.

And yet the Times never believes or even mentions the importance of the Constitution in the choosing of a new Justice for the Supreme Court.

The Constitution matters to these people, except when it doesn't. The hypocrisy is on the Obama side and their damn-the-rule-of-law, we-do-what-we-feel minions on this one.

Monkeyboy said...

The protest they described was about 400 (including counter-protesters,) and even the organizers called it a dissapointment.

Of course that fact would just upset NYT readers, so its best to leave it out.

vet66 said...

Those of us who live on or near the border are concentrating on identifying middle eastern jihadists among the mexicans.

The vigorousness of the administration's response to SB1070 belies their willful refusal to acknowledge the hazard from open borders. Draw your own conclusion from that.

The Mexican Frontier is a typical scenario for the establishment of al qaeda types as they join forces with the cartels who control the area. Somalia and northern Mexico have a lot in common.

ricpic said...

From a strategic standpoint this probably makes good sense for the Dems, since they are absolutely finished if they can't maintain their overwhelming hold on the Hispanic vote.

EDH said...

They had to throw in that "raucous protest," didn't they? Was it, like, one guy? Because I notice there isn't a word about the size of the protest.

There were an estimated 350 protesters, mostly holding up AnswerCoalition signs.

The ANSWER Coalition, which calls the law “racist” and Brewer “bigoted,” only drew about 350 people to their Saturday protest - not the thousands they had predicted. Many of those that did attend were bused in from out-of-state, organizers reported.

Maguro said...

Jules Crittenden has coverage of the raucus protest here.

Having to bus left-wing protestors into Boston, how embarrassing and pathetic.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

One more example of the administration just being flat-out bad at their jobs. Landslide in 2012, as pissed-off liberal soccer moms vote for feminist Sarah Palin.

Quayle said...

My guess is that Obama believes it is all power politics - that no significant change ever occurred without a fight with existing power bases, but eventually the new power bases will form in the void, and people will get used to it, and the change will stick.

Big Mike said...

Peter Bella has it right. Obama has spent virtually his entire life embedded in a liberal cocoon and he doesn't grasp that there are people who have to live in a reality that he is shielded from through his wealth and connections.

rhhardin said...

I think it was Bob and Ray who had the High Anxiety teaser, followed by a fake commercial and then a huge let-down, and bitter disgust and outrage from the other guy about the fake build-up.

An ancient send-up of the technique.

AJ Lynch said...

Tone deafness is common in occupants of the White House.

Michael said...

The average American is interested in the laws being enforced. It is really not more complicated than that and to suggest xenophobia, racism or stupidity and redneckery as the cause of the Arizona law is to reveal the ill informed, progressive, hand. Americans know if they don't pay their traffic fines or their taxes they will have hell to pay and their lives will be made miserable. To find the government actively supporting a disregard for the laws, forget sovereignty, is maddening.

Bryan C said...

It's nice of the NYT to respect the sanctity of a "private" National Governor's Association meeting held between a bunch of Democratic state Governors and White House officials to discussing federal Justice Department policy. Some pushy sorts of reporters might get huffy about politicizing the process and that sort of thing, but the friendly professionals at the NYT can be trusted to know their place.

downtownlad said...

That's because you only cherry pick your polls.

You still haven't posted a non-Rasmussen poll yet, have you?

downtownlad said...

Oh look - Obama has a net positive approval rating.

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Oops - Ann is not capable of looking at that.

AJ Lynch said...

"Oh look Obama has a net positive approval rating".

Eh I think you are looking at his golf score. Heh.

Scott M said...

Was there an "oh shit" moment when they realized Rhode Island has been doing this for some time? I've not heard anyone supporting the suit explain how the two state laws are different. Please expand on that if you know. I would honestly like to know.

downtownlad said...

And the reason he is supporting the lawsuit is because it is clearly unconstitutional.

The fact that I know that, and our law professor blogger does not, is kind of mind boggling.

And yes, I do know more about the law than Ann Althouse does.

We need to be skeptical of law professors who claim to know more about the law than people who have not been trained in the law. It's just not the case. Those who are not legally trained are more competent to interpret the law than law professors.

Ann Althouse taught me that when she claimed that she knows more about global warming than climatologists who have been studying global warming for 30 years.

downtownlad said...

Ann Althouse taught me that this graph is trending downwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Brilliant!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And the reason he is supporting the lawsuit is because it is clearly unconstitutional

I agree. The lawsuit IS unconstitutiona, as well as being a very stupid political move on the part of Obama.

Also the Federal Government and Obama in particular should be counter sued for violation of the Constitution and violating his oath of office.


"Article IV - The States
Section 4

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.
"

What is happening in Arizona and all border states is nothing less than an invasion and the violence within the states is directly attributable to Obama and Bush's derelection of duty.

c3 said...

Professor;
Oh, shut up, Bill. The West... get over yourself.

I believe the states that have a border with Mexico are in the WEST

former law student said...

What I want to know is when was Gov. Brewer embalmed?

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/07/12/us/GOVERNORS-2.html

This is the scariest thing I've seen in the newspaper for a while.

Basically Obama has to stop Arizona's meddling with international affairs now, before they decide they can declare war on Mexico. Poor Rudy Perpich couldn't keep the Department of Defense from taking his National Guard out of the country -- once in a while the Feds have to slap a governor down.

former law student said...

dbq -- what is the composition of the invasion force? Busboys and day laborers? How heavily are they armed, considering that the private ownership of firearms in Mexico is either banned or tightly controlled?

PatCA said...

Is Glen Beck correct that repealing the 17th amendment would solve a lot of this overreach of the feds?

c3 said...

As an Arizonan who doesn't support SB1070 I would say the lawsuit was/is a big mistake because:
1) unnecessary. Several lawsuits already in the courts. Why not let them percolate through the system first.
2) unpopular. Polls are pretty consistent on that count.
3) On shaky legal grounds (though I'm no lawyer)
4)Politically unwise. You've already got the Hispanic vote and the labor vote. You're losing independents. And it not that independents are for tighter immigration (I don't know what the polls show) but the lawsuit will turn them off (unnecessary and a diversion)

My impression of the Justice Department at this point is one of confusion.

We're for US trials of the 9-11 conspirators but we're not really

We're for border enforcement but only on our terms and those terms are....?

AG Holder has not been a plus for this administration.

(When was the last "good" AG?)

former law student said...

3) On shaky legal grounds (though I'm no lawyer)

The Feds are on bedrock here. The caselaw regarding the treatment of foreign nationals in the US is all on the side of the Federal government. The Constitutional authority derives from the Supremacy Clause and the Naturalization Clause

Mick said...

Take away the wrong idea that anchor babies are "birthright citizens" and a good part of the incentive to come here will be taken away. Those born of foreigners and visitors to the US were never supposed to be citizens according to the 14 Amendment.

Maguro said...

@fls - How heavily are they armed, considering that the private ownership of firearms in Mexico is either banned or tightly controlled?

Pretty heavily armed. Apparently, gun control is just about as effective in Mexico as it is in the US. Big shocker, I know.

Scott M said...

dbq -- what is the composition of the invasion force? Busboys and day laborers? How heavily are they armed, considering that the private ownership of firearms in Mexico is either banned or tightly controlled?

It doesn't matter if it's soldiers, busboys, algae blooms, or infectious diseases. The fed has the responsibility to keep such things out. Even discounting the Constitution, consecutive administrations have violated their oaths by not enforcing the laws already on the books.

Can you please tell me why Rhode Island isn't being sued?

Original Mike said...

@Michael: "The average American is interested in the laws being enforced. It is really not more complicated than that"

Yep. And the average politician couldn't give a rat's ass about anything other than getting reelected.

edutcher said...

Given The Zero's peerless admiration of himself, he really is a fool. This is a fight he didn't need, but he's more concerned with getting his agenda than with the possible suicide of the Democrat Party.

Then, again, why should we get in his way?

vet66 said...

Those of us who live on or near the border are concentrating on identifying middle eastern jihadists among the mexicans.

According to the Border Patrol, they're running about 10%.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

One more example of the administration just being flat-out bad at their jobs. Landslide in 2012, as pissed-off liberal soccer moms vote for feminist Sarah Palin.

No, she'll probably be RNC chair, but there's Brewer, Christie, Bachmann, etc.

downtownlad said...

That's because you only cherry pick your polls.

You still haven't posted a non-Rasmussen poll yet, have you?


Because Rasmussen isn't in the tank, like Gallup.

And the reason he is supporting the lawsuit is because it is clearly unconstitutional.

Like the federal law it mimics?

former law student said...

What I want to know is when was Gov. Brewer embalmed?

You know they're in trouble when they have to go after looks.

Chase said...

Perhaps dtl, fls, and garage can all explain to us here what they don't like about the sovereignty of the United States and why they are so happy with the current state of illegal immigration in the United States.

Is there anything they can think for themselves on with out a Democrat/Soros funded site telling them the talking points of the day?

Anything Obama has done wrong so far, boys?

former law student said...

It doesn't matter if it's soldiers, busboys, algae blooms, or infectious diseases. The fed has the responsibility to keep such things out.

No doubt, but "invasion" covers only the case of an armed enemy force. Examples:

The US invaded Iraq.
The US invaded Afghanistan.

former law student said...

Perhaps dtl, fls, and garage can all explain to us here what they don't like about the sovereignty of the United States

I support the sovereignty of the US, against Arizona's attempted encroachment.

why they are so happy with the current state of illegal immigration in the United States.

Don't want illegals? Don't hire them. The problem began when Reagan granted all the illegals amnesty -- the ones after them figured they'd get a free pass sooner or later, too.

Tightening the border, so far, has just made immigrant smuggling more lucrative and thus more attractive to gangsters, just as our drug laws have made drug smuggling more lucrative and thus more attractive to gangsters. The libertarian solution to each problem is obvious.

Calypso Facto said...

@ Maguro: (from the article) 23,000 casualties since "late 2006"? That's amazing (in a bad way)! It's about 50% higher than all civilian + military casualties in Afghanistan over the same period. I bet there'd be a different attitude towards the problem if the border we shared was with the Afghans and the place was 50% MORE violent than it already is....

@ fls: If the Fed case is "bedrock" there wouldn't be so much speculation surrounding it. While supremacy is well-vetted, the "unequal resource use = anti-preemption" argument is much less so.

Cedarford said...

My sense is Obama is playing with high explosives in terms of the cultural side of the American polity - and doesn't know what he is doing.
Eric Holder is just his butt boy.

The Border situation could become incendiary if:

1. Blacks who lost jobs to 20 million illegals riot as state and municipal services to the poor and unemployed are ended on fiscal ground. WATCH CALIFORNIA!

2. The Cartel Wars that have killed 20,000 in the last 3 years head across the Border.

3. Islamoid terrorists strike and we determine that they are one of six enemy combat teams that walked across Obama's Open Borders.

4. Independents who know their lives are made miserable on small stuff like tax disputes, driving without insurance, paying medical bills, waiting charges or a divorce settlement with no native land to flee back to and evade consequence....just get sick of them being asked to obey all law while illegals can run away from all law and debts if they are fast enough to get back to their lands.

5. Lets add that it REALLY Didn't Look That Good for Black Messiah to be side-by-side with Presidente Calderone denouncing those who wish to have soverign control of our Borders restored from invading Mexicans. On a deep level - this increases suspicions that Obama isn't a real American, but a Leftist Transnationalist.

Scott M said...

Tightening the border, so far, has just made immigrant smuggling more lucrative and thus more attractive to gangsters, just as our drug laws have made drug smuggling more lucrative and thus more attractive to gangsters.

There's a whole slew of things wrong with that analogy, but I'll start with the fact that you can't smuggle people nearly as easily as drugs and leave it at that. Besides, the libertarian answer to this question would be heavily armed people defending their own property with the federal or state government covering federal or state land.

You still haven't told me why the fed isn't suing Rhode Island. I'm very interested to know.

MadisonMan said...

As we heard yesterday in church, you cannot simultaneously say "Help Wanted" and "Keep Away".

Cedarford said...

Lets also say that it is extremely bad for Obama and his DEmocrat down-ticket minions to have all these accumulating cultural doubts.

1. HIs ongoing Harvard Elitism against "those bitter people clinging to their (outmoded) culture, religion, guns".
2. Instantly siding with the black Harvard prof over the cop. That incident lasts in people's minds. A beer didn't do the trick.
3. Finding out Obama's people at DOJ claimed it was impossible for a race other than those "whiteys" to threaten or intimidate. Thus dismissing the voter intimidation case against BLack Panthers. Hearings on that all summer. But I think it is now fairly settled "which side" Obama and Holder are on.
4. Holder still going after military tribunals and championing terrorists rights.
5. Obama using the oil spill as an opportunity to anounce he will try and ram carbon taxes down rural and suburban people's throats. And an opportunity to demand less domesticenergy be made, so we have to buy more from Muslim allies.
6. Obamites now saying a Fucking NASA mission is to "make Muslims feel better about themselves and their great contributions".

You get to a certain point with a charismatic person where you get so sick of them. Failing to deliver. But walking about still full of themselves, still smiling at what a charming, smiling wonderful person everyone must think them to be...walking with swagger and arrogance.

And you also get sick of such a conceited persons devoted followers and minions that perpetuate and enforce the fraud - and wish them gone too. Because without all those Dem Senators and Congressmen backing his plays - and military people respecting him and media covering up for him - his power is gone.

But those wishing him gone better think about what they will offer as a replacement...because no one wanted Jimmy Carter gone with another bumbling, inept Gerry Ford with awful foreign and domestic policies coming back.

No one wants Bushism back. Massive debts, obedience to China, endless eternal wars of nation building, tax cuts only for the rich with Wall Street and Jewish financiers subject only to "self-regulation".

Those who seek replacing the Obamites better come up with something besides more of the things and wars Bush and DeLay championed.

Bush was a failed President. Globalism, "debt doesn't matter", "endless war for neocon's ambitions", supply side voodoo are all failed ideologies. He left Obama with a bigger bag of shit than Jimmy Carter handed off to Reagan. Reagan was up to the job, Obama is not. McCain was not, nor is the brainless bimbo Palin.

Cedarford said...

Lets also say that it is extremely bad for Obama and his DEmocrat down-ticket minions to have all these accumulating cultural doubts.

1. HIs ongoing Harvard Elitism against "those bitter people clinging to their (outmoded) culture, religion, guns".
2. Instantly siding with the black Harvard prof over the cop. That incident lasts in people's minds. A beer didn't do the trick.
3. Finding out Obama's people at DOJ claimed it was impossible for a race other than those "whiteys" to threaten or intimidate. Thus dismissing the voter intimidation case against BLack Panthers. Hearings on that all summer. But I think it is now fairly settled "which side" Obama and Holder are on.
4. Holder still going after military tribunals and championing terrorists rights.
5. Obama using the oil spill as an opportunity to anounce he will try and ram carbon taxes down rural and suburban people's throats. And an opportunity to demand less domesticenergy be made, so we have to buy more from Muslim allies.
6. Obamites now saying a Fucking NASA mission is to "make Muslims feel better about themselves and their great contributions".

You get to a certain point with a charismatic person where you get so sick of them. Failing to deliver. But walking about still full of themselves, still smiling at what a charming, smiling wonderful person everyone must think them to be...walking with swagger and arrogance.

And you also get sick of such a conceited persons devoted followers and minions that perpetuate and enforce the fraud - and wish them gone too. Because without all those Dem Senators and Congressmen backing his plays - and military people respecting him and media covering up for him - his power is gone.

But those wishing him gone better think about what they will offer as a replacement...because no one wanted Jimmy Carter gone with another bumbling, inept Gerry Ford with awful foreign and domestic policies coming back.

No one wants Bushism back. Massive debts, obedience to China, endless eternal wars of nation building, tax cuts only for the rich with Wall Street and Jewish financiers subject only to "self-regulation".

Those who seek replacing the Obamites better come up with something besides more of the things and wars Bush and DeLay championed.

Bush was a failed President. Globalism, "debt doesn't matter", "endless war for neocon's ambitions", supply side voodoo are all failed ideologies. He left Obama with a bigger bag of shit than Jimmy Carter handed off to Reagan. Reagan was up to the job, Obama is not. McCain was not, nor is the brainless bimbo Palin.

EDH said...

My understanding is the AZ law has a severability clause.

So, even if the DoJ's facial challenge on premption grounds is successful (say in striking down the state criminal offense in SB 1070), won't the rest survive and likely be very close to RI statute?

Cedarford said...

MadisonMan said...
As we heard yesterday in church, you cannot simultaneously say "Help Wanted" and "Keep Away".

Yes you can. You can have signs for help wanted. But also say you want help that are not Muslim sleeper agents, child molestors, illegal aliens, or people fired from their last three jobs for stealing from their employers.

Maguro said...

As we heard yesterday in church, you cannot simultaneously say "Help Wanted" and "Keep Away".

Normally when one posts a "Help Wanted" sign, it's not an open invitation for anyone and everyone to invite themselves on to your property and take up residence. Maybe Madison is different in this regard, but I doubt it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

what is the composition of the invasion force? Busboys and day laborers? How heavily are they armed, considering that the private ownership of firearms in Mexico is either banned or tightly controlled?

Comprised of drug cartels, gang members, smugglers etc. They are very very heavily armed.

And of course (/facepalm)making guns illegal completely keeps them from being in the hands of criminals. This is why there is absolutely no crime in Mexico /sarcasm off

Are you completely ignorant or are you just posing as a total retard for the purpose of arguement.

Even IF the invasion was entirely of busboys and gardeners....it is STILL an invasion and a subversion of the economic health of the state.

If you don't think so....just ask a few gardening contractors, roofing contractors, carpentry and plumbing business how well their businesses are faring. While THEY have to pay taxes, buy contracting licenses, carry insurance and pay their LEGAL employees and themselves a living wage....they are competing with a horde of swarming illegals who will work for pennies on the dollar.

Invasion. Whether a military or economic take over of the State...it is still an invasion.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

As we heard yesterday in church, you cannot simultaneously say "Help Wanted" and "Keep Away".

Maybe your church should concentrate on God and keep out of politics. Isn't there supposed to be separation of church and state?

Besides, your church is making a stupid and false statement. You certain can put up a sign that says help wanted and refuse to hire ILLEGAL aliens. It isn't contradictory at all.

edutcher said...

former law student said...

It doesn't matter if it's soldiers, busboys, algae blooms, or infectious diseases. The fed has the responsibility to keep such things out.

No doubt, but "invasion" covers only the case of an armed enemy force. Examples:

The US invaded Iraq.
The US invaded Afghanistan.


Not quite. We invaded A-stan in the same sense we invaded France or the Philippines in 1944, to liberate it from a government imposed upon it. We invaded Iraq in the same sense we invaded Italy, as it was ruled by a government which conspired to make war on the US (and funding terrorist groups put Saddam in that category).

TMink said...

I voted for Bredesen when he ran for Mayor and when he ran twice for Governor because he is sensible on the economy and knows healthcare. I had hopes that the Obama team would pick him to help with needed reform.

Because Bredesen DID reform TennCare, our version of Medicaid, and he made it better. A lot better. It pissed off a lot of the social justice types and kept the state from being bankrupted.

To call Bredesen a nonentity is neither accurate nor wise. Bredesen is a true Democrat, and one of the few I would vote for. If he is being marginalized, they are really in deep fertilizer.

Trey

Big Mike said...

Bush was a failed President.

Well, we'll see.

c3 said...

3) On shaky legal grounds (though I'm no lawyer)

The Feds are on bedrock here. The caselaw regarding the treatment of foreign nationals in the US is all on the side of the Federal government. The Constitutional authority derives from the Supremacy Clause and the Naturalization Clause


So why didn't they go after Rhode Island before this?

On superficial analysis it was either incompetence (we didn't notice) or politics (Rhode Island is a safe blue state so we'll give them a pass)

Big Mike said...

The question before us is not whether Arizona's law is constitutional. There are nine people who work down on 1st Street, NE, in Washington, DC who will eventually decide that issue. The question before us is whether it was in Obama's political interests to file the lawsuit agaisnt Arizona.

Based on this NYT article, the answer is resoundingly negative. But who believes anything in the New York Times?

Seven Machos said...

We need to be skeptical of law professors who claim to know more about the law than people who have not been trained in the law. It's just not the case. Those who are not legally trained are more competent to interpret the law than law professors.

Okay, conservative Moby. That makes sense.

c3 said...

A great case in point of the politics of this for western Dems is Terry Goodard, AZ AG and likely Democratic candidate for Governor.

He was and still is against it and at the same time had an obligation as state AG to defend the state. He was wise to step down from the case and now he's spoken against the federal lawsuit. Its clear the federal lawsuit does him no favors. The feds lawsuit takes those in the AZ who are of mixed opinion regarding SB 1070 and nudges them into the "for column" if only to spite the feds over-reach.

Again, stupid politics especially in a state the only gave favorite son McCain 53% of the vote in '08.

(In march, pre 1070 Goddard was leading Brewer in the polls)

MadisonMan said...

Isn't there supposed to be separation of church and state?

Do you think that living conditions that force people to migrate to try to support their families is a concern for Christians?

former law student said...

If you don't think so....just ask a few gardening contractors, roofing contractors, carpentry and plumbing business how well their businesses are faring. While THEY have to pay taxes, buy contracting licenses, carry insurance and pay their LEGAL employees and themselves a living wage....they are competing with a horde of swarming illegals who will work for pennies on the dollar.


On my block, legal residents working for gardening contractors, roofers, and fence builders have been the exception rather than the rule. The guy in charge is legal, however. If you want someone to grub up some ivy or tear off a roof, you pick the guy who'll work for pennies on the dollar.

Here, though, carpenters are union, and I haven't heard of any illegal immigrant journeyman carpenters. The plumbers we've hired have always been natives, but I can't speak to all plumbers.

jr565 said...

why do all the libs keep ignoring the question as to why Rhode Island isn't being sued?
FLS? Alpha? Downtown lad? And also, if the administration is so big on the locals ceding authority from the feds where are all the lawsuits against any sanctuary city?

former law student said...

Will someone post a link to this Rhode Island law?

Hagar said...

I am not sure that Obama has that much influence with the Justice Department. The White House does not seem to be very connected to the Federal bureaucracy in general, so that each agency seem to be pretty much doing its own thing.

I wonder what color the sky is on Eric Holder's planet?

Paddy O said...

"Do you think that living conditions that force people to migrate to try to support their families is a concern for Christians?"

Yes! Absolutely.

That's why attention, significantly more attention, needs to be paid to Mexico and other countries which force their people to migrate. The emphasis on the US response is distractionary ethics, castigating the actor left with no good response while ignoring the primary causes.

Mexico and all of Latin America are as Christian as the US. If 1/10th of the protests and such were paid to ending the corruption and societal causes that lead to emigration, then there would be a significantly more balanced conversation about US response to whatever illegal immigration remains.

Churches cannot and should not put up with other societies that make their own people leave their homes and families just to find food and work. It is absurd that there is so little discussion about a crumbled societies that sells its own people into servants and criminals.

If Canada was being flooded by US immigrants looking for work, and got overwhelmed by the numbers, who would churches blame? Almost certainly the US government for putting us in that position.

The Churches need to focus on the root of the issue, not the unsatisfying responses of a culture that has no real adequate response to an inherently sin-stained issue. It is absolutely racist and xenophobic to suggest that some countries, some people, are just inherently servants who exist to leave their homes to mow our lawns or wash our dishes.

I think much more of Mexico's potential than that. I think Mexico, and Mexicans, have the ability to be a great nation, to have a strong infrastructure of manufacturing and farming. I don't think that the US draining Mexico of its own people is an acceptable answer, merely so that we can help the powerful and rich in Mexico maintain their lifestyle and frivolities.

The Churches, throughout the world, need to point the finger at the evil men and women who encourage and insist other men and women leave their homes, land, family to serve the laziness of the wealthy.

Scott M said...

I wonder what color the sky is on Eric Holder's planet?

Black, apparently, judging by the DoJ so far.

garage mahal said...

Where are elected Republicans on the national stage on the Black Panther story anyways? Not a peep. And for that matter, why didn't the Bush administration pursue criminal charges against the Black Panther Party?

Hector Owen said...

Paddy O at 12:44, great comment. We used to hear a lot about activist clergy in Latin America, but they were all socialists and agrarian reformers.

former law student said...

If the "Rhode Island law" is this governor's executive order, then I have no problem with it, because it does not intrude on Federal authority. Rather, it recognizes Federal authority in immigration law, in using the Federal EVerify to screen jobseekers, and in applying to have state police deputized to enforce Federal immigration law. From what I have learned from this article, it is a model of respect for federalism.

Carcieri spokeswoman Amy Kempe said that since May 15, 2008, new executive branch hires have been screened through E-Verify to determine their immigration status, and state vendors have begun registering for and using the E-Verify system. She did not have a current figure.

By April, two of four state police detectives selected under the so-called 287(g) ICE partnership program will be deputized with immigration-enforcement authority, said spokesman Capt. David Neill. The two others will then begin their training. Col. Brendan P. Doherty has said the program will focus “on those illegal aliens who are engaged in criminal activity,” and that his department “will not be conducting dragnets.”


http://www.projo.com/news/content/IMMIGRATION_ORDER_03-27-10_2NHT15O_v80.3980066.html

Scott M said...

Rhode Island...sanctuary cities...anyone beating up on AZ care to explain where the lawsuits are against these other locales if the President's DoJ isn't doing this out of political expediency?

Scott M said...

FLS...check out SCOTUS case Muehler v. Mena, which RI used to win a federal appeals court ruling.

former law student said...

Regarding "sanctuary cities": If the issue is that local law enforcement is not checking the immigration status of arrestees, then this is perfectly consonant with federalism. As Printz v. US held, federalism prevents the Federal government from commanding local law enforcement to execute Federal law.

former law student said...

why didn't the Bush administration pursue criminal charges against the Black Panther Party?


The Bush administration had been curled into a fetal ball since about that September, just praying it would all be over soon.

Hagar said...

I am sure the State of Rhode Island is relieved to hear that fls does not have a problem with their statute.

However, how is Arizona's different? All it does is require its state police agencies to enquire into arrestees' immigration status and to turn those who cannot account for themselves over to ICE for processing in accordance with the existing Federal statutes.

How does this infringe on Federal authority?

This fooferaw is a lot of hyper-ventilating to-do over nothing and inspired by nothing more than election-year demagoguery!

former law student said...

At the request of the local cops, an INS officer accompanied them in the case of Muehler v. Mena

Again, the theme of respect for Federal authority over immigration shines through.

Aware that the West Side Locos gang was composed primarily of illegal immigrants, the officers had notified the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that they would be conducting the search, and an INS officer accompanied the officers executing the warrant. During their detention in the garage, an officer asked for each detainee's name, date of birth, place of birth, and immigration status. The INS officer later asked the detainees for their immigration documentation. Mena's status as a permanent resident was confirmed by her papers.

Brian said...

@FLS:
Then how does the AZ law not account for federal supremacy here? It turns over suspects to ICE.

Scott M said...

INS agents do not accompany those state troopers (love the RI state trooper uniform...went through there in 07) out on patrol every day where they're asking immigration status.

former law student said...

All it does

That's not all it does.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

Creating a state crime for failure to carry immigration papers is perhaps the most egregious intrusion on the Federal sphere.

former law student said...

If all the law did was state that local law enforcement must check legal residency status as part of the booking process -- the opposite of "sanctuary city" -- I would have no problem with it either.

gk1 said...

I do get a little worried when I read democrats area waking up to the complete ass beating that awaits this November. I would rather they be completely asleep when their plane goes crashing into the side of a mountain. I think it would have been more jarring this wayfor the surviving dems awaiting their fate in 2012.
So Shhhhh, don't wake the paleoliberals. All is well, all is well!

Hagar said...

fls,

So, your entire opposition to the Arizona law is based on that the Arizona legislature made what is already a felony offense in Federal law also an Arizona misdemeanor in order that their police officers would not appear to be impersonating Federal agents?

Have you read "Catch 22" by Joseph Heller, or seen the movie?

Brian said...

Obama may win here, but it's probably going to be a narrow win. The fine for not having your immigration papers may be overturned, but the sections that specifically allow state police to enquire about immigration status after an arrest or detention for another offense, would hold up, because that's what RI is doing now. And if that's legal, then this is legal.

Now, if there is some issue that it can't be a law passed by the state legislature, but an executive order is OK, then please explain that, if you don't mind (FLS?).

former law student said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maguro said...

Like I said, AZ could have chosen to have their officers deputized by the Feds, as RI did. But AZ went rogue.

Ah, so this fuss is over a relatively trivial process issue. All AG Holder needs to do is to ask the Arizona authorities to fill out the appropriate
"deputizing" paperwork and everyone will be happy.

I'll have to suggest this to the DOJ, it'll save everyone a lot of trouble.

Hagar said...

So, how about Albuquerque? While the Santa Fe city council has re-affirmed Santa Fe's status as a "sanctuary city," which does not appear to be very respectful of Federal authority, Albuquerque's mayor has directed the city police to enquire into all arrestees citizenship status - thus no "racial profiling" - and call ICE to come and pick up all that cannot account for themselves.

And with Bill Richardson for a governor, New Mexico does not have and will not get for at least another 6 months any kind of a statute on this subject.

Anybody know how many municipalities and counties across the country are joining this parade?

Bruce Hayden said...

The Feds are on bedrock here. The caselaw regarding the treatment of foreign nationals in the US is all on the side of the Federal government. The Constitutional authority derives from the Supremacy Clause and the Naturalization Clause.

Except for the small problem that the Arizona law is in accordance with the immigration statutes. It is the Executive that is claiming the conflict.

Preemption almost always involves Acts of Congress. It is clear that Congress can preempt the states. It is much less so that the President can. I don't see field preemption being all that useful here, since that requires that Congress state that the field is preempted, which it has not done. Rather, it has shown a willingness to have the states work with the U.S. government in this area.

The relevant section of the Constitution is Article VI which states in relevant part:

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note that Article VI here mentions the "laws of the United States" and not the personal preferences of the President.

Bruce Hayden said...

So, how about Albuquerque? While the Santa Fe city council has re-affirmed Santa Fe's status as a "sanctuary city," which does not appear to be very respectful of Federal authority, Albuquerque's mayor has directed the city police to enquire into all arrestees citizenship status - thus no "racial profiling" - and call ICE to come and pick up all that cannot account for themselves.

I find this hilarious. Illegals couldn't live in Santa Fe if they wanted to. Most of us couldn't either. It just costs too much. On the other hand, they can, and apparently do, live in Albuquerque in decent numbers.

former law student said...

that the Arizona law is in accordance with the immigration statutes.

No immigration statute authorized states to penalize foreign nationals for not carrying immigration documents -- Arizona is doing that completely on its own. Instead of risking a Federal penalty of $100 and thirty days in jail, the immigrant in AZ also is subject to a state fine of $100 and an additional 20-30 days in jail.

What if AZ decided to print its own money? Would it be OK as long as they matched the look and feel of Federal money exactly?

From the Immigration and Naturalization Act, Section 264, failure to carry immigration documents is a Federal misdemeanor:

(d) Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this Act shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.

(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

traditionalguy said...

Who was that masked stranger? It was Matt Drudge the Lone Reporter of forbidden news.

Hagar said...

And I believe the DoJ's other complaints in their lawsuit is that Arizona is creating a fiscal burden for them by trying to make them enforce the Federal immigration statutes and furthermore is interfering with their Federal policy-making authority, since their policy is not to enforce said statutes!

New defintion of "chutzpah"?

Jason said...

Arizona can prosecute foreign nationals for driving without a license, too. It doesn't cause a foreign policy problem.

former law student said...

Arizona is creating a fiscal burden for them by trying to make them enforce the Federal immigration statutes and furthermore is interfering with their Federal policy-making authority, since their policy is not to enforce said statutes!


Who will be more likely for Sheriff Arpaio's men to catch: Juan the day laborer, Pedro the narcotraficante, or Jesus the coyote? If Arpaio sends ICE 50 busboys a day for processing, how does that help solve the porous border issue?

libhom said...

This blog is racist.

Hagar said...

Who will be more likely for Sheriff Arpaio's men to catch: Juan the day laborer, Pedro the narcotraficante, or Jesus the coyote? If Arpaio sends ICE 50 busboys a day for processing, how does that help solve the porous border issue?

This is in response to what constitutional legal argument?

former law student said...

This is in response to what constitutional legal argument?

Article II, Section 3:

[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

Hines v. Davidowicz
(State's requiring aliens to carry state registration card encroached upon powers constitutionally vested in the Federal government)

"under the circumstances of [a] particular case, [the challenged state law] stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."

Here, Arizona's law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress by eliminating ICE's discretion as to which aliens to pursue. By potentially flooding ICE with aliens with low potential to harm the United States, the state of Arizona eliminates ICE's ability to focus on aliens who are wreaking serious harm.

The Mantis Shrimp said...

libhom said...
This blog is racist.


No, your face is racist.

Please go jump off the cliff, you racist.

------

former law student, go suck Felipe Calderon's Catholic ass!

Revenant said...

Hines v. Davidowicz (State's requiring aliens to carry state registration card encroached upon powers constitutionally vested in the Federal government)

Except the law doesn't require them to carry the ID. Federal law does. The state law requires them to follow the federal law; there is a penalty for violating it.

It is obvious that a state law mandating that a federal law be obeyed does not preempt the federal law. But there's always a lawyer willing to argue any position, no matter how idiotic, so we'll have to wait a little while for the courts to point out the obvious to the Obama Administration.

former law student said...

It is obvious that a state law mandating that a federal law be obeyed does not preempt the federal law.

The state added its own penalties and created its own crime. So if you underpaid your Federal income tax you would be OK with paying penalties and interest to your own state as well as to the Feds?

Arizona could have asked the Feds for permission to enforce Federal immigration law. They chose not to.

Revenant said...

The state added its own penalties and created its own crime.

In order for federal law to be preempted, it must be possible to be in violation of the state law without being in violation of the federal law. Either explain how this can happen under the Arizona law (hint: it can't), or admit you were wrong about federal law being preempted.

So if you underpaid your Federal income tax you would be OK with paying penalties and interest to your own state as well as to the Feds?

Unless there's an "I'm not ok with it" clause in the Constitution that I've previously been unaware of, whether I'm "ok with it" or not isn't relevant to the discussion.

Arizona could have asked the Feds for permission to enforce Federal immigration law. They chose not to.

They don't need to ask. They aren't enforcing federal law; they're enforcing state law, and handing the violators over to the feds in case the feds want to deal with the federal law violations, too.

The Obama Administration can try to make an argument that even though Congress passed immigration laws, Obama would rather ignore them and let criminals go free, and that Arizona's laws make that inconvenient. But Presidents have tried the "I want to ignore the law but they won't let me" tactic before, most recently with the Bush administration and the EPA. It doesn't work.

Hagar said...

fls,

[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

That is all the laws, it is not for the President's men to pick and choose between which and how.

Your arguments do not hold water.

former law student said...

In order for federal law to be preempted, it must be possible to be in violation of the state law without being in violation of the federal law.

Not according to Justice Hugo Black. I can see why you believe you know better, however.

Methadras said...

Hmmm. Deep anxiety. Well, DNC governators, your meager pleas will be heard and unwelcomed. The OREO God of all hasn't any time for you because you are beneath him. Your anxiety is noted, but ultimately ignored. Good bye.

Jesus, if there was a trap door put into the front door of the Oval Office, you guys would be going down it right now.