Arizona cannot begin enforcing key parts of last year’s immigration law.
In a split decision Monday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded there was sufficient evidence to believe that provisions of SB 1070 are an unconstitutional infringement on the exclusive power of the federal government to regulate immigration. Judge Richard Paez, writing for the majority, also said such a conclusion is supported by ``the threat of 50 states layering their own immigration enforcement rules on top of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.’’
They also said U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton was correct in concluding that letting Arizona enforce the law while its legality is being challenged would cause harm to the interests of the United States. Paez noted that argument was not only advanced by the Obama administration, which is challenging the law, but also by officials from more than a half dozen foreign governments.
That is an important conclusion: Courts must weigh the ``balance of hardships’’ that each side would face when enjoining enforcement of a law while its legality is debated.
But the majority’s conclusion drew derision from Judge Carlos Bea. While agreeing much of the Arizona law probably is unconstitutional, he said there is no reason that states cannot, in some circumstances, help enforce federal laws.
And Bea specifically brushed aside the concerns of Mexico and other countries.
``A foreign nation may not cause a state law to be pre-empted simply by complaining about the law’s effects on foreign relations generally,’’ he wrote. ``We do not grant other nations’ foreign ministries a ‘heckler’s veto.’ “
Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who crafted the legislation, promised an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
``There has never been a pre-emption against states enforcing these laws,’’ he told Capitol Media Services. But Pearce said the decision is not a surprise.
``We expected -- almost could predict -- such a thing for the liberal makeup of the 9th Circuit, the most overturned court in the nation,’’ he said. But Pearce, who was not permitted to play a role in the defense of the law, also suggested the result might have been different if he had been involved.
Instead, the defense was left pretty much to Gov. Jan Brewer and a team of private attorneys she hired.
``I don’t want to criticize their team,’’ Pearce said. ``But there are certainly things, being the author of this and being engaged in this battle for over 25 years ... arguments I thought should have been made.’’
That won’t occur again: Bolton earlier this month gave Pearce permission to be part of the defense in the future.
Brewer, in a prepared statement, said she remains ``steadfast in my belief that Arizona and other states have a sovereign right and obligation to protect their citizens and enforce immigration law in accordance with federal statute.’’
Monday’s ruling bars enforcement of several sections of the law, including:
• Requiring a police officer to make a reasonable attempt to check the immigration status of those they have stopped.
• Forbidding police from releasing anyone they have arrested until that person’s immigration status is determined.
• Making it a violation of Arizona law for anyone not a citizen to fail to carry federally issued documentation.
• Allowing police to make warrantless arrests if there is a belief the person has committed an offense that allows them to be removed from the United States.
• Creating a new state crime for trying to secure work while not a legal resident.
On that last point, Paez noted that Congress chose not to make it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek work. He said that shows it was never the intent of federal lawmakers to let states impose their own harsher penalties.
``How do they know Congress didn’t intend that?’’ Pearce responded.
``They intended for (companies) not to employ these folks,’’ he said. ``So it’s a natural connection, a nexus, for that issue.’’
Paez said there is a role for states in enforcing federal immigration law. But he said it’s not as broad as Pearce contends.
He cited laws that allow states to enter into agreement with federal agencies. But in those cases, Paez wrote, an attorney general must approve each individual state officer who is permitted to enforce that law but which functions each person is permitted to enforce.
Similarly, Paez rejected the state’s argument that it has independent authority to enforce and punish violations of federal immigration registration rules.
Bea, in his dissent, said he saw nothing wrong with the part of the law requiring law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status.
He also suggested his two colleagues who found that section of the statute flawed were playing games with words, even quoting from ``Alice in Wonderland.’’
`` ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things,’ ” Bea wrote.
Technically speaking, Monday’s ruling does not determine the ultimate outcome of the challenge to the law brought by the Obama administration and others. It deals only with whether the law can be enforced while that case makes its way through the legal system.
But the conclusion by the appellate judges that SB 1070 is pre-empted by federal law, unless overturned, will make it next to impossible for Arizona to ever have the challenges overturned.
Monday’s decision could have implications far beyond Arizona. Several other states have enacted or are crafting laws modeled after SB 1070. If the Supreme Court agrees with the 9th Circuit’s conclusions, it likely would slow those other efforts, though it will take years for a full legal review of the law to make it through the legal system.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 1:34 pm on Wed, Apr 13, 2011.
Federal immigration authorities have decided not to take action against seven demonstrators who disclosed they were in the country illegally before they were arrested on charges of blocking downtown Atlanta traffic during a protest last week.
Asked whether her agency planned to deport the protesters, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released a statement saying ICE was not taking any “enforcement actions against the student demonstrators.”
The activists blocked traffic on downtown Atlanta's Courtland Street for about an hour last week as they demonstrated against a ban on illegal immigrants attending some Georgia colleges.
So now it's official. The Obama Administration is refusing to enforce the immigration law even when the illegals throw it in our faces. An abi says we should pressure the feds to do something? When we get an administration that believes in the rule of law, we wont have to pressure them cause they will have already done the job.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 1:24 pm on Wed, Apr 13, 2011.
The truth is the 9th Circuit relied heavily on the opposition of foreign governments in upholding the injunction on two of the four elements The Mexican heckler vote trick. Works every time with the 9th, the court that SCOTUS overturned 90% percent off the time. Makes you wonder why the 9th even exists.
AmericanPatriot posted at 11:29 am on Wed, Apr 13, 2011.
"The 9th circuit is the LARGEST circuit with the most judges so it only makes sense that the majority of the cases that get overturned by the SCOTUS come from this court. "
Almost 90% of the 9th's decisions get overturned by SCOTUS.
abimopectore posted at 10:25 am on Wed, Apr 13, 2011.
I see the legal eagles are out in force with more misconceptions than meet the eye.
"The dissent written by Judge Carlos Bea of the three-judge panel is much better."
However, it wasn't the one that won. Not all the opinions in a case have the same legal force. The most significant is a majority opinion, in which a majority of the members of the court agree both with the reasoning and with the holding. A majority opinion has the most conclusive precedential value of any opinion. Conversely, a dissenting opinion may be written by a judge or judges who disagree with the decision of the court. Neither a concurrence nor a dissent has precedential value. In other words, Judge Bea wrote in an opinion but it carries no legal weight and only a minimal reception. In other words, we heard the judge out. But that wouldn't matter to you because you're only listening to what rings true to the legal dissonance that clutters your brain. If SCOTUS takes this appeal, which I doubt because I believe they'll want to wait until the case matures, however you never know since Georgia has now passed something similar, they will be responding to the majority opinion ONLY.
As for overturning opinions by SCOTUS, well, it makes logical and factual sense to reason that they ONLY take cases that they consider need to be looked at, in other words, cases that will probably get overturned, not necessarily affirmed. The 9th circuit is the LARGEST circuit with the most judges so it only makes sense that the majority of the cases that get overturned by the SCOTUS come from this court. This is not a statement about faulty legal reasoning as much as you would like to believe this than a statement about mathematical probability and facts. It will most likely happen this way most of the time because it's the BIGGEST court with the MOST cases. Take a course on probability, it may enlighten you into the reasons why.
If you guys really were interested in the legal reasoning you would see the case law the majority opinion cites in defense of its legal reasoning, because this is where the case will be fought. But instead you choose to cite what carries no weight and in the end means nothing.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 9:22 am on Wed, Apr 13, 2011.
We all knew the litigation over Arizona’s law, which requires police officers to check on the immigration status of individuals they have arrested or detained for some other violation if the officers have a reasonable suspicion the individuals are in the country illegally, would end up in the Supreme Court. That Court overturns almost 90% of the Ninth Circuit’s opinions and one can almost always expect the Ninth Circuit to get the law wrong.
AmericanPatriot posted at 9:18 am on Wed, Apr 13, 2011.
Judge Bea also undermines the concurrence written by Judge John T. Noonan. Noonan’s opinion is that the Arizona statute is incompatible with “federal foreign policy.” But as Bea points out, the majority fails to identify a foreign relation policy established by Congress with which the Arizona law conflicts. In a seeming reference to the unprecedented filing of a brief in the case by Mexico, Bea says that “A foreign nation may not cause a state law to be preempted simply by complaining about the law’s effect on foreign relations generally. We do not grant other nation’s foreign ministries a ‘heckler’s veto.’”
The creative nature of the majority’s opinion is also emphasized by Bea when he points out that the majority’s analysis of the Arizona provision that allows the arrest of individuals who are removable for violation of federal immigration law “will come as a surprise to all parties involved in this case.” That analysis apparently “ignores the contentions in the filings before the district court, the district court’s rationale, the briefs filed in this court, and what was said by the well prepared counsel, questioned at our oral arguments.” In fact, those arguments were carefully avoided by the United States because the analysis “conflicts with the present policy of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.”
This badly-reasoned majority opinion written by a Clinton-appointee is typical. What will follow is either a request for an en banc review by the entire Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court. That High Court will eventually make the ultimate decision in what may no doubt turn out to be the most important case on the enforcement of our immigration laws in a generation.
AmericanPatriot posted at 9:11 am on Wed, Apr 13, 2011.
That was a long winded piece a BS. The dissent written by Judge Carlos Bea of the three-judge panel is much better. He points out the numerous fallacies and mistakes made by the two judges in the majority. As Bea emphasizes, “Congress has provided important roles for state and local officials to play in the enforcement of federal immigration law.” This includes a mandate contained in 8 U.S.C. §1373(c) that the federal government respond to all inquiries from federal, state or local officials about the immigration status “of any individual.” Further, no agreement with the federal government is necessary for states “to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. §1357(g)(10)(B). The idea that Arizona’s law is preempted simply makes no sense according to Judge Bea when these and other provisions of federal immigration law clearly show that Congress intended “that state officials should assist federal officials” in the enforcement of those laws. So basically a state can and should be allowed to enforce the federal laws concerning immigration as long as the states don't make laws regulating immigration which Arizona did not do. Yours and the 9th's opinion just doesn't hold any water and is just a way to continue not enforcing the immigration laws enacted by congress at the will of the people of the United States of America. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. If Brewer decides to appeal to the entire 9th or to the US supreme court I fully expect Arizona law will be fully enected.
abimopectore posted at 9:43 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
NothingButTheTruth,
I'm going to oblige you only this once because the fact that you're asking me to do this clearly demonstrates that you've not read the majority opinion carefully otherwise you'd know what I'm talking about.
To make it clear, the appellate panel made an argument(s) stating that they felt the federal government's case would most likely win over the state of Arizona based on their legal reasoning and hence they upheld Judge Bolton's injunction. The trial still remains to happen and that case is still assigned to Judge's Bolton's court room which now that the appellate panel has ruled will most likely go forward.
Here are the following snippets of the opinion where it details the panel's insight into the federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law and enforcement. You should read the whole opinion to fill in the blanks:
page number 4819:
In subsection (g)(3), Congress explicitly required that in enforcing federal immigration law, state and local officers “shall” be directed by the Attorney General**. This mandate "forecloses" any argument that state or local officers can enforce federal immigration law as directed by a mandatory state law.
** Attorney General here, meaning the Attorney General of the United States.
If you continue to read that paragraph, you'll see that it states that it doesn't mean that state law enforcement officers should feel that "Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement . . . in order for any officer or employee of a State . . . (A) to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual"
Nevertheless, the court finds later that "Subsection (g)(10) does not operate as a broad alternative grant of authority for state officers to systematically enforce the INA outside of the restrictions set forth in subsections (g)(1)-(9)." You should read the rest of the paragraph where it finally states at the end, "In sum, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) demonstrates that Congress intended for state officers to systematically aid in immigration enforcement only under the close supervision of the Attorney General."
Furthermore, later, "We agree that § 1373(c) demonstrates that Congress con- templated state assistance in the identification of undocumented immigrants.10 We add, however, that Congress contemplated this assistance within the boundaries established in § 1357(g), not in a manner dictated by a state law that furthers a state immigration policy."
page 4824:
"By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government’s authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement, turning Arizona officers into state-directed DHS agents. As a result, Section 2(B) interferes with Congress’ delegation of discretion to the Executive branch in enforcing the INA."
page 4825:
"In light of the above, S.B. 1070 Section 2(B) “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” as expressed in the aforementioned INA provisions. Hines, 312 U.S. at 67. The law subverts Congress’ intent that systematic state immigration enforcement will occur under the direction and close supervision of the Attorney General. Furthermore, the mandatory nature of Section 2(B)’s immigration status checks is inconsistent with the discretion Congress vested in the Attorney General to supervise and direct State officers in their immigration work according to federally-determined priorities. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(3)."
page 4829:
"In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the United States has met its burden to show that there is likely no set of circumstances under which S.B. 1070 Section 2(B) would be valid, and it is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding the same."
page 4828:
"Finally, the threat of 50 states layering their own immigration enforcement rules on top of the INA also weighs in favor of preemption. In Wis. Dep’t of Indus., Labor and Human Relations v. Gould Inc., 475 U.S. 282, 288 (1986), where the Court found conflict preemption, the Court explained that “[e]ach additional [state] statute incrementally diminishes the [agency’s] control over enforcement of the [federal statute] and thus further detracts from the integrated scheme of regulation created by Congress.”
page 4830:
"Arizona argues that Section 3 is not preempted because Congress has “invited states to reinforce federal alien classifications.” Attempting to support this argument, Arizona cites INA sections outside the registration scheme where Congress has expressly indicated how and under what conditions states should help the federal government in immigration regulation. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1621-25, 1324a(h)(2). The sections Arizona cites authorize states to limit certain immigrants’ eligibility for benefits and to impose sanctions on employers who employ unauthorized immigrants. We are not persuaded by Arizona’s argument. An authorization from one section does not—without more—carry over to other sections. Nothing in the text of the INA’s registration provisions indicates that Congress intended for states to participate in the enforcement or punishment of federal immigration registration rules."
page 4842 (you should read the previous paragraphs as well):
"Thus, Section 6 significantly expands the circumstances in which Congress has allowed state and local officers to arrest immigrants. Federal law does not allow these officers to conduct warrantless arrests based on probable cause of civil removability, but Section 6 does. Therefore, Section 6 interferes with the carefully calibrated scheme of immigration enforcement that Congress has adopted, and it appears to be preempted. Arizona suggests, however, that it has the inherent authority to enforce federal civil removability without federal authorization, and therefore that the United States will not ultimately prevail on the merits. We do not agree. Contrary to the State’s view, we simply are not persuaded that Arizona has the authority to unilaterally transform state and local law enforcement officers into a state-controlled DHS force to carry out its declared policy of attrition."
page 4848:
"In sum, we are not persuaded that Arizona has the inherent authority to enforce the civil provisions of federal immigration law. Therefore, Arizona must be federally- authorized to conduct such enforcement. Congress has created a comprehensive and carefully calibrated scheme—and has authorized the Executive to promulgate extensive regulations —for adjudicating and enforcing civil removability. S.B. 1070 Section 6 exceeds the scope of federal authorization for Arizona’s state and local officers to enforce the civil provisions of federal immigration law. Section 6 interferes with the federal government’s prerogative to make removability determinations and set priorities with regard to the enforcement of civil immigration laws. Accordingly, Section 6 stands as an obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress."
There's is much more but the examples above clearly affirm that Arizona's state law is in conflict with federal law, hence, the state as it currently stands cannot create immigration laws that the federal government has already created; and if it is to enforce them, it has to do this in line with what the federal government policy is. The trial, of course, will determine the final outcome, but the appellate court is betting that the federal government will prevail over the state of Arizona.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 8:37 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
You can find it here if you don't have a copy.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/04/11/10-16645.pdf
NothingButTheTruth posted at 8:35 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
Alright abi, you did state that 9th ruling stated that states cannot enforce federal law. Here is what you stated:
"So stop saying this lie that states cannot enforce federal law. It's plain BS and you know it."
I didn't state this. Read the opinion. The judges did.
You said above that you didn't state that states cannot enforce federal law, and that the judges did, so why don't you prove it by copy and posting it here now?
abimopectore posted at 8:26 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
AmericanPatriot,
Read the opinion or better yet, have someone who's competent read it and explain it to you and you'll find what you're asking for because it will explain HOW AND WHEN state's are to enforce immigration laws. It's all there for your leisurely reading.
abimopectore posted at 8:05 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
"Are you as daft as the 9th is?"
You are no lawyer nor a judge and your commentary reflects this ignorance. Your reaction will be the same when SCOTUS throws this law by the wayside. There's a difference in enforcement and creating laws, a distinction that flies by the simple mentality you repeatedly express on this board and on this site everywhere you opine. There are such purviews in these law that make the distinction between what is or is not enforceable. Your commentary clearly makes the case that you are unable to comprehend. This court in its opinion clearly demarcated what these issues were. The distinction is not as simple as you're implying which is why you keep ranting passionately, I will admit, but of course you are intellectually challenged in your arguments because you don't have the capacity to understand legal reasoning. Again, I suggest you ask a friend who's legally competent to explain it to you and maybe if you buy him/her a beer, you could even ask them to read the opinion and explain the details so you can stop making simplistic comparisons that have no bearing on the court opinion. Until you learn legal reasoning, there's no way you're going to understand what the courts say, and you're just going to keep getting heart burn as the future rulings come in.
AmericanPatriot posted at 8:03 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
lol abi thinks the judges ruled that states cannot enforce federal law? Of course states have a sovereign right and obligation to protect their citizens and enforce immigration law in accordance with federal statute. The feds just don't want the immigration laws enforced at all. Hey abi show us where it says the 9th ruled that the states cannot enforce federal laws? Copy paste it here so we can see it for ourselves that the 9th ruled that states cannot enforce federal law in accordance with federal statute. I double dare you. Should be pretty easy since you read it right?
NothingButTheTruth posted at 7:42 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
I don't care what the 9th said. Just use your head and it's obvious they didn't. Of course we enforce federal law. We do it all the time. They don't have any problem when we go after bank robbers do they? Isn't that a federal law and crime? Are you as daft as the 9th is? The only reason they don't want us enforcing immigration law is because they don't want immigration law enforced or are you too simple to understand this very simple distinction? All they want is amnesty. I understand your glee for this ruling and that you are pro illegal immigration, but even you must be smart enough to understand such a simple thing as this. When federal judges tell states that they must not enforce federal laws, it's plain to see the world has gone topsy-turvy.
abimopectore posted at 6:19 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
"So stop saying this lie that states cannot enforce federal law. It's plain BS and you know it."
I didn't state this. Read the opinion. The judges did.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 5:40 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
We aren't regulating immigration by going after illegal aliens in our state so how are we taking away any of those so called federal powers?
NothingButTheTruth posted at 5:38 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
Oh right it's all states fault that the feds are sitting on their hands for decades? Your arguments ring hollow abi. If what you say were true then states couldn't pursue bank robbers or kidnappers cause those are federal laws. Fact is that the feds don't want our help because they choose to not enforce their own federal laws. So stop saying this lie that states cannot enforce federal law. It's plain BS and you know it.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 5:23 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
Kidtamer said
"I cannot get health care, but I have illegal Hispanic neighbors who have AHCCCS for all their kids, food assistance and federally subsidized housing. I pay full mortgage, cannot afford health care and live on disability from the VA. My husband and I are both 100% disabled. Why should we give up benefits we earned for someone who isn't even a citizen of this country? We shouldn't, no one should. There is more to this than just "be patient!"
You've got a right to be angry. More than 50% of these illegals collect some form of government assistance, yet the feds want us to pay for their inaction through higher taxes and program cuts. Then ya hear some fool tell you to be patient, the feds will fix everything. When have the feds ever don't anything except give criminal aliens amnesty? You can be sure that that's all they will ever do about illegal immigration. Be patient and watch how this administration sits on it's hands and does nothing but sue states that try to do something. Anyone who tells you that the federal government will do anything if we all just put pressure on them is not playing with a full deck or has an amnesty agenda.
abimopectore posted at 5:20 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
AmericanPatriot,
You obviously can't see the difference between federal powers and state's rights, or at least from the examples you give, you clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding why the three judges upheld the appeal. It's the federal government's domain to address immigration and ALL THREE judges clearly stated this, including the two conservative jurists. Please read the opinion. The third jurist only disagreed with the other two about whether police could ask for immigration status since the SCOTUS has previously stated this possibility in previous opinions. Judge Bea, in his partial dissent, said he saw nothing wrong with the part of the law requiring law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status. This is the question I believe the SCOTUS will eventually address more clearly in a future ruling. There would be no circles being done if the federal government finally did what it should have done long ago. The circles that are occurring and the unnecessary delay is a result of state laws that get us nowhere.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 5:08 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
abi, why don't you just admit you're an open border illegal immigration advocate? It's so obvious anyone can see it in what you write here. You and I both know it isn't going to happen at the federal level. If it was possible it would have been done a long time ago. The current regimes lawsuit is an obvious sign that they wont ever enforce current immigration law so how do you think they would ever do anything new? To call for action only at the federal level is an obvious subterfuge to hide pro amnesty feelings. You want it done at the federal level because the only way they will get it done is if there is amnesty given to all the illegals here now.
AmericanPatriot posted at 4:56 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
Apparently, Guatemala, Mexico, and abinormal all feel that the criminal illegals might feel persecuted if the socialista 9th allowed sb1070 to be fully implemented. Sure wouldn't want to have any criminals feeling persecuted because we enforced our immigration laws.
If it's all lip service, why would you be so against it being fully implemented abinormal? Only reason they can't deliver is because of people like abinormal who don't want immigration law enforced. Saying it should be done on the federal level is the same as calling for amnesty.
So let me see if I got it right here. If we make laws addressing illegal immigration we're all going in circles cause it's unconstitutional to make laws addressing illegal immigration. Ya I see what you mean about those circles you got there.
abimopectore posted at 4:10 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
Kidtamer,
I live in Arizona. I see it firsthand. It's not about us biting our tongues but actually addressing the issue where it MUST be addressed. If you think the state can handle this issue, you're only kidding yourself. Look at the employer sanction law, what has it accomplished? It's all lip service and the only thing the constituents get is "poorly" written laws that encroach into areas that are legally suspect. The federal government is the only institution empowered to handle this matter, regardless if you believe this or not. All this of being tired of this or that doesn't make a good excuse for writing laws that are NOT going to address the issues head on. The problem is the federal government and their lack of courage to address the issues head on. This is where the pressure needs to be put. All this state interference is just dragging the issue nowhere while politicians get elected for promising what they can't deliver. Just because they say they're tough on illegal immigration doesn't mean they're going to do anything. The voters should by now realize it's just a campaign slogan and that until the federal government gets its act together, we're just going to be running circles around a problem nobody wants to address. As for these laws, they're going to be overturned, just ask most constitutional scholars. The recent article in the newspapers stating the state legislature lack of will to address further illegal immigrant laws should provide a big eye opener for all of you who insist that state laws are the answer. These legislators know very well this is unsustainable and it's only a matter of time before the courts weigh in on the pathetic journey our legislators have put our state through. The country, especially our state, is hurting economically and that's where our state legislators should be putting their efforts instead of laws that don't address the economy.
Kidtamer posted at 3:14 pm on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
abimopectore: "be patient??" I wonder if you live in Arizona? Exactly how long should we bite our tongue and let it get worse and worse? The feds?? Let's see, we have federal reps that refuse to do anything about it, a president that attacked us for trying to defend ourselves and border patrol officers who have a pretty high rate of corruption. Hell, I might take millions to look the other way while kilos come into Az...it is tempting. Especially when we lock them up for doing their job! We are tired of being patient. We are tired of nothing getting done. Don't you think that we have voted for people who say they will help? Don't you think that we have already contacted them all, repeatedly? We are not stupid. We are just tired of this situation. Scottsdale Az is the "kidnap capital of the country," bullets are flying on both sides of the border, people are killed for no reason, property destroyed, tax dollars spent on illegals who have no desire to get legal. Why should they? Then they would have to contribute to the system instead of just draining it. I read this law three times and could find nothing that was so outrageous. I understand the need to wait to implement it until its legality is established. However, I don't understand why it is being questioned at all. We stood by while habeas corpus was taken away, while other constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of speech were ripped away from us...but if we try to defend ourselves from killing, drug dealing and the drain on our economy, we are liberal and unconstitutional! Can't have it both ways, can ya?
We need for the feds to get off their political butts and start thinking up some realistic steps to take to work this out. Either we make it easier for them to get legal, we through them out of the country and/or we pass laws like this one in order to make it a little tougher to get away with being illegal. I cannot get health care, but I have illegal Hispanic neighbors who have AHCCCS for all their kids, food assistance and federally subsidized housing. I pay full mortgage, cannot afford health care and live on disability from the VA. My husband and I are both 100% disabled. Why should we give up benefits we earned for someone who isn't even a citizen of this country? We shouldn't, no one should. There is more to this than just "be patient!"
wdgnas posted at 4:54 am on Tue, Apr 12, 2011.
all this would be irrelevant if they would prosecute the employers of illegal immigrants.
Kidtamer posted at 9:40 pm on Mon, Apr 11, 2011.
Arizona doesn't stand a chance when the president comes out very verbally against our laws. The feds won't do their job, so we decided to do it for them. Where does it say that illegal immigrants have any special rights? Why is it they can challenge the legally approved laws of the state that they have no desire to be a citizen of? Mexico isn't a very nice place to be right now. If we don't find a way to stop the steady stream of illegals coming into our state, it will be exactly the same here. It's already scarey down by the border. Ranchers have had to abandon their homes and have had everything they ever worked for destroyed. What gives illegals the right to get away with all that? Either get legal and contribute to society or get the hell out!!
abimopectore posted at 7:53 pm on Mon, Apr 11, 2011.
Slabside,
I'll spell it out for you since it's apparent you're choosing to read like others into my words whatever is bothering you: "Beautiful what great legal minds we have in our state government!!!!!"
What's pathetic here is legislation that wasn't thought out carefully since it ignores legal precedent all over the place. The legal antics of our legally-deficient state representatives have set the state up for these "strikes" from the judiciary. The way to solve the problem is to light a fire under our federal representatives (i.e., Senators McCain and Kyls, and all our congressional representatives) who are just stalling and not doing what you and others on this board are calling for. The solution is at the federal level and not the state level. The state action is just a distraction for a problem that can ONLY be solved federally. As for this case, we'll all have to be patient until it goes through.
ZOO001 posted at 6:45 pm on Mon, Apr 11, 2011.
Uh...I wouldn't unpack just yet. Incredibly there was one judge in the 9th District judgement that actually had a brain in his head. In the lone dissent vote, the judge pointed out that the U.S. Congress and the Administration have asked the states to assist in the immigration problem ("Secure Communities"). The invasion grew out of control under George W. Filth, and now a nationwide effort is the only possible cure.
It is surreal that federal government's disdain for the rule of law is now flaunted openly. Obama's gangbanger law team was ready to pounce on Arizona just as soon as SB 1070 was signed into law under the ruse "unconstitional" infringement on federal power. The state of Utah has enacted its own "guest worker" program, usurping every federal immigration law in the country, and there will not be even an eye blink by the Obama administration. What more proof does anyone need that the federal government is nothing more than a group of thugs perpetuating and nurishing the invasion from Mexico for payoffs and profits, regardless of who or what is in power?
abimopectore posted at 5:07 pm on Mon, Apr 11, 2011.
Beautiful! Strike 2. The Supreme Court is next and strike 3 is coming up. More than anything, it shows the intellectual legal prowess of our governing leaders. What can one expect? If we took their (i.e., our governing leaders) accumulated legal IQ, it wouldn't break 100. Then of course, they're doing all this for political reasons and not really because something is going to be done. My guess is that the Supreme Court doesn't even hear the appeal and let's it stand so that the legal case before Judge Bolton can proceed naturally. They'll wait until the case matures.
AmericanPatriot posted at 1:09 pm on Mon, Apr 11, 2011.
Once again the 9th circuit court has ruled incorrectly, ignoring the will of the people, and will be overturn as they have been so many times before. Like papa123 says, Brewer will see this through all the way to the supreme court. It is time we sent this ungrateful vermin packing. So many states are getting on the wagon with us that it is inevitable that we will win.
papa123 posted at 12:51 pm on Mon, Apr 11, 2011.
I don't care what the court says. I still back Brewer on this issue. The problem has become so overwhelming that we need to change the law. Brewer will see this through just so it can be done.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 12:44 pm on Mon, Apr 11, 2011.
Your founding fathers cacrobait? I doubt you have a clue what our founding fathers intended. You think they wanted foreign welfare mommies to squat and spit out instant citizens that immediately become parasites on our system? You think they wanted millions of poor, unskilled, uneducated foreigners to steal across our borders to steal American jobs and immediately become parasites on our system? Maybe you do, but I don't think the majority of Americans think so, and you will see in a few years just what we will do about this invasion you delight in. Enjoy your little victory while you can. It wont last long, and the criminals that you love so much will be sent home eventually. I just wish we could do something with American citizens that support this foreign invasion. To me you are all traitors and should be dealt with accordingly.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 12:25 pm on Mon, Apr 11, 2011.
We allowed the amnesty of 1986 because we were assured illegal immigration wouldn't be allowed to happen again. Well you can fool us once but never again. We will continue to fight to rid ourselves of the illegal population all the way to the supreme court. Lets just see how the independents vote in 2012. I'm betting the conservative wing of the republican party, as opposed to the RINO wing, wins big. Once we have taken back our country from this sickening socialista regime that threatens America's very way of life, the illegals will be a thing of the past.
cacrobert posted at 12:15 pm on Mon, Apr 11, 2011.
The SCOTUS will not overturn this ruling, it wont even get a hearing. Its funny that you wingers are pissing your pants yelling Activist Court, Activist Judges because you disagree with the rule of law. SB 1070 violated the rule of law and was judge accordingly. Just because a majority of lawmakers said this is the law does not make it right and was again judged accordingly. The courts are here to protect the minority from Majority tyranny. That is how our founding fathers set this government up.
As for the Tea Party, the American people are tiring of them. Just like they are tiring of Sarah Palin.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 11:54 am on Mon, Apr 11, 2011.
WELL ARIZONA MAY NOT GET ALL OF THE PIE BUT SOME OF THE PIECES ARE STILL THERE.
LET'S SEE WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAYS............THEN GOVERNOR JAN BREWER WILL KNOW WHAT THEY WILL ALLOW THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO PUT INTO ARIZONA STATE LAW TO PROTECT OUR BORDER SINCE....B. HUSSEIN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS WON'T BE HAPPY UNTIL....."NO MEXICAN HAS BEEN LEFT BEHIND SOUTH OF THE BORDER".
THERE ARE MANY TOWNS, CITIES, COUNTIES AND STATES ...WHO HAVE SO FAR HAVE ENACTED ...LAWS SIMILAR TO ...ARIZONA'S SB1070.
THE FIGHT OVER ILLEGAL ALIEN IMMIGRATION HAS HELPED SHAPED THE ...."TEA PARTY MOVEMENT".....AND WAS ONE OF THE REASONS NOT ONLY ARIZONA VOTERS RUSHED TO VOTE THIS PAST NOVEMBER..........BUT AMERICANS ALL ACROSS OUR GREAT NATION......ROSE UP .....AND... SLAYED THE DEMOCRAT/SOCIALIST DRAGON... IN CITY AFTER CITY, COUNTY AFTER COUNTY, STATE AFTER STATE.......AND IN THE HALLS OF THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE TOO.
GOD BLESS SPEAKER ADAMS................GOD BLESS SENATE PRESIDENT PEARCE....GOD BLESS GOVERNOR JAN BREWER..........AND...GOD BLESS MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, HIS STAFF, HIS DEPARTMENT AND HIS DEPUTIES...........THEY HAVE PUT THEMSELVES IN THE ..."ANTI-ILLEGAL ALIEN IMMIGRATION" FIGHT .............SINCE DAY ONE.
ALL OF THE PEOPLE NAMED ARE ............"REAL AMERICAN HEROES".
Brittanicus posted at 11:35 am on Mon, Apr 11, 2011.
FIGHTING THE LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE COURTS WITH THE GROWING TEA PARTY CAUCUS.
In 1986 the Simpson/ Mazzoli bill gave a mass amnesty to every illegal immigrant who settled in America. The need for Guest Workers is one of the most predominant issues allied with the invasion that has taken place in the last thirty years. The Guest Worker has never been obedient with the Dept of Labor regulations since it’s been inundated with fraud. Even after the volume amnesty signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, the opportunists in businesses used their influence to crush the immigration obligations assigned to them. In other words they kept on hiring foreign nationals that was in violation of the law;, the administrations have intentionally overlooked this major problem. The 1986 amnesty allowed the rough figure of 3.5 million, scatter to the four winds leaving the designated farms deserted and the workers joining the main stream work in the cities and communities.
Even the original process was nothing more than a travesty of the "Rule of Law." The numbers of the final immigration tally that was given amnesty was around 6 million, with illegal’s coming out of the woodwork brandishing bogus pre-dated utility bills and fraudulent documents accepted by the (INS) Immigration and Naturalization service; that has become (ICE) Immigration & Customs Service on September 11, 2001. All evidence that an foreigner was in the U.S. for a certain amount of time, or performed a certain number of days of field labor, was abridged to guarantee that all persons could qualify. INS offices were told to accept little more than scribbled copies of handwritten receipts and affidavits from so-called "people" (Not family members) who could attest that the applicant lived or worked for a certain amount of time somewhere in the US. Businesses and their lawyers have colluded with in killing any oversight of the majority of Guest Worker processes that have imported less capable, less skilled into America. Annually without public knowledge at least a million and a half semi-skilled workers (six stealth amnesties) come legally to America, which is a sell out to our own people.
Document mills sprung up countrywide, offering receipts and affidavits to help demonstrate your eligibility for amnesty and eligibility for a green card; this was one of the biggest contradictions to our laws, which should never have happened, nor happen again. Farms and agriculture by law are supposed to provide for the Guest Worker and the family, but instead when sick or injured the burden falls as usual on the taxpayer. For the children of Guest Workers born in the United States they become instant citizens and the American taxpayer only has to read the Pdf file "Illegal Aliens and American Medicine." http://tinyurl.com/o6r27
Even more than Medicare for seniors, Medicaid has become a giant financial anvil around taxpayers’ necks that new citizen children of illegal parents use. Somewhere between 200.000 and 250.000 children of illegal alien parents receive citizenship annually. This is outside the fiscal nightmare of mandatory education that is cramming our classrooms of these children having no conception of English. The neglect of American students is happening nationwide, because teachers are forced to fritter more attention to their learning of non-citizen foreigners. The consequences of that are thousands more teachers must be hired, with means more taxes extracted from us all. This procedure is habitual of dumping illegal alien workers in the emergency rooms, that has become a uncontrollable expenditure, adding to the near 15 Trillion deficit and yet another burden on US taxpayers. We can alway use exceptionally talented workers, but what we don't need is the push of other governments poor and desperate who end up in our welfare lines.
Certainly not something the Liberal press will release to the public at large. Technology today has far surpassed the copy machines and document mills of the late 60's. Any new immigration amnesty which includes Senator Harry Reid's "Dream Act”, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, would be hard to control without state of the art innovations. The 20 million plus who are already illegally here would place America's future in jeopardy, because of the Liberal Democrat agenda or Republicans ravenous need for cheap labor, crushing even more the legitimate lower income US job seeker. Hundreds of thousands of American less educated manual jobs have been displaced by illegal aliens. Not racial prejudice that Liberals cry out continuously, but a genuine need for jobs for Americans born here or legitimate permanent residents. For the two principle parties it’s about votes and profits.
This is where the TEA PARTY of the American people step up to the dais, and no more Club Republican elite or Liberal Progressives using "Political Correctness" tripe to divert the laws of this country. No matter what the majority Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) says or Sen. Reid, the TEA PARTIES influence attributed to the lowering of the debt ceiling by 38 billion dollars. Not enough for sure, but better than nothing at all. Now the TEA PARTY will demand that a new mandated E-Verify becomes a main enforcement tool, followed closely by policing law 287 (g) and Secure Communities. E-Verify would used in audits to detect illegal workers, already working and those about to be hired. With extreme pressure on businesses that try to avoid the law, with chronic penalties of fines, business assets and licensing evoked and prison;
The TEA PARTY is no longer a few loosely unorganized groups as tired, Sen. Harry Reid wheezes-out, but a giant mobilized machine of propagating power. Next to keep the Republican on its tracks is the budget of 2012, beginning with cutting government agencies, stopping the shadow Liberals overspending, not retreating from re-analyzing the unfair treaties of NAFTA and CAFTA for the American consumer and above all else, to enforce all requirement of National Security. Which means the--REAL--fence to protect America from people and drug smuggling? THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S WAR, THAT WE ALL MUST DEFEND AGAINST THE GREED, CORRUPTION IN WASHINGTON AND THE ROT THAT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY FROM WITHIN. Illegal Immigration effects jobs of the lowest paid, taxes, our schools, health care and growing irreversible OVERPOPULATION.
Immigration news: Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) has introduced a bill that would increase border security and strengthen interior enforcement. The Keeping the Pledge on Immigration Act of 2011 (H.R.1274) requires the US Government to deploy national guard troops to the border and includes the CLEAR Act that requires cooperation between the federal government and state and local law agencies in the enforcement of immigration laws. Learn more from NUMBERSUSA. Start calling your federal and local politician to be found in the blue pages of your phone directory and demand they co-sponsor H.R.1274. Don't let illegal aliens spend your taxes anymore?
Immediate Red flag news: The 9th circuit court in the Sanctuary city of San Francisco that is hated appeals court by patriotic Americans, as its overrun by activist judges (Liberal Progressives) has blocked major sections of the strict Arizona illegal immigration law.
ATTN: Rising gas prices are not the main cause of this issue. Speculators are having a great deal to do with insidious problem. We can aid in stopping these incorrigible hikes, by cutting back usage; if not a priority DO NOT DRIVE! My relative in Los Angeles says he cannot afford the $4.11 cents at the pump, so he is joining a group of men driving to work and sharing the ride. He has joined "Netflix" for watching movies, instead of the outrageous price at the box office. He earns good money as a graphic artist, but says with a family of three, he needs to cut down on his driving habits.
NO Copyright, ever! Distribute freely.