Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting

[The Dane]

A federal judge on Thursday hears two lawsuits challenging the tough Arizona immigration law, including the one filed by the Obama administration. Here's a look at the law and the seven cases against it.

United States v. State of Arizona (filed July 6). The US brought suit against Arizona, arguing that the state law is preempted by federal law and violates the supremacy clause of the US Constitution. It was scheduled to be heard Thursday.

So what do the tea party's have to say about this? If Arizona is found to be violating the constitution, how bad will it look for them to be in outrage when this law gets struck down by the Federal government (which it will).

You're not going to beat Obama at his own game, constitutional law.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0722/Arizona-immigration-law-101-seven-lawsuits-and-counting

 

[Renae]

So what do the tea party's have to say about this? If Arizona is found to be violating the constitution, how bad will it look for them to be in outrage when this law gets struck down by the Federal government (which it will).

You're not going to beat Obama at his own game, constitutional law.

Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting - CSMonitor.com

Obama, as has been shown here on this forum, using his own words, has very little respect for the Constitution, so it's no surprise that Obama has ordered a lawsuit against Az, and that it's on the flase grounds of claiming the Az law is Unconstitutional is merely more Proof Obama's understanding of the Consitution is highly suspect to say the least.

Az 7, Progreessive entities out to overturn the law 0. That's gonna be the score by the time SCOTUS get's this.

 

[The Dane]

Thanks for all those useful points and factual, logical arguments to back up your sound and well thought out premise.

 

[MaggieD]

From your link:

United States v. State of Arizona (filed July 6). The US brought suit against Arizona, arguing that the state law is preempted by federal law and violates the supremacy clause of the US Constitution. It was scheduled to be heard Thursday.

To 'lil ole Maggie, it sounds like they're on very thin ice here. But that doesn't appear to be the opinion of many legal experts. Why am I not surprised that common sense has absolutely no place in the law?

So, if the Federal government decided to do a piss-poor job of enforcing Federal drug laws or anti-discrimination laws, States are powerless?

 

[Renae]

Thanks for all those useful points and factual, logical arguments to back up your sound and well thought out premise.

As opposed to your stance that Obama is an "expert" on the Constitution, yet his own words and beliefs belie this expertise?

 

[The Dane]

As opposed to your stance that Obama is an "expert" on the Constitution, yet his own words and beliefs belie this expertise?

He was a professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago for 12 years. Yeah, I'd say he's an expert. I don't know how you can just deny reality here. He is a well established expert, you are not.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Obama, as has been shown here on this forum, using his own words, has very little respect for the Constitution...

Can you link me to where this was said or discussed?

 

[BCR]

Obama hasn't show any respect for the constitution??? just like how conservatives completely disregard the constitution when it comes to prayer in school and wanting to thwart the attempts to build a mosque two blocks away from ground zero?

 

[Renae]

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Obama finds himself compelled "to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." But no one disputes that the Constitution "must be read," and applied, "in the context of an ever-changing world." The central question of the last several decades is, rather, whether it is legitimate for judges to alter the Constitution's meaning willy-nilly--in particular, whether judges have unconstrained authority to invent new constitutional rights to suit their views of what changing times require. The cliché invoked by Obama of a "living" Constitution disguises the fact that the entrenchment of leftist policy preferences as constitutional rights deprives the political processes of the very adaptability that Breyer and company pretend to favor. As Scalia has put it, "the reality of the matter is that, generally speaking, devotees of The Living Constitution do not seek to facilitate social change but to prevent it."

And so on for all of Obama's other deceptive rhetoric in his chapter on "Our Constitution" in The Audacity of Hope, including his galling claim to be "left then with Lincoln" in their supposed common understanding of the Constitution. On judicial nominations, Obama brazenly contends that "Democrats used the filibuster sparingly in George Bush's first term: Of the President's two-hundred-plus judicial nominees, only ten were prevented from getting to the floor for an up-or-down vote." What Obama's casting conveniently obscures from the trusting reader is that these filibusters were unprecedented in the history of the Senate. Obama even pretends that it's obvious that Republicans would resort to the filibuster "if the situations were reversed." But the best evidence refutes Obama: There were only four votes on cloture--on proceeding to a final vote on confirmation--on judicial nominations during the Clinton administration. All four were supported by Republican leadership, and none received more than 14 negative votes from Republican senators.

In the end, an examination of Obama's record and rhetoric discloses the stuff he is made of--his own constitution. Beneath the congeniality and charisma lies a leftist partisan who will readily resort to sly deceptions to advance his agenda of liberal judicial activism. Given the likelihood of so many changes in the membership of the Supreme Court over the next eight years, it is particularly important that voters this November recognize the real Obama.

Obama's Constitution | The Weekly Standard

 

[mike2810]

Thanks for all those useful points and factual, logical arguments to back up your sound and well thought out premise.

and what useful points and factual / logical arguments have you provided to back up your stance, other than stating Obama knows Constitutional law? First, did Obama react to 1070 without fully reading the law? Did Holder react before he or his staff fully read the law? I won't second guess the courts, but I would bet Az will survive most if not all rulings by the SC.

 

[Ockham]

He was a professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago for 12 years. Yeah, I'd say he's an expert. I don't know how you can just deny reality here. He is a well established expert, you are not.

He's also a well established idealogue and propagandist... which may be more or less than 12 years but I'll grant you... he's an expert there too.

 

[Crunch]

So what do the tea party's have to say about this? If Arizona is found to be violating the constitution, how bad will it look for them to be in outrage when this law gets struck down by the Federal government (which it will).

You're not going to beat Obama at his own game, constitutional law.

Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting - CSMonitor.com

The DOJ is going to argue that the US government has jurisdiction over immigration.... that is false. That is one of the rights States retain according to the 10th amendment.

 

[mike2810]

He was a professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago for 12 years. Yeah, I'd say he's an expert. I don't know how you can just deny reality here. He is a well established expert, you are not.

So he is and we are not. Would you accept his opinion on any law that he has not read? Seems he called Az misguided before he ever read the law, if he has taken the time to date. Is your viewpoint that Obama is 100% correct that we now don't need courts? We can just ask Obama to "rule".

The courts and most likely the SC will rule on AZ law. So what you say or I say is all opinion. Bottom line, if the Feds want all the responsibilities then they are expected to enforce the federal law when it comes to "illegal" immigration. Then the States would not need to help the Feds.

 

[Crunch]

Obama hasn't show any respect for the constitution??? just like how conservatives completely disregard the constitution when it comes to prayer in school and wanting to thwart the attempts to build a mosque two blocks away from ground zero?

Please show where either of those examples are unconstitutional.

 

[Erod]

So what do the tea party's have to say about this? If Arizona is found to be violating the constitution, how bad will it look for them to be in outrage when this law gets struck down by the Federal government (which it will).

You're not going to beat Obama at his own game, constitutional law.

Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting - CSMonitor.com

You are so firmly planted to Obama's jock, it's comical.

Arizona is within their right to enforce established immigration law. Obama knows it, but he hates the Constitution intensely, and he'll try desperately to help the undocumented Democrats.

 

[texmaster]

So what do the tea party's have to say about this? If Arizona is found to be violating the constitution, how bad will it look for them to be in outrage when this law gets struck down by the Federal government (which it will).

You're not going to beat Obama at his own game, constitutional law.

Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting - CSMonitor.com

Still woefully uninformed I see. Case law supports Arizona in spades.

Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468. 1983: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

"Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens. De Canas, 424 U.S. at 354-55, 96 S.Ct. at 935-36. The plaintiffs' reference to exclusive federal authority over immigration matters thus does not resolve this question. Instead, we must define precisely the challenged state enforcement activity to determine if "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion.

"The City's claim of authority is limited. It asserts only the power to enforce the criminal provisions of the federal immigration laws. There is nothing inherent in that specific enforcement activity that conflicts with federal regulatory interests. Federal and local enforcement have identical purposes--the prevention of the misdemeanor or felony of illegal entry. The subject matter of the regulation thus does not require us to find that state enforcement is preempted."
United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F2nd 1298. 1984: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Footnote 3 in the decision: "A state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations. Moreover, the trooper's question about the green card was reasonable under the circumstances, and thus lawful."

United States v. Vasquez- Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294. 1999: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

"In particular, the United States observes this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law. See Davida v. United States, 422 F.2d 528, 530 (10th Cir.1970); cf. United States v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir.1983) ("inferring, as a matter of state law] that Illinois officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests"); United States v. Swarovski, 557 F.2d 40, 43-49 (2d Cir.1977) (noting generally that there is no overarching federal impediment to arrests by state officers for violations of federal law). In fact, this court has held that state law-enforcement officers have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws."

United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

"We noted just recently that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit "have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws," and that federal law as currently written does nothing "to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws." United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1296, 1299 n.4, 1300 (10th Cir. 1999). Rather, we observed that federal law "evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws." Id. at 1300."

United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

"During the routine stop of a vehicle for speeding, a South Dakota highway patrol officer discovered that Manuel Rodriguez-Arreola, a passenger in the vehicle, was an illegal alien. Rodriguez was detained and later charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (Supp. IV 1998) with being an illegal alien present in the United States after deportation.2 Rodriguez filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing that his status as an illegal alien was discovered through questioning that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court granted Rodriguez's motion to suppress and the government appeals. We reverse....

"The government argues that Trooper Koltz did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Rodriguez. The government contends that the questions posed to Molina concerning his alienage were within the scope of the stop because they were based on a reasonable suspicion by Trooper Koltz.10 The government further contends that even if Trooper Koltz's questions to Molina constituted an unconstitutional search and seizure, the questions only violated Molina's Fourth Amendment rights--a violation that Rodriguez does not have standing to assert. After Molina stated that the passenger in his vehicle did not have a green card, the government argues that Trooper Koltz had reasonable suspicion to ask Rodriguez about his citizenship status. Finally, the government argues that even if Trooper Koltz's questions constituted a Fourth Amendment violation, Rodriguez's identity is not suppressible as a matter of law."

Rodriguez does not have Fourth Amendment rights to assert because he was an illegal alien.

Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93. 2005 United States Supreme Court.

This case I had to look in two places. First, the Ninth Circuit Silly Circus Court of Appeals. It indicated Mena was a legal resident. It didn't state whether that was by green card, American born or otherwise, so I went to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision; here. This case involved a gang related drive by shooting.

"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."

The court reversed the Ninth Circuit that Mena's Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The court also held the officers had the right to question her citizenship status: "Mena’s detention was, under Summers, plainly permissible. [1]An officer's authority to detain incident to a search is categorical; it does not depend on the “quantum of proof justifying detention or the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure.” Id., at 705, n. 19. Thus, Mena’s detention for the duration of the search was reasonable under Summers because a warrant existed to search 1363 Patricia Avenue and she was an occupant of that address at the time of the search."

United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez. 2005: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

"The determination of whether investigative detention beyond the scope of the initial stop is supported by an objectively reasonable suspicion of illegal activity "does not depend upon any one factor but on the totality of the circumstances." Jones, 44 F.3d at 872 (citing United States v. Soto, 988 F.2d 1548, 1555 (10th Cir. 1993). We make this determination "with deference to a trained law enforcement officer's ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious circumstances." United States v. Mendez, 118 F.3d 1426, 1431 (10th Cir. 1997). Here, while the officer was checking Mercado's license and registration, Mercado revealed that he was an illegal alien. Further detention of Mercado was therefore justified, as was the questioning of Dominguez. See United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984) (stating that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations")."

More drug dealers off the streets.

Gray v City of Valley Park. 2008: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

A bit of a convoluted case where the court ruled "federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens."

I'm not a lawyer and I didn't come up with those cases. I found them on a web site for Walter Moore, an attorney with over 25 years experience. While he listed the cases, he didn't provide links, so I went and found most of them so you can see they are real. Not to doubt Moore's posting. Time is an issue for everyone, so I'm trying to help by giving you the links.

And, there is the Estrada case I mentioned in a recent column, which was decided February 10, 2010; United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Another traffic stop by a state trooper. The illegals lost again. Perhaps Ronstadt in all her brilliance also missed that decision.

We don't need another immigration "reform" bill out of Congress. Every time one is signed into law, it opens the flood gates. The laws on the books need to be enforced to the fullest by both the states and ICE. Congress can put together a simple bill calling for a moratorium on all immigration for a period of ten years. It will take that long to clean up the mess caused by the last "reform" bill signed into law by Ronald Reagan.

It will take that long to unclog the courts and clean out the jails:

"Some illegal aliens in the United States have been arrested and incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails, adding to already overcrowded prisons and jails. On April 7, 2007, the US Justice Department issued a report on criminal aliens that were incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails.

"In the population study of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990.

"They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses.

Devvy -- Federal Court decisions favor Arizona's new immigration law -- 05/03/10

 

[Goof Noodle]

He was a professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago for 12 years. Yeah, I'd say he's an expert. I don't know how you can just deny reality here. He is a well established expert, you are not.

So how many cases has he won?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

 

[ludahai]

So how many cases has he won?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

I just love the contempt my fellow conservatives have for teachers... NOT!!!

 

[apdst]

So what do the tea party's have to say about this? If Arizona is found to be violating the constitution, how bad will it look for them to be in outrage when this law gets struck down by the Federal government (which it will).

You're not going to beat Obama at his own game, constitutional law.

Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting - CSMonitor.com

If Arizona is violating The Constitution, then every single gun ban law in the country is illegal.

Why isn't Obama sueing all those state and local governments for violating the 2nd Amendment? Let me guess; that's different. Huh?

 

[Black_Sheep]

Cutting through the unproductive sarcasm and pissing contests and referring back to the original poster, the tea party activists (and anyone else who opposes the law) will still be able to denounce the actions of the federal government with, at least, internal consistency. This is because "legal" does not necessarily equal "right."

The supremacy clause is a legal technicality. Important and, at times, useful, but a technicality nonetheless. If the Arizona law is struck down by the supremacy clause, the fact still stands that a state, with the support of a majority of Americans, wants to stem the flow of illegal immigrants across its border with Mexico, and it does not believe that the federal government is sufficiently enforcing federal law. If the Arizona law is ruled to be unconstitutional because of the supremacy clause, that ruling will say nothing and mean nothing as regards the federal government's failure to address the concerns of American citizens. If anything, it would actually seem to strengthen the argument that the federal government is not listening to its citizens' concerns (unless they struck down the Arizona law for procedure's sake, and immediately stepped up their own enforcement).

As far as Obama's credentials are concerned, yes, he is an expert on constitutional law, as evidenced by his tenure at Harvard (as a side note, the fact that he was a teacher says nothing good or bad, by itself, of his competence in any capacity). But that does not mean it's "his game" or that he is infallible. Constitutional law is an incredibly vague, unpredictable field of the law, precisely because it ultimately falls to the Supreme Court of the United States to define what is, and what is not, "constitutional." And their opinions on the matter often change drastically.

And kudos to texmaster for posting some truly useful information. Interesting stuff, there. And I'll be very interested to see how that case pans out. The supremacy clause only prevents states from passing laws that conflict with federal laws or undermine some purpose of the federal legislature. I'll be interested to see exactly what law or purpose the Arizona law supposedly conflicts with or undermines (I haven't read any of the government's briefs and I don't know if they've been released yet).

Cheers,

The Black Sheep

 

[Hicup]

Good post's black sheep, and Texmaster. I've read the law, (Wonder how many Lib's have actually read it) and I see inherent contradiction with Federal Immigration law, and I see no violation of the supremacy clause.. I would also like to read the Fed's briefs, but I can't help but wonder what they're really up too?

Tim-

 

[jallman]

You're not going to beat Obama at his own game, constitutional law.

That thrill that ran up Matthews' leg when he heard Obama's speeches! Someone grab a net, I think found it again....

 

[Republicanideal]

So what do the tea party's have to say about this? If Arizona is found to be violating the constitution, how bad will it look for them to be in outrage when this law gets struck down by the Federal government (which it will).

You're not going to beat Obama at his own game, constitutional law.

Arizona immigration law 101: seven lawsuits, and counting - CSMonitor.com

I dont believe this law will be struck down at all for several reasons. In order for a state law to be struck down by the courts it must hinder federal enforcement of the current laws or be in direct conflict with federal laws as laid out in the decision of Edgar v. Mite Corp. Here is Justice White wrote in the majority opinion:

You can find this under section 3 of Justice White's opinion which it states: "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute; and
[a] conflict will be found 'where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility . . . ,' Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 373 U. S. 142-143 (1963), or where the state 'law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 312 U. S. 67 (1941); 430 U. S. 526, 430 U. S. 540-541 [(1977)]. Accord, De Canas v. Bica,@ 424 U. S. 351, 424 U. S. 363 (1976)." EDGAR V. MITE CORP., 457 U. S. 624 :: Volume 457 :: 1982 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

The "sanctuary laws" are what the federal Government should be looking at as it does violate the ruling on state and federal law congruency. It hinders Federal enforcement by providing a sanctuary area away from immigration enforcements.

 

[ptif219]

The judge is not falling for the DOJ arguments

Judge sharply questions federal argument against Arizona law - Yahoo! News


washingtonpost.com