• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fate of 1070 is up to the courts now

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The DoJ has now formally filed suit to overturn AZ's 1070:

The Justice Department on Tuesday weighed in on one of the most explosive issues in American politics, filing a lawsuit to overturn a tough new Arizona immigration law that has sharply divided people along partisan, ideological and ethnic lines.

It also asked the federal courts to grant an injunction to stop enforcement of the measure before it takes effect late this month.

Arizona's law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and allows police to question the residency status of people in the course of enforcing another law. It also targets businesses that hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.

Justice Department lawyers argued that the state statute should be declared invalid because it has improperly preempted federal law.

"In our constitutional system, the power to regulate immigration is exclusively vested in the federal government," the brief said. "The immigration framework set forth by Congress and administered by federal agencies reflects a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian concerns -- concerns that belong to the nation as a whole, not a single state."

Feds sue to overturn Arizona immigration law - CNN.com
I'm not a lawyer, but it looks to be a pretty clear cut case. The supreme court previously ruled that states cannot interfere with, extend, or adapt federal immigration policy in any way:

the regulation of aliens is so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government that where it acts, and the state also acts on the same subject, the act of Congress or treaty is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it. And where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation…. states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.

HINES v. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52 (1941)
So, my prediction is that the court will issue an injunction, the case will move it's way through a series of appeals, maybe even up to the supreme court, but the case will consistently be decided that 1070 is unconstitutional and it will never go into effect.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
7,935
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I disagee. The law does not change fed law. What about the other states with immigration laws?
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I disagee. The law does not change fed law.
It does. Maybe most importantly because the federal government decided that Arpaio not be allowed to enforce immigration law, where this restores that power to him. But also in lots of other ways. Federal law does not allow local cops to check immigration papers unless they have arrested somebody or gotten authorization from ICE, 1070 allows citizens to sue government agencies that do not enforce immigration laws to the max, whereas under federal law they have prosecutorial discretion to decide which cases to prosecute, it makes an illegal immigrant soliciting employment a crime which it was not previously, etc. So, they are "enforc[ing] additional or auxiliary regulations."

What about the other states with immigration laws?
I don't know of any that are anywhere near this clearly in violation of the supremacy clause, but if there are others, the fed would be equally within their rights to ask that those get struck down. Immigration enforcement is a federal power. States more or less need to follow the direction of the federal government in that area.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
7,935
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ahh but I think federal law is silent on the issue regarding State LE.

So from another thread. Bank robbery is a federal crime. If local LE tries to catch a bank robber, they are stepping on Federal authority. So should local LE stop investigation that the FBI should do?

Your CA law 834 is in violation if Obhama is correct. Your CA law does about the same thing. After arrest LE can check status.

You are right the courts will decide the issue. It is a shame Obama and past admininstrations don't understand that it is illegal to enter into the US except in designation entry points.
 
Last edited:

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
ahh but I think federal law is silent on the issue regarding State LE.
I don't know all the details on that one. I know it is complicated, but that's about it. LE has some powers granted by the federal government nation wide, they "deputize" a lot of local LE to act on illegal immigration, and as far as I know, Arpaio's department is the only one they have ever stripped of that deputy status.

So from another thread. Bank robbery is a federal crime. If local LE tries to catch a bank robber, they are stepping on Federal authority. So should local LE stop investigation that the FBI should do?
The supremacy clause, which is what is being used in this case, only applies to things with international components, so it wouldn't apply to bank robbery.

Your CA law 834 is in violation if Obhama is correct. Your CA law does about the same thing. After arrest LE can check status.
After an arrest. I think you can check the status after an arrest anywhere except a sanctuary city. In a sanctuary city the rules vary, but typically they only check after a felony.

But, your point is still valid. There probably are things in 834 that could be used to make a case for a constitutional challenge. Probably there are many laws in many states that could potentially be considered to violate the supremacy clause. But, the context is important. Arpaio is the sheriff of 60% of the population of AZ. ICE found him to be blatantly engaging in racial profiling and stripped him of the additional immigration enforcement powers they had granted him. Shortly after that the legislature proposed 1070, essentially to let him resume. That is a pretty flagrant attempt to undermine the fed's power over immigration policy and to undermine the constitutional principle of equal protection. That is a big deal. So, I can see why the fed would chose to file suit in this case and not in other cases.

You are right the courts will decide the issue. It is a shame Obama and past admininstrations don't understand that it is illegal to enter into the US except in designation entry points.
Again, they do understand that. They spend $36 billion a year fighting illegal immigration. It's not a question of whether to fight illegal immigration or not, it is a question of whether we should give up constitutional rights in order to more effectively fight it and a question of how much more money we want to spend doing it.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
7,935
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If you haven't you should read post 39 from Breaking news .. Feds suing AZ.

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



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.

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.

As far as MCSO, guess what. MCSO is still busting illegals for ID theft, etc. under AZ state law passed in 2007 and federal law.
The courts have not stopped MCSO even though some have law suits against MCSO (current or past).

It is not just Obama, the feds for years have let down the borders states. CA would have more of a problem if the wall was not constructed in CA. It shifted the influx through AZ.

I would not bet on the outcome of the courts, yet somehow I think Az will prevail.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
speaking of those sanctuary cities; if Arizona is in the wrong for tweaking federal law and enforcing it, then why are they okay for blatantly disregarding it?
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
speaking of those sanctuary cities; if Arizona is in the wrong for tweaking federal law and enforcing it, then why are they okay for blatantly disregarding it?
Local cops are under no obligation to go around trying to find violations of federal law, they just can't interfere with the feds enforcing it. Most sanctuary cities are just cities that chose to have a policy not to check the immigration status of people unless they commit a felony. The feds can still enforce immigration law there the same as anywhere else.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
XI Amendment : The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

AKA - It is unconstitutional for the federal government to sue Arizona in the first place.

Not that anyone in government really cares about the constitution.
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
XI Amendment : The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

AKA - It is unconstitutional for the federal government to sue Arizona in the first place.
The federal government isn't just the citizens of another state. They are absolutely required to enforce the constitution on the states.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
7,935
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Local cops are under no obligation to go around trying to find violations of federal law, they just can't interfere with the feds enforcing it. Most sanctuary cities are just cities that chose to have a policy not to check the immigration status of people unless they commit a felony. The feds can still enforce immigration law there the same as anywhere else.
So in CA can local law overide State Law (834b)?
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It does. Maybe most importantly because the federal government decided that Arpaio not be allowed to enforce immigration law, where this restores that power to him.
See, and to all those who just can't get enough of licking "Sheriff Joe's" ballsack, this is exactly why I don't support him or his showboating practices. If you removed the whole Sheriff Joe factor from the debate, I think you would find people less likely to get all up in arms about Arizona enforcing its immigration laws. But the minute you add that chest thumping megalomaniac into the picture, you add a deep mistrust of the handling of any criminal enforcement and raise sympathy against any mandate that would put more power in his hands, specifically.

I support Arizona's move to enforce immigration policy...right up until Sheriff Joe's involvement. Then my support is withdrawn completely; I don't think I am that unique in my assessment.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
7,935
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So MCSO arresting people who have used false/stolen ID's is ok?
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So MCSO arresting people who have used false/stolen ID's is ok?
If they are witness to a crime, they have a right even as citizens to place an individual under arrest. Cops will most often chastise a person for doing that, but really it doesn't matter, so long as the people were direct witness to the crime then I don't see a problem with the arrest.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
7,935
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I support what MCSO is doing. Not sure what Jall is up in arms about.
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I support what MCSO is doing. Not sure what Jall is up in arms about.
Probably the exact same issues with MCSO that you are supporting. Just a guess though.

Look, I am all about being hard on criminals. I am not about deviating from standard penal system practices to the point that the effort becomes more show and less fiscally responsible every year. Further, these deviations have given ammo to people who would hinder the criminal justice system over petty things...all they have to do is point to that idiot jackass with a badge and it almost lends legitimacy to any argument against stiffer penalties for law breakers. He is the scummy, slimey bottom of the slippery slope argument.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
7,935
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Probably the exact same issues with MCSO that you are supporting. Just a guess though.

Look, I am all about being hard on criminals. I am not about deviating from standard penal system practices to the point that the effort becomes more show and less fiscally responsible every year. Further, these deviations have given ammo to people who would hinder the criminal justice system over petty things...all they have to do is point to that idiot jackass with a badge and it almost lends legitimacy to any argument against stiffer penalties for law breakers. He is the scummy, slimey bottom of the slippery slope argument.
Could you be more clear on your opinion:mrgreen:

I feel the same about cities officials that pander to illegals. It is facinating that some say go after business that hire illegals, go after ID theft and when LE does, they are scum?

Noticed that the CA boycott of AZ only is affect when it doesn't inconvient officials. I see CA is buying tazers from AZ. Yes, CA didn't send a few LE to some meeting.

Are you in favor of illegal entry into the US?
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
7,935
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No. A city can decide what they want to dedicate their law enforcement resources to though.
Interesting, so a city in CA can ignore state law. I don't believe it works that way in AZ. Once state law is implemented local LE are bound by it. So much for hiarchy, local,state,feds for laws. Why have state laws if locally they can choice to not enforce or override?
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Could you be more clear on your opinion:mrgreen:

I feel the same about cities officials that pander to illegals. It is facinating that some say go after business that hire illegals, go after ID theft and when LE does, they are scum?

Noticed that the CA boycott of AZ only is affect when it doesn't inconvient officials. I see CA is buying tazers from AZ. Yes, CA didn't send a few LE to some meeting.

Are you in favor of illegal entry into the US?
No, I am not infavor of illegal entry into the US at all. And my beef with Sheriff Joe is that he is a hindrance more than he is a help. And it appears that it is all to satisfy his poll numbers and his inflated ego.

The boycott of Arizona was a dip**** maneuver by our pail-o-fail politicians here in California. They need to butt the hell out of what's going on in Arizona until they get **** straight here in California. Who they do business with should be decided on the basis of balancing a monstrous budget rather than exerting their "morality" (which is just code for "pleasing their illegal voter base) on another state. In fact, that's what every state AND the federal government need to be doing until such a time as they establish a utopia for themselves and want to share the secret.
 
Last edited:

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Interesting, so a city in CA can ignore state law.
No. A city in CA cannot ignore state law. But they can decide where they want to dedicate their law enforcement resources.

It's no different than anything else. If a city is having a lot of trouble with shoplifting, but not much trouble with burglary, they dedicate more resources to shoplifting and less to burglary. A sanctuary city is (usually) a city that decided not to bother with immigration status unless somebody commits a felony.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
A lot of states - if not all - have measures that correspond to federal government regulations. . . Arizona, in this sense, is not being out of line. . . this part of SB1070 is *fine*

However- the part of the SB1070 that *is* really in question and being taken to trial is the fact that they've decided a fine and legal process concerning how they deal with illegals - and this has not been decided by the Supreme Court *nor* has it been addressed within any federal regulation that already exists.

This is a new issue - while 1/2 of it is *fine* the other 1/2 is questionable purely because it hasn't actually be dealt with before. . . ever.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The DoJ has now formally filed suit to overturn AZ's 1070:



I'm not a lawyer, but it looks to be a pretty clear cut case. The supreme court previously ruled that states cannot interfere with, extend, or adapt federal immigration policy in any way:



So, my prediction is that the court will issue an injunction, the case will move it's way through a series of appeals, maybe even up to the supreme court, but the case will consistently be decided that 1070 is unconstitutional and it will never go into effect.
Apparently Obama's claim of racial profiling was nothing more than bull **** seeing how they are trying sue under the supremacy clause.
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Apparently Obama's claim of racial profiling was nothing more than bull **** seeing how they are trying sue under the supremacy clause.
Now that the AZ house amended the bill it no longer officially authorizes racial profiling, so that wouldn't be grounds to reject the law. The racial profiling is about how they are likely to implement the law, so that would be charges against individual cops.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Now that the AZ house amended the bill it no longer officially authorizes racial profiling, so that wouldn't be grounds to reject the law. The racial profiling is about how they are likely to implement the law, so that would be charges against individual cops.
The bill before did not authorize racial profiling. So there was no grounds to reject the law. The claims of racial profiling is nothing more than a load of bull crap spewed by pro-illegals most of whom never even bothered to read the bill and retards who believed their lies.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom