Arizona’s illegal-immigration law heads to Supreme Court. Will justices strike it dow

rockin'robin · 04-23-2012, 09:56 PM

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the country's toughest illegal-immigration bill into law two years ago, setting off a long legal battle with the Obama administration and inspiring half a dozen states to emulate Arizona and pass similar laws. On Wednesday, the federal government and Arizona will face off at the Supreme Court, where Justice Department lawyers will try to convince the court that the law is an unconstitutional invasion into the federal government's turf.

A federal judge blocked four major aspects of the law before they ever went into effect, including the provision that local police officers check the immigration status of people during stops if they have reason to suspect they lack legal status. Provisions making it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, or for any immigrant to fail to carry immigration papers, were also blocked. Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision and shot down most of the law.

Although public opinion polls showed that most Americans supported the law's provisions after it passed, the minority opposition was passionate, and it set off a national debate about illegal immigration that has permeated the presidential elections. Opponents argued that the law would encourage racial profiling and branded Arizona the "show me your papers" state. More than 100 different parties, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and dozens of states, have filed friend-of-the-court briefs weighing in on the law.

Three interesting twists are likely to make this case even more high-profile—and political—than it already has been. First of all, Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates for the presidency have blasted the Obama administration for suing Arizona in the first place, using it as a way to paint the president as soft on illegal immigration and intrusive on states' rights. Secondly, a familiar face will represent Arizona's case: Paul Clement, the lawyer who argued against Obama's health care law before the Supreme Court earlier this month, will once again take center stage. Lastly, Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case because she was solicitor general when the government first filed suit against Arizona. That means the court could theoretically split 4-4 in its decision. If this happens, the 9th Circuit decision stands and the law will remain blocked. But that outcome would give little guidance to states not in the 9th Circuit that have passed or want to pass laws similar to Arizona's, and would leave unsettled the question of how far states can go in combating illegal immigration.

Here's a brief rundown of each side's line of reasoning:

Arizona's argument

Arizona must prove that its law represents an honest attempt to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing existing immigration laws—and that it isn't trying to create its own immigration policy.

Clement argues in his brief that national immigration law provides for state-federal cooperation, even requiring states to send and receive information about the immigration status of suspects in some cases. The federal government runs a 24-hour database where state and local law enforcement officers can look up the immigration status of accused criminals. This suggests that states can and even should help enforce civil immigration law, he argues, particularly in the scenario where an officer has lawfully stopped someone he suspects of a crime. Interestingly, Clement quotes Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 case where the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law barring undocumented children from K-12 public schools, to support his assertion that states can pass laws sanctioning illegal immigrants.

Clement also briefly dismisses the argument that Arizona's law is interfering with the United States' foreign relations, saying it cannot be an interference if it helps the federal government combat illegal immigration.

The federal government's case

The government hit Arizona particularly hard on two of the law's provisions: criminalizing those not carrying immigration papers, and criminalizing illegal immigrants who are looking for work. National immigration laws make working while unauthorized only a civil offense, and applying for work is not even a civil crime. (Lying on a federal work form about citizenship or providing false documents is a criminal offense.) This, the lawyers argue, is an example of Arizona making its own immigration policy, not just trying to help the federal government enforce its existing laws.

The government's other main argument just might be its strongest: that Arizona's law infringes on the federal government's ability to control foreign relations. (The Constitution makes clear that the states have no legal role in foreign policy and affairs.) Arizona State University law professor Paul Bender tells Yahoo News that this is the government's best shot. "To have 50 states able to decide on their own who they're going to detain and put in jail without the federal government's permission is an invitation to disaster," he says. In the majority opinion, the 9th Circuit mentioned that five out of six Mexican border governors declined an invitation to travel to a conference in Arizona in protest of the law, and that the leaders of dozens of foreign countries and United Nations human rights officials had publicly criticized it. One 9th Circuit judge rejected this argument in his dissent, calling it a "heckler's veto."

The federal government's toughest job will most likely be to convince the justices that the Constitution prevents the policy of requiring police officers to ask people about their immigration status during stops. That's because Clement brings up fairly convincing examples of pre-existing cooperation between the federal and local governments in this case, through the 24-hour database and other programs.
Arizona

airportcop · 04-23-2012, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockin'robin

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the country's toughest illegal-immigration bill into law two years ago, setting off a long legal battle with the Obama administration and inspiring half a dozen states to emulate Arizona and pass similar laws. On Wednesday, the federal government and Arizona will face off at the Supreme Court, where Justice Department lawyers will try to convince the court that the law is an unconstitutional invasion into the federal government's turf.

A federal judge blocked four major aspects of the law before they ever went into effect, including the provision that local police officers check the immigration status of people during stops if they have reason to suspect they lack legal status. Provisions making it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, or for any immigrant to fail to carry immigration papers, were also blocked. Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision and shot down most of the law.

Although public opinion polls showed that most Americans supported the law's provisions after it passed, the minority opposition was passionate, and it set off a national debate about illegal immigration that has permeated the presidential elections. Opponents argued that the law would encourage racial profiling and branded Arizona the "show me your papers" state. More than 100 different parties, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and dozens of states, have filed friend-of-the-court briefs weighing in on the law.

Three interesting twists are likely to make this case even more high-profile—and political—than it already has been. First of all, Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates for the presidency have blasted the Obama administration for suing Arizona in the first place, using it as a way to paint the president as soft on illegal immigration and intrusive on states' rights. Secondly, a familiar face will represent Arizona's case: Paul Clement, the lawyer who argued against Obama's health care law before the Supreme Court earlier this month, will once again take center stage. Lastly, Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case because she was solicitor general when the government first filed suit against Arizona. That means the court could theoretically split 4-4 in its decision. If this happens, the 9th Circuit decision stands and the law will remain blocked. But that outcome would give little guidance to states not in the 9th Circuit that have passed or want to pass laws similar to Arizona's, and would leave unsettled the question of how far states can go in combating illegal immigration.

Here's a brief rundown of each side's line of reasoning:

Arizona's argument

Arizona must prove that its law represents an honest attempt to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing existing immigration laws—and that it isn't trying to create its own immigration policy.

Clement argues in his brief that national immigration law provides for state-federal cooperation, even requiring states to send and receive information about the immigration status of suspects in some cases. The federal government runs a 24-hour database where state and local law enforcement officers can look up the immigration status of accused criminals. This suggests that states can and even should help enforce civil immigration law, he argues, particularly in the scenario where an officer has lawfully stopped someone he suspects of a crime. Interestingly, Clement quotes Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 case where the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law barring undocumented children from K-12 public schools, to support his assertion that states can pass laws sanctioning illegal immigrants.

Clement also briefly dismisses the argument that Arizona's law is interfering with the United States' foreign relations, saying it cannot be an interference if it helps the federal government combat illegal immigration.

The federal government's case

The government hit Arizona particularly hard on two of the law's provisions: criminalizing those not carrying immigration papers, and criminalizing illegal immigrants who are looking for work. National immigration laws make working while unauthorized only a civil offense, and applying for work is not even a civil crime. (Lying on a federal work form about citizenship or providing false documents is a criminal offense.) This, the lawyers argue, is an example of Arizona making its own immigration policy, not just trying to help the federal government enforce its existing laws.

The government's other main argument just might be its strongest: that Arizona's law infringes on the federal government's ability to control foreign relations. (The Constitution makes clear that the states have no legal role in foreign policy and affairs.) Arizona State University law professor Paul Bender tells Yahoo News that this is the government's best shot. "To have 50 states able to decide on their own who they're going to detain and put in jail without the federal government's permission is an invitation to disaster," he says. In the majority opinion, the 9th Circuit mentioned that five out of six Mexican border governors declined an invitation to travel to a conference in Arizona in protest of the law, and that the leaders of dozens of foreign countries and United Nations human rights officials had publicly criticized it. One 9th Circuit judge rejected this argument in his dissent, calling it a "heckler's veto."

The federal government's toughest job will most likely be to convince the justices that the Constitution prevents the policy of requiring police officers to ask people about their immigration status during stops. That's because Clement brings up fairly convincing examples of pre-existing cooperation between the federal and local governments in this case, through the 24-hour database and other programs.
Arizona

Arizona is only doing what the Feds should have been doing a long time ago. I applaud their governor. I may have to move there someday!

As a police officer I took and oath to protect and defend the constitution of the US and uphold the laws in place. Many of these laws already exist at the federal level but the feds are ignoring them because it costs money to feed and house and deport illegal aliens. I have experienced this firsthand. I was told by my boss to enforce the law. When another officer and I found a family of illegals and called the feds they refused to take them!

**Foxrac** · 04-23-2012, 11:46 PM

I believe in federalism on immigration issues, not statewide. The immigration system under federal is flawed and need to be reformed.

**Jiro** · 04-24-2012, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

Arizona is only doing what the Feds should have been doing a long time ago. I applaud their governor. I may have to move there someday!

As a police officer I took and oath to protect and defend the constitution of the US and uphold the laws in place. Many of these laws already exist at the federal level but the feds are ignoring them because it costs money to feed and house and deport illegal aliens. I have experienced this firsthand. I was told by my boss to enforce the law. When another officer and I found a family of illegals and called the feds they refused to take them!

couldn't or wouldn't? and what was the exact reason?

Steinhauer · 04-24-2012, 07:52 AM

I agree with Brewer as well. All of the States that have followed Arizona's example has caused a mass exodus of illegals. Let the law work its intended purpose. Watch the crime rates go down.

**Jiro** · 04-24-2012, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

I agree with Brewer as well. All of the States that have followed Arizona's example has caused a mass exodus of illegals. Let the law work its intended purpose. Watch the crime rates go down.

source please?

rolling7 · 04-24-2012, 08:06 AM

Look at it this way. There are many, many people in foreign lands whom are waiting for their applications to come to the USA legally. These people are doing it "by the book". and, I for one-should be warmly welcome when they get here. Those who break the law and come here illegally deserved to get thrown out on their ass. They cost money that could go to processing faster those waiting legally. An American whom wants to visit a foreign country has to get a visa/passport to do so and if there is a wish to become a citizen of a foreign country, I know of none that does NOT have a law for doing so just like the USA has. So it is time for Americans to play fair with each other. Each of us do NOT get to choose which laws we will follow and the Feds. do NOT get to choose which laws wil be enforces.

**Jiro** · 04-24-2012, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Look at it this way. There are many, many people in foreign lands whom are waiting for their applications to come to the USA legally. These people are doing it "by the book". and, I for one-should be warmly welcome when they get here. Those who break the law and come here illegally deserved to get thrown out on their ass. They cost money that could go to processing faster those waiting legally. An American whom wants to visit a foreign country has to get a visa/passport to do so and if there is a wish to become a citizen of a foreign country, I know of none that does NOT have a law for doing so just like the USA has. So it is time for Americans to play fair with each other. Each of us do NOT get to choose which laws we will follow and the Feds. do NOT get to choose which laws wil be enforces.

well - just about every country has a law regarding illegals but the only difference is their prison. have you ever seen a foreign country's prison and what they do with prisoners? it's barbarous. I guess we should do same here too?

rolling7 · 04-24-2012, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

well - just about every country has a law regarding illegals but the only difference is their prison. have you ever seen a foreign country's prison and what they do with prisoners? it's barbarous. I guess we should do same here too?

I'll be the first to say it is terrible inhuman in some of these prisons (just look at Mexico's) but it is terrible effective also at keeping law-breakers out.

**Jiro** · 04-24-2012, 08:37 AM

interesting comment I read somewhere -

(post was cleaned up with handful of F-words removed)

Quote:

You want to end illegal immigration tomorrow, Arizona?

Put a $10,000 fine—per illegal, per day—on everyone who HIRES an illegal.

Whoops! Bet that won't go over too well with the Republicans who race-bait you with this issue, would it? Their buddies in agribusiness wouldn't be too happy about it, for one.

SO—Pick your own vegetables, build your own house, mow your own lawn, make your own food, bus your own tables, wash your own dishes, wash and iron your own clothes, make up your own motel rooms, and [scariest of all, I know,] WATCH YOUR OWN CHILDREN.

My $10,000 per illegal, per day fine on EMPLOYERS ends illegal immigration TOMORROW, Republicans.

Bet your Party's big-ticket donations would dry up very quickly, eh? And you'd lose your favorite "DEY TURK YER JERBS!" argument.

Here in America we have a saying: Money talks, and bullshit walks. So, Republicans, are you going to go after the real reason illegal immigrants come here? They come because they're PAID to by your major donors, who must have their cheap labor.

**Jiro** · 04-24-2012, 08:39 AM

"What part of legal immigration don't you understand?"

http://i.imgur.com/VG2cb.jpg (the image file is too large to post in here so click on it and see it for yourself)

Quote:

Opponents of illegal immigration are fond of telling foreigners to "get in the line" before coming to work in America. But what does that line actually look like, and how many years (or decades) does it take to get through? Try it yourself!

Steinhauer · 04-24-2012, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

source please?

I am going to assume you live under rock in the North Pole if you need a source.

**Jiro** · 04-24-2012, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

I am going to assume you live under rock in the North Pole if you need a source.

yes please.

so where is it?

Steinhauer · 04-24-2012, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

yes please.

so where is it?

You might have heard of this new invention called .... Google. You might also be interested to know there is this thing called "the internet" and you can find a news source called CNN. I know this may all sound so strange to someone who has just come out from under a rock in a polar waste land. It will take some time to become accustomed to the information overload.

rolling7 · 04-24-2012, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

interesting comment I read somewhere -

(post was cleaned up with handful of F-words removed)

This "somewhere else/cleaned up" comment should be cleaned up even more because it is still covered in BS.

ILLEGAL take the jobs that LEGALS want but can do because the legals are stuck in another contry waiting. The reson they are having to wait so long is because the governement is unnecessarly spending resources on the illegals.

**Jiro** · 04-24-2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

You might have heard of this new invention called .... Google. You might also be interested to know there is this thing called "the internet" and you can find a news source called CNN. I know this may all sound so strange to someone who has just come out from under a rock in a polar waste land. It will take some time to become accustomed to the information overload.

in other word.... you lie

**Jiro** · 04-24-2012, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

This "somewhere else/cleaned up" comment should be cleaned up even more because it is still covered in BS.

good one

**Foxrac** · 04-24-2012, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

I agree with Brewer as well. All of the States that have followed Arizona's example has caused a mass exodus of illegals. Let the law work its intended purpose. Watch the crime rates go down.

I don't agree with AZ immigration law.

**Foxrac** · 04-24-2012, 11:15 AM

Democrats plan to force vote on Arizona immigration law if it’s upheld by court

Senate Democrats are making plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona’s controversial immigration statute if the Supreme Court upholds the law this summer.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will announce the fallback legislation at a hearing on the Arizona law Tuesday, a day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a suit to determine whether Arizona had the authority to enact the 2010 state crackdown.

The legislation would have little chance of passing in a stalemated Senate or being approved by a GOP-held House, but it would allow Democrats to push their electoral advantage with Latino voters just as the presidential campaign heats up in July.

The plan is to allow Democrats a route to express displeasure with the Arizona law if the court allows it to stand, and it would force Republicans to take a clear position on the law during the height of the presidential campaign. The immigration law is deeply unpopular with Latino voters, who could be key to the outcome of the presidential and Senate races in several Western states.

“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” Schumer said in an interview.

He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration, Schumer will hold a hearing Tuesday on the impact of the Arizona law. The state senator who wrote the statute will appear, as will opponents of the law. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), the law’s chief proponent, was invited but declined to attend.

The Obama administration sued to prevent implementation of the Arizona law — which included a provision requiring local law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested who they suspect is in the country illegally — arguing that the Constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction over immigration laws and that the state’s statute interferes with federal efforts.

In response, federal courts have blocked key portions of the law from going into effect. Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state has the power to pass the legislation because Washington has failed to deal with the illegal-immigration problem.

Schumer said he believes the court will side with the federal government. But if it does not, he will propose a new law requiring federal approval for new state immigration laws, essentially blocking implementation of Arizona’s law and others like it that have passed elsewhere.

The legislation would also bar states from imposing their own penalties, beyond federal sanctions, for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Some business leaders have said they are concerned new state rules on hiring could lead to a patchwork of conflicting employment rules across the country.

Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has said he opposes the federal lawsuit filed by the Obama administration to block the Arizona law.

But he has been working to improve his popularity with Hispanic voters, who according to the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll favor President Obama by more than 40 points.

Those numbers come after Romney took a hard line on immigration during the Republican primary season, opposing the Dream Act — which would provide a path to citizenship for some young adults brought to the country illegally by their parents as children — and indicating that he supports making life in America tough enough for illegal immigrants that they voluntarily “self-deport.”

His campaign has protested that his February comments describing the Arizona law as a “model” for the nation were misinterpreted.

Campaign officials have insisted that Romney meant only a provision requiring employers to use an electronic database to check the immigration status of potential employees. They have said recently that he believes states should be able to decide whether Arizona-style laws are appropriate.

A congressional debate on the issue would probably force Romney to take a more definitive position on Arizona’s statute and the broader issue of the proper balance of state and federal power in immigration enforcement.

At the same time, Republicans would surely cite the proposed legislation as another example of Democratic attempts to expand the federal government and squash state power.

“It’s a calculated decision,” said Steven Schwinn, a professor at the John Marshall Law School who has been following the case. “It would keep focus on an issue, but in a way that may or may not be a winner for Democrats.”

Democrats plan to force vote on Arizona immigration law if it’s upheld by court - The Washington Post

rolling7 · 04-24-2012, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

in other word.... you lie

careful here....in case there is blow-back

**Jiro** · 04-24-2012, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

careful here....in case there is blow-back

I'm not afraid to be wrong. Steinhauer is free to prove me wrong... only if he stops dancing around to buy some time, hoping that somebody else would jump in to save his hide

rolling7 · 04-24-2012, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I'm not afraid to be wrong. Steinhauer is free to prove me wrong... only if he stops dancing around to buy some time, hoping that somebody else would jump in to save his hide

If you are not afraid to be wrong then why can you admit you are wrong. Afterall I did prove you wrong back on the other threads.....dancing around to buy some time?

**Jiro** · 04-24-2012, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

If you are not afraid to be wrong then why can you admit you are wrong. Afterall I did prove you wrong back on the other threads.....dancing around to buy some time?

where specifically?

rolling7 · 04-24-2012, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

where specifically?

Gingrich/money laundering
me/inciting a riot

airportcop · 04-24-2012, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

I believe in federalism on immigration issues, not statewide. The immigration system under federal is flawed and need to be reformed.

I agree that the federal system is flawed but give the states the power to fix it. It's cheaper and more effective.

airportcop · 04-24-2012, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

couldn't or wouldn't? and what was the exact reason?

Refused because they said that they had no housing provisions for the children. I have also been refused by them when I encountered an illegal since they supposedly had not broken any laws?! I was told that if I had a criminal charge that I should arrest them and then they could act. Hello, they are here illegally!

Steinhauer · 04-24-2012, 11:58 AM

Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero

airportcop · 04-24-2012, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

interesting comment I read somewhere -

(post was cleaned up with handful of F-words removed)

Jiro,

You are so sadly mistaken if you think that this is a Republican only issue. Democrats are just as guilty and have been busted as well! Get your facts straight before you post this biased garbage!

**Jiro** · 04-24-2012, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

Refused because they said that they had no housing provisions for the children.

ah... it's a very tricky issue when it comes to children. we certainly do not want to see any children getting harmed during detainment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

I have also been refused by them when I encountered an illegal since they supposedly had not broken any laws?! I was told that if I had a criminal charge that I should arrest them and then they could act. Hello, they are here illegally!

oh... but... as you stated in previous post - "As a police officer I took and oath to protect and defend the constitution of the US and uphold the laws in place."

then you should follow the laws. since you have nothing to charge them with... then the feds can't do anything about it.

Steinhauer · 04-24-2012, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

oh... but... as you stated in previous post - "As a police officer I took and oath to protect and defend the constitution of the US and uphold the laws in place."

then you should follow the laws. since you have nothing to charge them with... then the feds can't do anything about it.

The crime is obviously being here illegally. I know, I know ... who cares what the law says. Obviously Obama doesn't.

04-23-2012, 09:56 PM	#1 (permalink)
rockin'robin Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 15,677	Arizona’s illegal-immigration law heads to Supreme Court. Will justices strike it dow Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the country's toughest illegal-immigration bill into law two years ago, setting off a long legal battle with the Obama administration and inspiring half a dozen states to emulate Arizona and pass similar laws. On Wednesday, the federal government and Arizona will face off at the Supreme Court, where Justice Department lawyers will try to convince the court that the law is an unconstitutional invasion into the federal government's turf. A federal judge blocked four major aspects of the law before they ever went into effect, including the provision that local police officers check the immigration status of people during stops if they have reason to suspect they lack legal status. Provisions making it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, or for any immigrant to fail to carry immigration papers, were also blocked. Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision and shot down most of the law. Although public opinion polls showed that most Americans supported the law's provisions after it passed, the minority opposition was passionate, and it set off a national debate about illegal immigration that has permeated the presidential elections. Opponents argued that the law would encourage racial profiling and branded Arizona the "show me your papers" state. More than 100 different parties, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and dozens of states, have filed friend-of-the-court briefs weighing in on the law. Three interesting twists are likely to make this case even more high-profile—and political—than it already has been. First of all, Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates for the presidency have blasted the Obama administration for suing Arizona in the first place, using it as a way to paint the president as soft on illegal immigration and intrusive on states' rights. Secondly, a familiar face will represent Arizona's case: Paul Clement, the lawyer who argued against Obama's health care law before the Supreme Court earlier this month, will once again take center stage. Lastly, Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case because she was solicitor general when the government first filed suit against Arizona. That means the court could theoretically split 4-4 in its decision. If this happens, the 9th Circuit decision stands and the law will remain blocked. But that outcome would give little guidance to states not in the 9th Circuit that have passed or want to pass laws similar to Arizona's, and would leave unsettled the question of how far states can go in combating illegal immigration. Here's a brief rundown of each side's line of reasoning: Arizona's argument Arizona must prove that its law represents an honest attempt to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing existing immigration laws—and that it isn't trying to create its own immigration policy. Clement argues in his brief that national immigration law provides for state-federal cooperation, even requiring states to send and receive information about the immigration status of suspects in some cases. The federal government runs a 24-hour database where state and local law enforcement officers can look up the immigration status of accused criminals. This suggests that states can and even should help enforce civil immigration law, he argues, particularly in the scenario where an officer has lawfully stopped someone he suspects of a crime. Interestingly, Clement quotes Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 case where the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law barring undocumented children from K-12 public schools, to support his assertion that states can pass laws sanctioning illegal immigrants. Clement also briefly dismisses the argument that Arizona's law is interfering with the United States' foreign relations, saying it cannot be an interference if it helps the federal government combat illegal immigration. The federal government's case The government hit Arizona particularly hard on two of the law's provisions: criminalizing those not carrying immigration papers, and criminalizing illegal immigrants who are looking for work. National immigration laws make working while unauthorized only a civil offense, and applying for work is not even a civil crime. (Lying on a federal work form about citizenship or providing false documents is a criminal offense.) This, the lawyers argue, is an example of Arizona making its own immigration policy, not just trying to help the federal government enforce its existing laws. The government's other main argument just might be its strongest: that Arizona's law infringes on the federal government's ability to control foreign relations. (The Constitution makes clear that the states have no legal role in foreign policy and affairs.) Arizona State University law professor Paul Bender tells Yahoo News that this is the government's best shot. "To have 50 states able to decide on their own who they're going to detain and put in jail without the federal government's permission is an invitation to disaster," he says. In the majority opinion, the 9th Circuit mentioned that five out of six Mexican border governors declined an invitation to travel to a conference in Arizona in protest of the law, and that the leaders of dozens of foreign countries and United Nations human rights officials had publicly criticized it. One 9th Circuit judge rejected this argument in his dissent, calling it a "heckler's veto." The federal government's toughest job will most likely be to convince the justices that the Constitution prevents the policy of requiring police officers to ask people about their immigration status during stops. That's because Clement brings up fairly convincing examples of pre-existing cooperation between the federal and local governments in this case, through the 24-hour database and other programs. Arizona

04-23-2012, 11:46 PM	#3 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 33,215	I believe in federalism on immigration issues, not statewide. The immigration system under federal is flawed and need to be reformed. __________________ In Moto We Trust

04-24-2012, 07:52 AM	#5 (permalink)
Steinhauer Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,191 Blog Entries: 1	I agree with Brewer as well. All of the States that have followed Arizona's example has caused a mass exodus of illegals. Let the law work its intended purpose. Watch the crime rates go down. Oceanbreeze, rockin'robin and airportcop like this. __________________ Annuit Cœptis ><((({> Once upon a time men could speak honestly and wisely and people would listen. Now it seems that propaganda is the preferred method of communication regardless if there is any truth behind it or not.*

04-24-2012, 08:06 AM	#7 (permalink)
rolling7 Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,340	Look at it this way. There are many, many people in foreign lands whom are waiting for their applications to come to the USA legally. These people are doing it "by the book". and, I for one-should be warmly welcome when they get here. Those who break the law and come here illegally deserved to get thrown out on their ass. They cost money that could go to processing faster those waiting legally. An American whom wants to visit a foreign country has to get a visa/passport to do so and if there is a wish to become a citizen of a foreign country, I know of none that does NOT have a law for doing so just like the USA has. So it is time for Americans to play fair with each other. Each of us do NOT get to choose which laws we will follow and the Feds. do NOT get to choose which laws wil be enforces. airportcop likes this.

04-24-2012, 11:15 AM	#19 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 33,215	Democrats plan to force vote on Arizona immigration law if it’s upheld by court Senate Democrats are making plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona’s controversial immigration statute if the Supreme Court upholds the law this summer. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will announce the fallback legislation at a hearing on the Arizona law Tuesday, a day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a suit to determine whether Arizona had the authority to enact the 2010 state crackdown. The legislation would have little chance of passing in a stalemated Senate or being approved by a GOP-held House, but it would allow Democrats to push their electoral advantage with Latino voters just as the presidential campaign heats up in July. The plan is to allow Democrats a route to express displeasure with the Arizona law if the court allows it to stand, and it would force Republicans to take a clear position on the law during the height of the presidential campaign. The immigration law is deeply unpopular with Latino voters, who could be key to the outcome of the presidential and Senate races in several Western states. “If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” Schumer said in an interview. He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration, Schumer will hold a hearing Tuesday on the impact of the Arizona law. The state senator who wrote the statute will appear, as will opponents of the law. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), the law’s chief proponent, was invited but declined to attend. The Obama administration sued to prevent implementation of the Arizona law — which included a provision requiring local law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested who they suspect is in the country illegally — arguing that the Constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction over immigration laws and that the state’s statute interferes with federal efforts. In response, federal courts have blocked key portions of the law from going into effect. Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state has the power to pass the legislation because Washington has failed to deal with the illegal-immigration problem. Schumer said he believes the court will side with the federal government. But if it does not, he will propose a new law requiring federal approval for new state immigration laws, essentially blocking implementation of Arizona’s law and others like it that have passed elsewhere. The legislation would also bar states from imposing their own penalties, beyond federal sanctions, for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Some business leaders have said they are concerned new state rules on hiring could lead to a patchwork of conflicting employment rules across the country. Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has said he opposes the federal lawsuit filed by the Obama administration to block the Arizona law. But he has been working to improve his popularity with Hispanic voters, who according to the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll favor President Obama by more than 40 points. Those numbers come after Romney took a hard line on immigration during the Republican primary season, opposing the Dream Act — which would provide a path to citizenship for some young adults brought to the country illegally by their parents as children — and indicating that he supports making life in America tough enough for illegal immigrants that they voluntarily “self-deport.” His campaign has protested that his February comments describing the Arizona law as a “model” for the nation were misinterpreted. Campaign officials have insisted that Romney meant only a provision requiring employers to use an electronic database to check the immigration status of potential employees. They have said recently that he believes states should be able to decide whether Arizona-style laws are appropriate. A congressional debate on the issue would probably force Romney to take a more definitive position on Arizona’s statute and the broader issue of the proper balance of state and federal power in immigration enforcement. At the same time, Republicans would surely cite the proposed legislation as another example of Democratic attempts to expand the federal government and squash state power. “It’s a calculated decision,” said Steven Schwinn, a professor at the John Marshall Law School who has been following the case. “It would keep focus on an issue, but in a way that may or may not be a winner for Democrats.” Democrats plan to force vote on Arizona immigration law if it’s upheld by court - The Washington Post __________________ In Moto We Trust

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

04-24-2012, 11:58 AM	#27 (permalink)
Steinhauer Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,191 Blog Entries: 1	Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero __________________ Annuit Cœptis ><((({> Once upon a time men could speak honestly and wisely and people would listen. Now it seems that propaganda is the preferred method of communication regardless if there is any truth behind it or not.*

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode