No ruling in hearing over Arizona immigration law

[justashooter 430]

No ruling in hearing over Arizona immigration law

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A U.S. judge grilled lawyers for the Obama administration and Arizona on Thursday over the legality of the state's tough, new immigration law set to take effect next week, but gave no timetable for a ruling.

The Obama administration is seeking a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the law that requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to investigate the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton peppered lawyers for both sides during a 90-minute hearing over whether the state law contravenes federal authority over immigration law, and if predictions by critics that it will lead to racial profiling were overstated and unwarranted.

The U.S. Justice Department is among plaintiffs that include civil rights and advocacy groups that have filed seven lawsuits seeking to block the law from taking effect next Thursday.

Bolton's ruling could come at any time.

She asked Justice Department counsel Edwin Kneedler to explain how the state law trumped the federal government's authority, asking, "Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish" to people who have entered the United States illegally?

She also questioned the lawyer for Arizona over the administration's concern about the impact on U.S. foreign policy. Mexico and nine other Latin American countries have joined a brief supporting one of the lawsuits opposing the law.

"It seems to have gotten some people from foreign countries upset with us," she said during the oral arguments.

The fight over the Arizona law has complicated the White House's effort to break the deadlock with Republicans in the U.S. Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law, an already difficult task in an election year.

Opinion polls consistently show the Arizona law is supported by a solid majority of U.S. voters, posing risks for Obama in opposing the measure, which he warns could lead to a 'patchwork' of conflicting state laws across the country.

The Obama administration lawyer contended that the federal government was responsible for setting immigration laws and that the Arizona measure threatened to undermine U.S. foreign policy.

"What we have is an unprecedented package of enforcement measures to adopt a state policy ... in exclusive disagreement with the federal government," Kneedler said..

ARIZONA SAYS PLEAS HAVE 'GONE UNHEEDED'

Governor Jan Brewer, who signed the controversial bill into law on April 23, sat in the packed courtroom for the hearing on Thursday afternoon.

She told reporters outside the court that Bolton had "a very good grasp .... of the issues ... and certainly understands the dangers that Arizonans face."

Arizona argued the federal government had failed to enforce federal immigration laws and therefore state legislators were forced to pass the law to try to stem the flow of illegal immigrants over the state's border with Mexico and cut down on drug trafficking and crime.

"A law that is unenforced is no law at all," said John Bouma, the lawyer representing Arizona. "We have had repeated pleas ... that have basically gone unheeded."

Bolton could issue a preliminary injunction if she finds the Obama administration would ultimately succeed in its quest to have the law struck down.

"A ruling in either direction will probably be a very strong signal about how this judge views the validity of the Arizona law and the strength of the administration's arguments," said Carissa Hessick, an associate law professor at Arizona State University.

At stake is "whether the administration has the full authority over immigration policy and immigration enforcement," she added.

Several hundred protesters demonstrated outside the courthouse during the hearing, chanting and banging drums in protest at the law, known as SB 1070.

Police said seven were arrested for blocking traffic. They had unfurled a sign that read "Stop 1070, we will not comply."

The case is United States of America v. State of Arizona et al; case No. 10-cv-1413 in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

It just makes me sick to think that any American would try to protest this do they not know that Arizona is protectecting our Country and are citizens from the illegals and the garbage they they bring to our country not to mention the cost of supporting the illegals and the finacial strain there putting on the decent law abiding citizens of our great nation if they like em so much why do they not move to mexico i say good riddance.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I don't understand the retardlicans outrage on this topic. It is quite clear, with regards to deporting people or expelling them from this nation, it is a federal matter. A state usurping this authority is assuming authority that is strictly reserved for the federal government. Whether or not you agree with the federal governments assertion of this authority is strictly superfluous. Stop the self-righteous indignation, it only makes you look ignorant.

[DEDixon 39]

I don't understand the retardlicans outrage on this topic. It is quite clear, with regards to deporting people or expelling them from this nation, it is a federal matter. A state usurping this authority is assuming authority that is strictly reserved for the federal government. Whether or not you agree with the federal governments assertion of this authority is strictly superfluous. Stop the self-righteous indignation, it only makes you look ignorant.

LOL

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I don't understand the retardlicans outrage on this topic. It is quite clear, with regards to deporting people or expelling them from this nation, it is a federal matter. A state usurping this authority is assuming authority that is strictly reserved for the federal government. Whether or not you agree with the federal governments assertion of this authority is strictly superfluous. Stop the self-righteous indignation, it only makes you look ignorant.

so I suppose no state is allowed to have taxes on its people. After all, taxes are a constitutional and Federal matter.

[justashooter 430]

I don't understand the retardlicans outrage on this topic. It is quite clear, with regards to deporting people or expelling them from this nation, it is a federal matter. A state usurping this authority is assuming authority that is strictly reserved for the federal government. Whether or not you agree with the federal governments assertion of this authority is strictly superfluous. Stop the self-righteous indignation, it only makes you look ignorant.

your side is loosing, friend. hurts, don't it.

[JimVaPhuong 4,864]

I don't understand the retardlicans outrage on this topic. It is quite clear, with regards to deporting people or expelling them from this nation, it is a federal matter. A state usurping this authority is assuming authority that is strictly reserved for the federal government. Whether or not you agree with the federal governments assertion of this authority is strictly superfluous. Stop the self-righteous indignation, it only makes you look ignorant.

Have you bothered to read the Arizona law? I know that many liberals don't seem to like that question. It's embarrassing to have to admit you haven't read the text of a law while simultaneously being outraged about it.

Well, just in case you haven't...

The law does not authorize Arizona to deport or expel anybody. It requires law enforcement officers in the state to attempt to determine the immigration status of people they encounter in a lawful stop, and to turn them over to federal authorities if they determine that they are or might be illegal. In other words, exactly what would have happened if the illegals had been nabbed by CBP at an immigration checkpoint. Nobody's authority is being usurped. The only difference between Arizona law and federal law is that the Arizona law makes illegal presence a crime. This means Arizona doesn't have to cut them loose after 3 days if the federal authorities can't be bothered to accept them right away. Arizona can charge them and hold them.

And why is the federal government up in arms about a state requiring their law enforcement officers to enforce federal law?

Ever heard of a federal law called "URESA"? It means Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. It was passed in 1950, and revised in 1968. By 1992 it had been adopted by all 50 states. It allows the attorney general in one state to enforce a child support order issued by a family court in another state. Here we have every state in the Union enforcing a federal law, each according to acts passed by their own state legislatures, and we hear no complaints whatever from the federal government. In fact, they're ecstatic that all the states are cooperating.

So why the uproar about states enforcing federal immigration law? They wanted to hire hundreds more CBP officers, and even send the National Guard. Now they have access to all the law enforcement officers in an entire state, and they don't want them. Why not? By their own admission, they only have the enforcement resources to go after "dangerous illegal immigrants". This gives them the resources to eventually get every illegal immigrant in the state, but instead of thanking Arizona they are suing them in a federal court. What is the logic behind this?

Could it be that they really don't want to enforce the federal immigration law? Could it be that they really want to keep the illegals here, and eventually give them citizenship, along with their Democratic party voter registration cards?

[Pooky 3,876]

I don't understand the retardlicans outrage on this topic. It is quite clear, with regards to deporting people or expelling them from this nation, it is a federal matter. A state usurping this authority is assuming authority that is strictly reserved for the federal government. Whether or not you agree with the federal governments assertion of this authority is strictly superfluous. Stop the self-righteous indignation, it only makes you look ignorant.

Which is why AZ SB 1070 does not give Arizona this power.

Please read the law before you comment, because right now, you have shown yourself to be ignorant.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Pooky

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The courts have this case because it is not settled law that the Feds have absolute jurisdiction over immigration. The Constitution doesn't give them that right; it says that Congress has jurisdiction over naturization of the foreign born, but is silent about iimmigration. The Feds have to argue to convince the judges along the course of this legal fight that they should have absolute rather than concurrent jurisdiction because their supremacy over immigration has not been established. Along the way, their neglect of federal enforcement has allowed for a patchwork of laws across the country, not just in Arizona, and raised the issue of a state's right to act to protect itself and it's borders when the feds refuse to do so on it's behalf.

It's not just some upset Republicans who want to know where the line is drawn when the Feds refuse to act or act arbitrarily; it's more than half the country that supports Arizona.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Have you bothered to read the Arizona law? I know that many liberals don't seem to like that question. It's embarrassing to have to admit you haven't read the text of a law while simultaneously being outraged about it.

That's really a silly question to ask because it assumes that the wording of laws can easily be interpreted by everyone, but for what it's worth to your argument, I have read it extensively. However, I will admit I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar. Reading, interpreting and understanding law are mutually exclusive concepts. If those terms were interchangeable, then we wouldn't need courts to decide on legal matters, which probably explains why pro-SB1070 people don't understand why the DOJ has legally challenged the law ("Why is the Obama Administration trying to stop this law?"). And the irony about that is that many pro-SB1070 people were all for wanting the Health Care Bill legally challenged in the courts, to which I'm willing to bet most of them haven't read the full text of the bill. So lets move past the "Did you actually read the law?" and on to the constitutional problems with the law.

From Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the state affiliate of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, filed what is probably the most important brief to date on SB 1070. Therein they argue that violation of established 4th Amendment standards of suspicion inheres in the mandates of 1070:

The statutory scheme created by SB 1070 would subject individuals to de facto arrests absent adequate constitutional protections. SB 1070 proposes to substitute reasonable suspicion for the well-established requirement that an arrest must be justified by probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. Even in cases where an investigative stop by police is justified by reasonable suspicion, it is possible for police to exceed the permissible scope of the stop and convert an investigative detention into a de facto

A person's immigration status is not something that can be determined by state and local law enforcement officers, or even by federal immigration officers, in the context of a brief investigatory detention. Instead, persons seized will be subject to a prolonged detention, for which the Fourth Amendment demands a finding of probable cause. SB 1070, however, permits this prolonged detention without the requisite finding of probable cause that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. arrest, and SB 1070 seeks to do just that...

The AACJ amicus brief goes further than this, arguing that there's almost no way a policeman could possibly have reasonable suspicion that someone was in the US illegally:

In Arizona specifically, reliance on race, language, and dress as the basis for reasonable suspicion used to justify a seizure all but guarantees a constitutional violation.

In a 1985 class action against the INS for engaging in a pattern of unlawful stops to interrogate persons of Hispanic appearance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Hispanic appearance and presence in an area where illegal aliens travel is not enough to justify a stop. Nicacio, 797 F.2d at 703. In that case, the government also used the manner of dress as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis. However, the Court rejected that factor, noting that such "characteristics were shared by citizens and legal aliens in the area, as well as illegals. As the district court found, the appearance and dress factors relied upon by the agents 'are a function of the individual's socioeconomic status.'" Id. at 704....

The scheme employed by SB 1070 pays lip service to the constitution by stating that race cannot be the sole factor for making a stop. However, as seen in decades of case law, officers routinely use race as the primary basis for a stop and cite "rote" factors as described in Rodriguez or "profiles" of driving behavior such as those described in Gonzalez-Gutierrez that do not distinguish criminal activity from innocent activity. All too often, our attorneys see cases filed by law enforcement officers of all jurisdictions where the initial stop was based on the driver's demeanor. Included in the list of factors to be used for determining reasonable suspicion include the driver looking at an officer in a parked vehicle as he passes and the driver not looking at the officer...

"Unlawful presence" is a highly technical term, meant to describe the status of individuals who are present in the United States without the proper governmental authorization. Just like citizenship, it cannot be determined by physical appearance or language, but is established by operation of law...

SB 1070 poses an immediate and irreparable harm in that it compels the unlawful detention of U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully present in this country. The prolonged detention requirement of A.R.S. § 11-1051(B) immediately violates the rights of every U.S. citizen in Arizona of "Mexican ancestry" or "Hispanic appearance." Although the statute allows a presumption of lawful immigration status if the Hispanic

citizen produces an Arizona state driver's license, there is certainly no requirement under Arizona law for a citizen to possess a driver's license when he or she leaves home each day. And as a citizen, a person of Hispanic appearance or Mexican descent, of course, does not possess valid immigration documents because he or she is not an immigrant.

http://www.aacj.org/....aacj.final.pdf

..............

My counter argument to yours is that anyone who has a basic understanding of SB1070 and a champion of our beloved Constitution will have trouble supporting this law. And as for which opinions matter, it will not pass legal muster in the courts.

Edited July 23, 2010 by El Buscador

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I can smell the fear on you, Stevie. You constantly assert that no one with an understanding of SB 1070 and the Constitution can't support the law, yet you admit your lack that understanding yourself. I support the law, not out of ignorance of the law or the Constitution, but because I can spot legal desparation a mile away. The arguments you cite from the briefs are about what might happen if the law goes into effect, how it b]might[/b] be abused on the basis of race, but that is true of every law a street cop enforces.

The legal arguments on the non-fed anti-SB 1070 side amount to this: once an illegal is in the states, s/he must be protected from detection, prosecution and deportation.

That's it, and the Feds argument isn't much more than, except that they want the court to decide that, indeed, no state can fight back against doing nothing. Anyone who loves this country, and most Americans do, support Arizona's fight against do-nothing, imperialist government.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The legal arguments on the non-fed anti-SB 1070 side amount to this: once an illegal is in the states, s/he must be protected from detection, prosecution and deportation.

That's it, and the Feds argument isn't much more than, except that they want the court to decide that, indeed, no state can fight back against doing nothing. Anyone who loves this country, and most Americans do, support Arizona's fight against do-nothing, imperialist government.

Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure you'll have an equally compelling explanation when the courts rule SB1070 unconstitutional. If I may suggest, "The Mexican Lobby sent death threats to the judge," or the standard, "judicial activism," which is not as creative for your tastes. I'm thinking you'll go the Mexican Lobby route.

[SMR 368]

Reading, interpreting and understanding law are mutually exclusive concepts.

Huh? Mutually exclusive concepts means that there is no overlap. Thus, you are stating that anyone who reads it couldn't possibly understand it and anyone who understands it couldn't possibly have read it. Anyone who interprets it should neither have read, nor understood it. Thank you for this insight into the liberal mind. I now better understand the ignorant outrage.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Huh? Mutually exclusive concepts means that there is no overlap. Thus, you are stating that anyone who reads it couldn't possibly understand it and anyone who understands it couldn't possibly have read it. Anyone who interprets it should neither have read, nor understood it. Thank you for this insight into the liberal mind. I now better understand the ignorant outrage.

Poor wording on my part. Reading, interpreting and understanding are not interchangeable in that one shouldn't assume that because one reads something, that they understand what they've read or have interpreted correctly. All communication is subject to interpretation, but with law, there is almost a futile attempt to minimize the different possibilities of interpretation. Even still, we have courts to interpret laws.

[Moonandstar 6]

That's really a silly question to ask because it assumes that the wording of laws can easily be interpreted by everyone, but for what it's worth to your argument, I have read it extensively. However, I will admit I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar. Reading, interpreting and understanding law are mutually exclusive concepts. If those terms were interchangeable, then we wouldn't need courts to decide on legal matters, which probably explains why pro-SB1070 people don't understand why the DOJ has legally challenged the law ("Why is the Obama Administration trying to stop this law?"). And the irony about that is that many pro-SB1070 people were all for wanting the Health Care Bill legally challenged in the courts, to which I'm willing to bet most of them haven't read the full text of the bill. So lets move past the "Did you actually read the law?" and on to the constitutional problems with the law.

From Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the state affiliate of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, filed what is probably the most important brief to date on SB 1070. Therein they argue that violation of established 4th Amendment standards of suspicion inheres in the mandates of 1070:

The statutory scheme created by SB 1070 would subject individuals to de facto arrests absent adequate constitutional protections. SB 1070 proposes to substitute reasonable suspicion for the well-established requirement that an arrest must be justified by probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. Even in cases where an investigative stop by police is justified by reasonable suspicion, it is possible for police to exceed the permissible scope of the stop and convert an investigative detention into a de facto

A person's immigration status is not something that can be determined by state and local law enforcement officers, or even by federal immigration officers, in the context of a brief investigatory detention. Instead, persons seized will be subject to a prolonged detention, for which the Fourth Amendment demands a finding of probable cause. SB 1070, however, permits this prolonged detention without the requisite finding of probable cause that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. arrest, and SB 1070 seeks to do just that...

<snip>

Perhaps your beloved Constitutional Champions and Scholars have forgotten to consider that the beloved Constitution is a thing based on facts. Having said that, can your Scholars and Champions prove anything more than conjecture that this law will be abused? Perhaps you would like to show some facts? The law hasn't gone into effect yet, but already you and your Scholars are so hostile toward it. One can only wonder why- with no more than pure speculation derived from the law which you yourself implied you don't understand- you are such staunt defenders of ignorance.

Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure you'll have an equally compelling explanation when the courts rule SB1070 unconstitutional.

Corrected, and aimed at El Buscador.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Moonandstar

[HAL 9000 96]

Clearly, there must be absolutely no precedent of any abuse of power at all by law enforcement authorities in this country.