Obama administration to sue Arizona.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since I never said that the popular sentiment should have anything to do with the lawsuit, this is a strawman. I was just asking if it meant that most Americans are bigots.

In the context of a thread whose topic is a lawsuit.

ETA: So in this context, you are defending the Arizona law. Since you enjoy casting your arguments in the form of "just asking questions" let me ask you, do you think the Fed's lawsuit has merit or not? What does popular opinion have to do with the lawsuit?

I made no strawman argument.

 

[dtugg]

I was quibbling over an incorrect claim.

Semantics. You (at least should have) known what I was saying.

Most agree with the bigot? On what do they agree with? This stupid law or all his other bigotted views?

Obviously, I am talking about "this stupid law."

I find it unsurprising supporters of the law want to avoid the guy who apparently wrote it.

Why would I even know anything about him? He is just some state legislator in a state I don't even live in.

Which is a strawman.

No, it's a question. I don't know if you or anybody else holds that view, which is why I was asking.

 

[dtugg]

In the context of a thread whose topic is a lawsuit.

I am not the one who brought up people being bigots.

 

[BeAChooser]

when did they pass it and is it exactly the same?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65340

One of the men who helped write Arizona’s new immigration law said he’s confident it will withstand legal challenges, ... snip ... Kobach is a constitutional law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and served as chief adviser to former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration law and border security.

Kobach said criticism that the Arizona law will impose new requirements on non-citizens to carry documents proving their status is unfounded, given that every non-citizen in the United States has been required to carry such documents since Congress passed the Alien Registration Act in 1940.

... snip ...

All the new bill does is make Arizona law mirror federal immigration law, Kobach said.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ays-arizona-law-merely-echoes-federal-immigr/

But conservative columnist George Will said on ABC's This Week that the new law only reiterates federal crimes.

"What the Arizona law does is make a state crime out of something that already is a crime, a federal crime," he said.

... snip ...

The legal scholars we spoke with told us to take a close look at two key sections of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Section 1304e requires that "every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him." Those who fail to comply will be guilty of a misdemeanor and will be fined $100 and can be imprisoned up to 30 days.

Section 1306a says that, "Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

Indeed, section 3 of the new Arizona law makes it a state crime if immigrants are in violation of either of those codes.

So, when it comes to that section of the law -- arguably the "meat" of the new law -- "it's very clear that in this respect, George Will is right," said Paul Bender, a law professor at Arizona State University.

Gabriel Chin, a professor of law at the University of Arizona, had a similar take. In an e-mail, he wrote that Will's claim is generally correct.

"However, while the underlying offenses are federal crimes, they are among the least prosecuted in the U.S. Code," he wrote. "For the relevant offense at issue here, failure of a non-citizen to register in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1306(a), there were five convictions across the U.S. in FY 2008. So to be precise, the statement would be 'What the Arizona law does is make a state crime out of something that already is . . . a federal crime that the federal authorities have chosen not to enforce except in rare circumstances.'"

... snip ...

There are other parts of the new law that also overlap with federal statute. For instance, section 5 of the Arizona law, which deals with the transportation of non-citizens, is nearly identical to section 1324 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

However, the Arizona law does break new ground. For example, Section 5 also would make it illegal to pick up day laborers on the street for hire, "which has nothing to do with federal law. It's essentially a traffic law," Chin wrote. Those violating this section are guilty of a misdemeanor. And it also makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to solicit work.
Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, pointed out another aspect of the bill that she finds particularly troubling: Section 2 of the Arizona law would allow citizens to sue local and state authorities if they do not believe the new law was being enforced effectively. State and local authorities could be fined between $1,000 and $5,000 a day for each day the policy remains in effect.

The bill also includes new language about how the law applies to employers and specifies the circumstances under which an officer can question and arrest someone he or she thinks is in violation of the law.

But Will was talking about crimes. He said that the the new Arizona immigration law makes what is already a federal crime into a state crime. And when it comes to some of the most talked about parts of the law, having to do with aliens who fail to carry proper paperwork and failing to register, Will is correct about the core of the law; federal statutes already makes those two provisions a crime. But the law also includes a new prohibition barring picking up day laborers on the street for hire and soliciting for work. That's not in the federal code. As a result, we find Will's claim to be Mostly True.

And by the way, because of the boycott from California, someone noticed that California law is almost identical to the Arizona law in the key points (in blue below) under contention? So why didn't the Obama administration file suit against California earlier? Here:

http://hoguenews.com/?p=10263

Arizona Law

NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE (1. see note one in the Ca code below). WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

(2) THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAYSECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY’S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

Here is the California Code:

834b.
(1) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(2) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

In fact, you might notice that the California law is even more severe than the Arizona law in several respects.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I am not the one who brought up people being bigots.

You're the one who brought up the polls of popular opinion about the law in the context of a discussion of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law. That's exactly what I responded to.

The polls are irrelevant to the lawsuit.

Please answer the series of questions I added in the ETA to my previous post.

 

[funk de fino]

So, it is not identical. It cannot overrule Federal law. The federal law was passed in 1940. So none of dtuggs American majority voted on it.

And the California law is different. Try reading the blue parts again.

Fail.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Again, the challenge is likely to be based on the supremacy clause. The Federal law that concerns the treatment is Title 8 of the U.S.C. It is meant to be the entire law on the matter, and to establish a uniform law for the entire United States for this field. So under the supremacy clause, the Arizona law would be invalid (and that's how I predict the suit will eventually be decided).

The other main point (as outlined in the article I quoted above) is that there are points (at least one that made it into the final law) where the Arizona law conflicts with the Federal law. (Specifically, while the Federal law only authorizes state and local police to arrest or detain an illegal if there is a prior felony, the Arizona law allows them to do so without a prior felony.) Again, under the supremacy clause, the Arizona law would be invalid.

 

[funk de fino]

Semantics. You (at least should have) known what I was saying.

Accuracy man.

Obviously, I am talking about "this stupid law."

OK

Why would I even know anything about him? He is just some state legislator in a state I don't even live in.

It does not matter what views the writer may have? That would not affect your thoughts on why something was introduced?

No, it's a question. I don't know if you or anybody else holds that view, which is why I was asking.

The majority of Americans agree with those in charge in AZ. Therefore, the majority of Americans are bigots, yes?

You made a statement. Asking me to agree. With a false claim.

Obama will beat the bigots.

 

[dtugg]

You're the one who brought up the polls of popular opinion about the law in the context of a discussion of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law. That's exactly what I responded to.

No I brought it up in response to the allegation that funk de finos allegation that the Obama effect isn't happening in Mexico because of the "bigots in Arizona" Please read what I actually posted.

The polls are irrelevant to the lawsuit.

Never said otherwise.

Please answer the series of questions I added in the ETA to my previous post.[/QUOTE]

OK.

In the context of a thread whose topic is a lawsuit.

ETA: So in this context, you are defending the Arizona law. Since you enjoy casting your arguments in the form of "just asking questions" let me ask you, do you think the Fed's lawsuit has merit or not?

I don't know. There might be specific points where AZ law is in conflict with federal law.

What does popular opinion have to do with the lawsuit?

I made no strawman argument.

It doesn't. Never said it did. That is the very definition of a strawman.

 

[funk de fino]

No, your saying wanting to enforce a law made you a bigot because that is what my argument apparently meant, was a strawman.

 

[rbanks1]

While the worldview of the USA is improving since the dark days of GWB, the Obama factor does not seem to be working with Mexico. Who thinks the Arizona bigots are the cause of this?

I do.

I am a resident of southern Arizona. I have many friends who happen to reside in the northern border towns of Sonora, Mexico. We are not bigots in any sense of the word here. When was the last time you walked out into your front yard and found a group of people dying from dehydration, driven like cattle by a "Coyote" smuggler who himself, is in bad shape and in need of medical attention, and water? I had this situation happen just over two weeks ago. My neighbor saw the situation and also helped. Do you have proof that I, or my neighbors at other ranch properties denied people water, food, and medical attention because they are just "spics"? If we are racist bigots, we would have just let them die, right?

There are a bunch of honest, good people who cross the border every day, and there are some, who are not good people at all who make their living out of victimizing their fellow citizens with a "safe trip" north, which far too often ends in death.

My point is, the people I know, are not bigots in any sense of the word. Southern Arizona is caught in a crisis of criminal activity that is causing the deaths of some American citizens, and a horrific number of Mexican citizens. The federal government has sat on it's hands for years, and has done next to nothing to enforce the law. Something has to be done, and be it the right policy, or the wrong one, at least Arizona is actually doing something.

Your generalization that Arizona residents or our elected representatives are bigots, is way off the mark.

rbanks1

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No I brought it up in response to the allegation that funk de finos allegation that the Obama effect isn't happening in Mexico because of the "bigots in Arizona"

So by "no" you mean to say you didn't bring up polls and popular sentiment in the context of a thread about the federal lawsuit?

You're not serious, are you? Look at the title of the thread.

I don't know. There might be specific points where AZ law is in conflict with federal law.

Ah, so you would agree with the Federal government's lawsuit that will seek to strike down the Arizona law under a preemption challenge?

It sure sounded like you were trying to defend the law and not the Fed's case against it.

It doesn't. Never said it did. That is the very definition of a strawman.

You're wrong. A strawman argument is when you argue against a weak or easily defeated version of your opponent's position. If you weren't raising the polls and popularity of the law as some sort of defense of the law, then your post was simply off topic.

I made no strawman argument. I'm trying to discuss the issue of the lawsuit. See the thread title. Once again, I guarantee that if the defense tries to introduce evidence of popular support for the law, the court will not allow it. It's irrelevant to the lawsuit.

I would like to discuss the arguments the lawsuit will likely raise: that is Federal preemption and the supremacy clause.

Others have raised 14th Amendment issues, but I think the amendments to the Arizona law probably addressed them (though I think there are reasonable arguments to be made that say they did resolve those issues and would be glad to discuss those as well).

 

[BeAChooser]

First, it's not identical. You can read Arizona SB 1070 and compare it Title 8 of the U.S.C.

See my post above. For all intents and purposes, it's identical.

Second, ever since we did away with the Articles of Confederation, we have a system where the states are not in fact sovereign nations, and the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution notes that federal law is "the supreme law of the land". States cannot rewrite Federal law. There are points where the Arizona law conflicts with Federal law.

First of all, I don't believe there are any points where the Arizona law actually "conflicts" with Federal law. It may contain a few provisions not in the Federal law, but none actually "conflict" with the provisions in the Federal law, nor with what was the intended purpose of the Federal law.

Second, many state laws, particularly environmental ones … like those in California, are more strict than Federal law, yet those aren't viewed as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Why not? And if that's allowed, why can't a state pass a law that imposes even harsher penalties in this case?

Third, the Supremacy Clause only applies if enforcement of the state law would frustrate what were federal intentions in the Federal law. This law clearly does not. It might frustrate the intentions of the Obama administration, but not the law as written and passed long before the Obama adminstration.

Fourth, (and I thank http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23919 for the following) the Supremacy Clause only applies to enumerated powers in which the Federal government is given exclusive jurisdiction. Alexander Hamilton made this very clear in the Federalist papers No 27 (last paragraph), 32 (next to last paragraph) and 33 (second paragraph). Furthermore, Hamilton stated (Federalist paper No 32, third paragraph) that even where the Constitution delegates power to the Federal government, the states retain a concurrent and coequal authority over the same matter unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the states from exercising that power.

Now Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 reads "The Congress shall have the Power … snip … To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". Madison (in Federalist paper No 42, fourth paragraph from the end) gives the reason for this clause, namely that the various states had their own rules for qualifying for citzenship. So all that Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does is grant the Federal government the exclusive authority over what the criteria are for citizenship. And the Arizona law is not in conflict with this in any way.

Furthermore, the Arizona law calls for illegal aliens that are caught to be turned over to the Federal government. Thus, again, the Arizona law is not in conflict with Federal law regarding what to do with them.

And those provisions in the Arizona law that address crimes committed by illegal aliens within the borders of Arizona (criminal trespass, human smuggling, obstructing traffic while picking up day laborers, harboring and concealing illegal aliens, and knowingly employing illegal aliens) fall within the authority of the state. Hamilton shows in Federalist Paper No 32 (third paragraph) that the Arizona government has exclusive jurisdiction over illegals that violate Arizona criminal law. The Federal government has no authority to intervene. The Supremacy Clause does not apply. And after the illegals have served their sentences for these ordinary crimes, the law calls for turning them over to the Federal government. Again there is no conflict with the Constitution or Federal law. Your argument is bogus.

Here is one more point that is made in the linked article. The US Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Last Clause) explicitly permits states to keep troops if they are "actually invaded". And Arizona may even "engage in War" under those circumstances. And by all accounts, an invasion is precisely what is happening in Arizona.

And finally, note that any attempt to argue supremacy is going to be met with the question why the Federal government hasn't made the same argument against equivalent language in the California law. The Federal government has clearly set a precedent by not doing so. So bring it on.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

See my post above. For all intents and purposes, it's identical.

This is factually wrong. See my post above. I already cited one conflict.

[ETA: FWIW, if it were true that the laws are identical, then your strongest argument in favor of the Arizona law is that it changes nothing. If that's what you think, then shouldn't it be struck down anyway? It's either in conflict or unnecessary, isn't it?]

There are potentially others. Another similar conflict is the stuff about transporting a suspected illegal upon being released from state prison. The Federal law already covers this, but it requires a deportation order or a felony while the Arizona law does not.

The laws are most definitely not identical, and the supremacy clause tells us which one should be invalidated.

And again, there's the "field exemption" argument: that the entire field of immigration is already covered by Title 8 U.S.C.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Fourth, (and I thank http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23919 for the following) the Supremacy Clause only applies to enumerated powers in which the Federal government is given exclusive jurisdiction. Alexander Hamilton made this very clear in the Federalist papers No 27 (last paragraph), 32 (next to last paragraph) and 33 (second paragraph). Furthermore, Hamilton stated (Federalist paper No 32, third paragraph) that even where the Constitution delegates power to the Federal government, the states retain a concurrent and coequal authority over the same matter unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the states from exercising that power.

Now Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 reads "The Congress shall have the Power … snip … To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".

How exactly can there be a power of Congress to establish a uniform rule or naturalization if the states are each empowered to make their own rules?

Again, this goes to the "field preemption" issue.

 

[BeAChooser]

This is factually wrong. See my post above. I already cited one conflict.

Sorry but post #72 (the one above) does not cite any conflict. Please steer me to the specific post where you cited a specific conflict.

Another similar conflict is the stuff about transporting a suspected illegal upon being released from state prison. The Federal law already covers this, but it requires a deportation order or a felony while the Arizona law does not.

LOL! Well let's just see who wins in court. Like I said, bring it on. (But of course I don't actually think the Obama administration will. I think this is just more desperate rhetoric to try and bolster Obama/democrat's numbers leading up to the November elections by leading the more extreme members of the Hispanic community into believing they will file suit. I'll actually believe it only when I see it.)

The laws are most definitely not identical, and the supremacy clause tells us which one should be invalidated.

As Hamilton and Madison clearly indicated, the supremacy clause does not apply. There is no violation of the Constitution or Federal law powers that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution or exclusive to the Federal government. You and the rest of the leftists are simply blowing smoke. The one good thing is this is showing the general populace what you folks really believe. In open borders. At least for any group you think will end up being your constituency when you manage to pass the next amnesty. But well see ...

 

[BeAChooser]

How exactly can there be a power of Congress to establish a uniform rule or naturalization if the states are each empowered to make their own rules?

But the states aren't empowered to make their own rules of naturalization. And the Arizona law doesn't attempt that.

Now you do know the definition of naturalization, don't you? Sometimes I think leftists don't.

 

[dtugg]

So by "no" you mean to say you didn't bring up polls and popular sentiment in the context of a thread about the federal lawsuit?

You're not serious, are you? Look at the title of the thread.

Did you actually read what I posted and what it was in response to?

Ah, so you would agree with the Federal government's lawsuit that will seek to strike down the Arizona law under a preemption challenge?

I am sure they will.

It sure sounded like you were trying to defend the law and not the Fed's case against it.

No, I was defending "those bigots in AZ," I didn't make an argument for or against the legality of the law.

You're wrong. A strawman argument is when you argue against a weak or easily defeated version of your opponent's position.

Which is what you did.

If you weren't raising the polls and popularity of the law as some sort of defense of the law, then your post was simply off topic.

So was the post the I responded to it with. What is your point?

I made no strawman argument. I'm trying to discuss the issue of the lawsuit. See the thread title. Once again, I guarantee that if the defense tries to introduce evidence of popular support for the law, the court will not allow it. It's irrelevant to the lawsuit.

We are in agreement. I certainly never said otherwise.

I would like to discuss the arguments the lawsuit will likely raise: that is Federal preemption and the supremacy clause.

Fine you can drop the whole issue. Why don't you tell me where the AZ law is in conflict with the federal law.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Please steer me to the specific post where you cited a specific conflict.

Post number #56.

The Arizona law authorizes police to detain someone without a warrant and without there being a prior felony. This is in conflict with the Federal law.

You can keep repeating that they're identical, but they're not.

Again, if they're identical, is your support for the law based on the fact that it is wholly meaningless and changes nothing?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why don't you tell me where the AZ law is in conflict with the federal law.

I've done so several times now.

ETA:

Ah, so you would agree with the Federal government's lawsuit that will seek to strike down the Arizona law under a preemption challenge?

I am sure they will.

I don't understand your answer. Do you agree with the Federal government's position on the Arizona law? Do you think the Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional?