Obama administration to sue Arizona.

[MattusMaximus]

Crap, looks like its on to plan b

Which is what, exactly?

Personally, I agree with the judge's ruling and reasoning behind it. I'm just curious to know what your "plan b" is all about.

On a side note, every story that I've read regarding the judge's ruling has a comment section which is absolutely exploding with some really reprehensible rhetoric. There's a lot of pretty vile, downright racist, things being unloaded onto these comment sections, including many uses of terms like "wetback" and the n-word and whatnot.

Ah well, this is why we have a non-elected federal judiciary.

 

[linusrichard]

And I think whoever wrote the legislation anticipated parts of it being ruled unconstitutional:

To be fair, severability clauses are fairly common in legislation. Something they put in there almost every time, I think. It doesn't mean the bill's author had any particular suspicion this would be found unconstitutional (although if the bill's author thought about it for a moment, they would have to think there was at least a good chance).

 

[linusrichard]

Which is what, exactly?

Personally, I agree with the judge's ruling and reasoning behind it. I'm just curious to know what your "plan b" is all about.

Seems pretty clear it's an offer of "self-help" or vigilantism -- basically violence, but just vague enough that ppa can deny that that's actually what he meant, if called on it. There's a chance that the threat of violence is not entirely sincere, but I wouldn't care to speculate one way or the other.

I can understand not wanting one's community's social services budget stretched or its wages depressed by immigrants who avail themselves of those services or work below prevailing wages. I can't understand wanting people to die in order to help improve those budgets or wages.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Which is what, exactly?

Personally, I agree with the judge's ruling and reasoning behind it. I'm just curious to know what your "plan b" is all about.

Probably the national ID card, or a requirement to just check everyone's status on a stop.

To me there's no sense in the asking for papers part of this law in the first place.

I would rather just see the ability returned to the state justice system to check legal status on an actual booking. What we have now is letting people go even though they are non-citizens at the end of the sentence (or in too many cases, before). End that insanity and there's no need to stop for papers on the street.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Seems pretty clear it's an offer of "self-help" or vigilantism -- basically violence, but just vague enough that ppa can deny that that's actually what he meant, if called on it. There's a chance that the threat of violence is not entirely sincere, but I wouldn't care to speculate one way or the other.

I can understand not wanting one's community's social services budget stretched or its wages depressed by immigrants who avail themselves of those services or work below prevailing wages. I can't understand wanting people to die in order to help improve those budgets or wages.

Wow you are one of those psychic mind reading retards up for the million dollar challenge I guess

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm only about halfway through reading the ruling, and I call ********. In a nutshell here's what the court is saying:

The first sentence says that if during a lawful "stop, detention, or arrest" there's reason to believe a person may be illegal, they officer must take steps to check the citizenship. If the person provides an acceptable ID or immigration papers, they are considered to be here legally. That's all fine and good.

The next sentence reads, "Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released." The USA is arguing that this means that every single person who is arrested must be checked by the Feds. Arizona argues that the acceptable forms of ID outlined in the first sentence apply. In other words, if somebody gets arrested, Arizona is saying that the law doesn't require pinging the Feds if the person has the forms of ID described in the first sentence, which specifically mentions "arrest" as one of the encounters.

The court is siding with the Feds that it really means that every single person arrested must be run through their system. Therefore, that creates an undue burden on the citizens as well as the Fed's infrastructure. Therefore, the Feds would win their case.

Sorry, but I'm just not buying that line of reasoning. That's just twisted. It's not like the law has gone into effect, and what they describe is actually happening. Let's suppose the law went into effect and it was enforced as described by Arizona. If a citizen sued to get them to enforce it the way that the court interprets it, they would most likely lose because Arizona is on record explaining their intent and interpretation.

When I'm less disgusted, I'll read the rest of the ruling.

 

[Kopji]

A link to the ruling: (this is a 26 page pdf and requires Acrobat Reader)

http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0729sb1070-bolton-ruling.pdf

The Judge's reasoning on that item is described here:

...As a result of this conclusion, the Court reads the second sentence of Section 2(B)
independently from the first sentence. The Court also concludes that the list of forms of identification that could provide a presumption that a person is not an unlawfully present alien applies only to the first sentence of Section 2(B) because the second sentence makes no mention of unlawful presence: the second sentence states plainly that “[a]ny person who is arrested” must have his or her immigration status determined before release. A presumption against unlawful presence would not dispose of the requirement that immigration status be checked because a legal permanent resident might have a valid Arizona driver’s license, but an inquiry would still need to be made to satisfy the requirement that the person’s “immigration status” be determined prior to release.

page 15 line 9-18

The judge is taking into consideration the reading of the original law, over the 'clarified' version. The logic of the conclusion comes from that - what did the legislature intend?

There is an interesting point the judge is making throughout, that 1070 does not actually stand alone, but amends or modified existing Arizona statues or rulings. There was some earlier political discussion about "just read the law" (I believe a youtube was produced) or that somehow it was so clearly written that even the non-legally trained could understand it.

A read through Bolton's analysis shows how a judge reads it, and might be of general interest.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

To be fair, severability clauses are fairly common in legislation. Something they put in there almost every time, I think.

They're common in laws where a legal challenge is anticipated.

According to the CNN article, the author of the law did indeed anticipate a close legal challenge:

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, author of the law, said he foresaw a protracted legal fight from the beginning.

"I wrote it to go to the supreme court," he said before the ruling came down. "I'm begging for that fistfight at the Supreme Court. We will win in a 5-4 decision and finally settle this problem."

He added, "My message to the judge is uphold the Constitution. Uphold state's rights. This is a battle of epic proportions. This is the states versus the central government."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The judge is taking into consideration the reading of the original law, over the 'clarified' version. The logic of the conclusion comes from that - what did the legislature intend?

And since one of the first sections of the law is "INTENT" and says explicitly that the intention of the law is to establish a policy of "attrition through enforcement", I think the plaintiff's argument that the law establishes a policy that undermines that of the federal government is a very strong one.

I only just now read the judge's order and realize that it does go a lot further than merely a temporary injunction prior to the final ruling. It sure indicates that the judge believes the law does indeed conflict with and undermine federal laws.

Interestingly, all the rhetoric people have made claiming that undocumented aliens are criminals turns out to be wrong. Bolton says, "Unlawful presence in the United States is not a federal crime, although it may make the alien removable."

So the federal policy to emphasize deportation of criminal illegal aliens (those convicted of felonies, especially involving violence, drugs and gang activity) makes even more sense.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The court is siding with the Feds that it really means that every single person arrested must be run through their system. Therefore, that creates an undue burden on the citizens as well as the Fed's infrastructure. Therefore, the Feds would win their case.

I think the reasoning is solid. As Kopji mentioned, Bolton used the differences between the original and amended versions in the first sentence to deduce the intent of that second sentence:

Therefore, it does not follow logically
that by changing “any lawful contact” to “any lawful stop, detention or arrest” in the first
sentence, the Arizona Legislature intended to alter the meaning of the second sentence in any
way. If that had been the Legislature’s intent, it could easily have modified the second
sentence accordingly.

Also, Gov. Brewer said she planned to do just that--to turn over a huge number of suspected illegals even if it swamped the federal government's ability to process them and even though the federal government didn't want them turned over.

(Again, see the points I've been making about the differences between the policy the Arizona law establishes and the policy of the federal government on enforcement of immigration laws.)

Sorry, but I'm just not buying that line of reasoning. That's just twisted. It's not like the law has gone into effect, and what they describe is actually happening.

That's the point of the injunction. Bolton wrote, "The Court also finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States’ favor considering the public interest."

Speaking of not buying a line of reasoning, I see the lawyer for Arizona is still spreading the falsehood that the federal government does not enforce immigration laws. What I think he really means (if he were being honest) is that Arizona disagrees with federal policy on enforcement of immigration laws. Then it becomes clear that they're overstepping their authority in trying to establish a policy that would undermine (I think Bolton used the term "interfere with") federal policy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now I understand why this whole issue is so perplexing to you. You aren't even on the same planet. I'll admit that to an outsider, just as I was when moving to AZ from Hawaii, long, long ago, the problems in Arizona seem so bizzarre as to be made up, but in truth yes, things really are as weird as it seems.

You're completely wrong.

My niece went to grad school in Arizona and was deeply involved with immigration issues and wrote her thesis on U.S. immigration policies particularly as they affect illegals entering Arizona from Mexico.

I'm quite familiar with the situation. And I still say you are exaggerating the harm done by non-criminal illegals.

ETA: I suggest you read Bolton's injunction order. I think a great deal of it will sound very similar to the things I've been saying in this thread. So your claim that I'm perplexed is unfounded. I'm certain I have a much better grasp of this lawsuit than you do.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I think the reasoning is solid. As Kopji mentioned, Bolton used the differences between the original and amended versions in the first sentence to deduce the intent of that second sentence:

There's no need to reiterate the ruling. Clearly, I read it. Thing is, the logic fails. What difference does it make whether they changed the first sentence or not in regards to their intent in the second sentence?

Basically, the court is saying that because the first version did not contain the word arrest that the second sentence could not possibly apply only to arrests for being here illegally. That's an incredible leap of illogic. What the court is saying is that the legislature said, "An AZ driver's license is good enough evidence to conclude that somebody is here legally unless you actually arrest them for something else. In that case, it's not good enough. Therefore, you must put every single person you arrest through the federal system."

I know people think the AZ legislature is made up of a bunch of idiots, but that just makes no sense whatsoever. The State said, "“[T]he Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona’s law enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every single person arrested – even for United States citizens and when there is absolutely no reason to believe the person is unlawfully present in the country."

Also, Gov. Brewer said she planned to do just that--to turn over a huge number of suspected illegals even if it swamped the federal government's ability to process them and even though the federal government didn't want them turned over.

That's irrelevant. The law explicitly states that if you have an AZ driver's license or immigration papers, that is evidence that you are in the USA legally. The court is arguing that the legislature intends to put what the state believes to be legal person through the system anyway. Utter nonsense.

Unless I'm missing something, the law doesn't explain the process for determining the legal status. The judge, it appears, is making the assumption that the local jurisdictions will not look at things like driver's licenses, green cards, state IDs, and birth certificates. They judge seems to be saying that Arizona is going to stick its fingers in its ears and chant "la la la" while sending each and every person over to the feds.

Yeh, right.

(Again, see the points I've been making about the differences between the policy the Arizona law establishes and the policy of the federal government on enforcement of immigration laws.)

I've read the points you think you have been making, and I don't intend to go through them again.

That's the point of the injunction. Bolton wrote, "The Court also finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States’ favor considering the public interest."

That conclusion is based on the misguided assumption that Arizona intended to put every single person arrested through the system. I agree, that would be a ridiculous burden, but nobody outside of this lawsuit has made that argument as far as I can tell. Can you show me examples of this interpretation in this thread before the lawsuit? How about elsewhere? I live in AZ, and nobody here thought for a moment that was the intention.

Based on what I've read so far, changing a few words to make it clear that they do not intend to put every single person arrested through the federal system would fix the problem.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I'm quite familiar with the situation.

No, you really, really aren't

Again, if you're talking about legal minimum wage jobs, yes that's what I'm saying. You can't go lower than the minimum and still be legal, can you?

 

[Neally]

Based on what I've read so far, changing a few words to make it clear that they do not intend to put every single person arrested through the federal system would fix the problem.

Yes, that may be the answer.

The National Review did a similar analysis:

So determined was Judge Bolton to follow the Obama administration’s political strategy regarding the law’s putative impact on legal immigrants that she exploited a drafting error in the law that Arizona had already acknowledged and repudiated. S.B. 1070 authorizes local law-enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals they have lawfully stopped, if they have reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the country illegally, and if the inquiry into immigration status is practicable. S.B. 1070 also required that “any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Arizona stated in its brief and testified in court that the legislative intent behind that sentence regarding arrestees was that only people for whom there is already reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally would have their immigration status checked after arrest. The section does not apply to every arrestee.

- http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODg2MWRmNWNlOTUwNDdiMWMwNGVlZDM0YjJkM2M3Mzg=

 

[eeyore1954]

Which is what, exactly?

Personally, I agree with the judge's ruling and reasoning behind it. I'm just curious to know what your "plan b" is all about.

On a side note, every story that I've read regarding the judge's ruling has a comment section which is absolutely exploding with some really reprehensible rhetoric. There's a lot of pretty vile, downright racist, things being unloaded onto these comment sections, including many uses of terms like "wetback" and the n-word and whatnot.

Ah well, this is why we have a non-elected federal judiciary.

Is a politically appointed one much better. In decisions like these can't you usually know the decision based upon which party appointed the judge.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Not really.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I just heard Gov. Brewer on the radio saying the "federal government got relief from the courts to not do their job."

Again, I have to point out that this is a lie. The federal government does indeed enforce immigration laws. They are doing their job.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but it seems that many people still aren't aware that the current federal government's enforcement policy has resulted in all-time record high levels of enforcement (prosecutions, deportations, and the like).

The policy the Arizona law is intended to establish would interfere with the federal government doing its job.

What's at issue is NOT whether or not the federal government is doing its job. It is whether or not people agree with their policy. Brewer and the Arizona legislature would rather they follow a policy that doesn't focus enforcement efforts on criminals and that doesn't balance enforcement against humanitarian considerations or foreign relations.

I apologize for repeating the same things, but it seems that supporters of the Arizona law don't mind repeating the same misinformation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's no need to reiterate the ruling. Clearly, I read it.

Apparently you didn't:

Basically, the court is saying that because the first version did not contain the word arrest that the second sentence could not possibly apply only to arrests for being here illegally.

No. Bolton said that since the change was made in the first sentence, we can safely assume that if they intended it to be changed in the second sentence, they would have changed it.

What the court is saying is that the legislature said, "An AZ driver's license is good enough evidence to conclude that somebody is here legally unless you actually arrest them for something else. In that case, it's not good enough. Therefore, you must put every single person you arrest through the federal system."

No. States don't have the authority to determine who is here legally or not. A driver's license or papers can remove probable cause, but does not make a "determination" of status.

Since racial profiling is now out, it sounds very much like the intent is to swamp the federal government with requests to verify the status. This not only could be seen as harassing legitimate visitors and people here legally (including non-visaed legal visitors, citizens, legal aliens, undocumented aliens awaiting determination of various kinds of appeals, etc.), but it would also swamp the federal government's resources and force them to change their enforcement policy.

I know people think the AZ legislature is made up of a bunch of idiots, but that just makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't know. I keep hearing claims made by proponents of the law that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws. I've also heard proponents claim that the Arizona law is identical to federal law.

If the law says what you claim it says, then what would it change?

The State said, "“[T]he Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona’s law enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every single person arrested – even for United States citizens and when there is absolutely no reason to believe the person is unlawfully present in the country."

Again, I think a lot of things about this law are baffling, but the plain language in the law does indeed say "Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released." Arizona legislators know full well that states don't have the authority to make that determination (as for example by checking a driver's license). So in a legal sense, a law requiring that they determine the status of everyone they arrest, then that does indeed mean they have to contact federal authorities in every case.

That's irrelevant. The law explicitly states that if you have an AZ driver's license or immigration papers, that is evidence that you are in the USA legally.

States don't have that authority.

[ETA: Again, a valid driver's license or other documents might be enough to remove any reason to initiate a request to determine the status, but a determination of immigration status can only be made by federal authorities.]

That conclusion is based on the misguided assumption that Arizona intended to put every single person arrested through the system. I agree, that would be a ridiculous burden, but nobody outside of this lawsuit has made that argument as far as I can tell.

The law itself claims its intention is to establish a policy of "attrition through enforcement". I'll try to find the quote, but I know I've seen a public statement by Gov. Brewer saying that she intends to turn over huge numbers of suspected illegals even if federal authorities can't handle them (at least not without changing their policy to accommodate Arizona's).

ETA: While I appreciate your giving the Arizona state legislature the benefit of the doubt, and try to construe these sentences to come up with something reasonable, I should point out that this law also clearly violates the supremacy clause by making a state law that criminalizes illegal presence. (Federal law carefully points out that someone who is here illegally is not ipso facto a criminal.) So I think the way Bolton interpreted the section you're focussing on is probably exactly what they intended. It's certainly exactly what the law says.

 

[Neally]

I should point out that this law also clearly violates the supremacy clause by making a state law that criminalizes illegal presence.

Please provide the quote from Bolton's decision that states this.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Apparently you didn't:

I think you need to dial it down a notch.

No. Bolton said that since the change was made in the first sentence, we can safely assume that if they intended it to be changed in the second sentence, they would have changed it.

Sigh. You're repeating yourself and regurgitating the ruling. What you cite is not mutually exclusive to what I said. The judge is making what I consider an ill-founded interpretation of the original version. He's saying that the way the first sentence was originally written, the second sentence must mean X. They changed the first sentence, but not the second. Therefore, the second sentence must mean what I think it means based on the original version.

I'm saying that in either version the second sentence was never intended to mean what he says it means, and the state agrees. If

No. States don't have the authority to determine who is here legally or not. A driver's license or papers can remove probable cause, but does not make a "determination" of status.

As far as I can tell it is only now that you are making this interpretation. I asked for but did not receive any examples of this interpretation in this thread before now. Basically, the judge's argument is saying that the law as written means this:

If during a detention you have reason to believe someone is here illegally, you need to make a determination if they are here legally or not. If the person has an AZ driver's license or immigration papers, they are here legally. If you arrest someone, you need to make a determination if they are here legally or not. This means sending every person through the federal system.

The part in italics is an invention of the judge and the Obama administration. The argument is that since the law didn't explicitly state how that determination would be made, it must mean putting everybody through the federal system. The fact that the law accepts an AZ driver's license under just one sentence ago doesn't mean that it's acceptable in the next sentence. And even though the legislature could have explicitly stated that everybody needs to be checked by the Feds but didn't make that statement, the court must assume this is the case. And even though the papers filed by the State say that's not the case, the court will not believe them.

It gets even more absurd. Arizona did not need to pass a law to do what the court is claiming they "intended" for jurisdictions to do. Truth is, not a single jurisdiction has done what the court claims. Even that ******* Sheriff Joe could have done it, but he didn't (and doesn't). He's only referred those for whom no documentation could be gathered, which is a tiny minority of those arrested.

To recap:

* During the debates and explanations by the legislature, nobody ever said they intended to send every arrested person through the federal system.

* No jurisdiction anywhere in Arizona has done the above. They only send those for whom they cannot find proper documentation.

* In their court filing, Arizona explicitly stated this was not their intention.

* There is a reasonable interpretation of the law as written where one could argue that the aforementioned documentation (driver's license, immigration papers) would be sufficient after an arrest since they are sufficient before an arrest.

* It would be patently ridiculous for the state to do what the court claims because it would last all of about a day until the Feds requested an injunction to stop the practice.

I don't know. I keep hearing claims made by proponents of the law that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws. I've also heard proponents claim that the Arizona law is identical to federal law.

You really need to give that claim a rest. Everybody knows that the Feds provide limited enforcement. Nobody is actually arguing that the billions of dollars spent on immigration is really spent on lobster dinners to absolute exclusion of all enforcement. The fact that they refer to the system for checking immigration status is an implicit acknowledgement of enforcement.

You only discredit yourself by continually bringing up this issue. "Not enforcing immigration law" is a euphemism for not adequately enforcing the law.

If the law says what you claim it says, then what would it change?

Seriously? There are numerous jurisdictions where illegals are arrested for other crimes, then released. What Arizona is saying is, "Look, if you've arrested somebody and it looks like they are here illegally, meaning no ID, not immigration papers, no birth certificate, etc, then check with the Feds to see if they are here legally. If not, then deport them."

States don't have that authority.

You're just playing semantic games.

[ETA: Again, a valid driver's license or other documents might be enough to remove any reason to initiate a request to determine the status, but a determination of immigration status can only be made by federal authorities.]

Everyone is well aware of that. Proper documentation is sufficient for a jurisdiction to to choose not to ask for a determination by the Feds. The court's claim is that Arizona intended to ask the Feds to make a determination on every single person arrested. Again, I challenge you to provide evidence that this is what Arizona intended. Show me debates in the legislature or comments by government officials indicating this is the case. Hell, show me in this thread where people made that interpretation before they heard it in the courts.

It's painfully obvious that you are against this law, and you are simply looking for ways to confirm your bias.

The law itself claims its intention is to establish a policy of "attrition through enforcement". I'll try to find the quote, but I know I've seen a public statement by Gov. Brewer saying that she intends to turn over huge numbers of suspected illegals even if federal authorities can't handle them (at least not without changing their policy to accommodate Arizona's).

Yes. Suspected illegals. Not "people we think are citizens." The court did not say that Arizona could not do that. It said that Arizona could not run every single person arrested through the system. There's a big difference.