Monday, April 11, 2011

Federal Appeals Court Blocks Enforcement Of Arizona Immigration Law

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today to block enforcement of Arizona's illegal immigration law, SB 1070.

The Obama Department of Justice had sued the state to prevent implementation of the law.

A key provision of SB 1070 empowers police officers to ask for immigration papers if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person they have stopped, detained or arrested during the course of normal police business or investigations is in the country illegally.

The Obama Administration's key argument was that the power to enforce and regulate immigration lies with the federal government and that the Arizona law was illegal on that basis.

Last July a District Court judge enjoined enforcement of the law, and today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

Judge Richard Paez, writing the decision, said, "By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government's authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement, turning Arizona officers into state-directed [Homeland Security] agents."

"Congress has created a comprehensive and carefully calibrated scheme" Baez wrote, "and has authorized the Executive to promulgate extensive regulations for adjudicating and enforcing civil removability."

One fascinating part of the decision by Judge Paez involved the effect of US law on relations with other countries.

He wrote that the Arizona law, could have a "deleterious effect on the United States' foreign relations" and noted that several foreign leaders, including the Presidents of Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador and Guatemala have publicly criticized the law.

Baez wrote that the law "thwarts the Executive's ability to singularly manage the spillover effects of the nation's immigration laws on foreign affairs."

I love that turgid phrase, 'spillover effects'. So our laws are now subject to review by foreign countries and they have a voice in repealing the one they don't like?

Many countries disapprove of capital punishment, including most of the ones named above. In Judge Paez's view, does that mean we should repeal it? And if that's true, why not extend that principle to its logical destination? Why not respect the views of those countries that follow sharia law and repeal most of the statutes governing women's rights?

SB 1070 was crafted to practically mirror current US immigration law, which many 'sanctuary cities' and jurisdictions are not enforcing. The next step for the Arizona law would be the US Supreme Court, provided they're willing to hear it.

My personal guess is that they will avoid this particular hot potato, but we'll see.

please helps me write more gooder!

1 comment:

B.Poster said...

If the Supreme Court either refueses to hear this or worse refuses to uphold the AZ immigration law, then AZ and other border states may have no choice left to them but to secede from the union. After all why why was the Union formed in the first place? It was formed primarily for the common defense. Given that this government can't or won't do that, there may no longer be a purpose for this union.

Obviously the dismantling of the Union would not nor should it be the first option but it is somehting we need to consider. There may literally be no other option available. I find the words of certain foreign leaders very peculliar. If the US were to interevene in this manner in their internal affairs, they would howl with rage and there would likely be calls be calls for some type of sanctions against America or some other form of punishment. So what gives them the right to intervene in our internal affairs? Ofthese countries, only Mexico shares a border with America. As such, this issue is none of their busines!! They need to tend to the issues in their own homelands and leave ours to us.

In thinking that enforcing AZ immigration law would somehow harm our international relations the judge is completely and wholly incorrect. In order for nation states to have constructive relations, there has to be mutual respect. When one nation, in this case the United States, is repeatedly violated there isn't the possibility for the kind of mutual respect that would be necessary for us to have constructive relations with other countries.

Finally and perhaps a bit off topic there is an additional reason why secession may be the only option of some states. A number of states are bankrupt and will need enormous bail outs. Why should states who managed their fiscal house responsibly be forced to pay for the stupid managemnt o those who didn't. The bad money managers will no doubt use the courts to try and force such a redistribution. Those better managed states should not be willing to tolerate such shenanigans.

Essentially the government of staes such as AZ, TX, and a few others I can think of should have their secession plans drawn up and they should be ready to implement on very litle notice. Its only prudent that a good government would be ready with all viabe options. I hope they are preparing. It may be necessary .