Arizona Judge strikes down papers please law

[JB3]

heres another interesting reason the judge gives for her action....



so the arguement of federal supremacy has been held up in this court.

Not exactly. In that statement she very clearly left open the possibility for further decisions that will uphold the law, even though she believes certain segments of it do preempt federal law. It should also be noted that during the arguments the judge found the government's preemption arguments very, very troubling. It is likely that if her final ruling does indicate that the law preempts federal law, it will be extraordinarily limited in scope, and could leave the door open for appeals.

Either way, this WILL end up in the hands of the supreme court. Preemption is a very serious issue, and this particular judge's skepticism regarding the government's arguments could indicate the judiciary's response as a whole. To be blunt, if it reaches the Supreme Court, the government will lose. I would be shocked if the court ruled in favor of the government, because it has shown no interest in giving the government the sort of expansive authority that they are arguing in this case.

 

[Seasoned]

Rareboy, the Latins are lucky that their skin is a different color. Why? In Europe, much of the illegal immigration comes from Poland, Lithuania, the Ukraine, and Russia, so they don't have the excuse of racism to back them up.

On a related note, I read someplace that in parts of Berlin, one person out of every four is an illegal immigrant. Parts of Berlin, mostly in the former East Berlin, have become a toilet. In one of the suburbs, the Vietnamese Mafia has almost completely taken over.

Sadly, in enclaves of illegal immigrants, most often you find these ethnic Mafias. This is true in the United States, too, where the Mexican Mafia has infiltrated the nation's barrios.

My goal, first and foremost, has been strong enforcement of the law. This sense of law and order courses through every vein in my body, folks—I can't help it. I guess that makes me a pretty lousy Democrat.

"Read someplace," "parts of city are toilets," and, "mafia enclaves" are hot button phrases that may or may not be accurate. For a law to be inforceable it needs to be constitutional. I want no law created or enforced that is not constitutional. Too many have died to protect that aspect of checks and balances to ignore it now based on hysteria.

PS. Have you ever heard of forged papers?

 

[JB3]

"Read someplace," "parts of city are toilets," and, "mafia enclaves" are hot button phrases that may or may not be accurate. For a law to be inforceable it needs to be constitutional. I want no law created or enforced that is not constitutional. Too many have died to protect that aspect of checks and balances to ignore it now based on hysteria.

PS. Have you ever heard of forged papers?

I have not yet heard any legitimate argument that the Arizona law is not constitutional. All I've heard is emotionally-based ranting (see above), with little to no rational arguments explaining why.

 

[BostonPirate]

I have not yet heard any legitimate argument that the Arizona law is not constitutional. All I've heard is emotionally-based ranting (see above), with little to no rational arguments explaining why.

the judge would not have issued the hold if she had not thought there were serious issues with the law. Public opinion is a weird thing. People like to be on the wnning side.

I would guess that the public perceptions will change.

One thing I constantly am amazed with is that while a majority of people think the law is racist and will lead to profiling they still support it 60 percent.

that seems to me to say that 60 percent of the nation is Ok with racial profiling and behaviors.

that startles me.

 

[construct]

the judge would not have issued the hold if she had not thought there were serious issues with the law.

That's right. The judge wouldn't have granted the preliminary injunction if there weren't a likelihood that the federal government would win the case. The injunction basically keeps everything the way it is until a final decision can be made. That way we don't have the disruption of the law going back and forth in the meantime.

It's kind of like the stay that came up in one of those California marriage cases. The trial judge found that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional, but he stayed the relief to give the opponents a chance to appeal. That way if his ruling were reversed, you wouldn't have all these couples who were married during that little window of opportunity between the two decisions. (Of course, it later turned out that there were marriages that occurred between the next decision and Prop. 8, so the situation was just put off for a bit. )

Public opinion is a weird thing. People like to be on the wnning side.

I would guess that the public perceptions will change.

One thing I constantly am amazed with is that while a majority of people think the law is racist and will lead to profiling they still support it 60 percent.

that seems to me to say that 60 percent of the nation is Ok with racial profiling and behaviors.

that startles me.

I wonder if the problem isn't that some of that 60% just don't realize how much of a hardship racial profiling often is for people that really don't have any other reason to be inconvenienced besides race. It's easy to give up ones own liberties when the force of it really falls on other people.

 

[Jack Springer]

Does this mean I no longer have to carry my driver's license with me or have a passport when I travel outside the country?

 

[BostonPirate]

Does this mean I no longer have to carry my driver's license with me or have a passport when I travel outside the country?

no

it means its still against the law for states to create laws that supercede federal laws, and that people even in the majority cannot engage in actions that can harm people in the minority.

 

[palemale]

Does this mean I no longer have to carry my driver's license with me or have a passport when I travel outside the country?

You don't have to carry a driver's license with you now, and if you don't have a passport when you travel outside the country, you won't be allowed into your destination country and won't be allowed back into the country. They'll just drop you someplace where no one is paying attention. Don't worry, though, I hear the real estate market in Somalia is very favorable for renters right now.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/07/28/azruling.pdf

theres the ruling

she has stopped the porfiling and stopped the papers part of the law....

there is very little other part of the law remaining to even try to enforce.

Of course her decision will be appealed, but for now, civil rights have won the day.

She left the majority of the law alone, though the core of it was gutted. It's a well-reasoned decision, though I disagree with one section, about the employment of illegals.

actually she has put it on hold as it is obviously in conflict with federal law and standards.

NOTE that correction.

She has put a few sections on hold -- granted, they're the core, but it's only a few sections.

I note here that the way the decision reads, what one sheriff in Arizona said, that immigration status will be checked for everyone jailed: that imposes no extra burden on either government or legal aliens or citizens, as the requirement of such checking for anyone arrested does. That item falls in a little gap in federal law, so it doesn't come under pre-emption. Though what could then be done is another matter; she argued firmly that since U.S. law states penalties for illegal immigration.presence, and they do not include criminal penalties, Arizona can't impose any either.

Not exactly. In that statement she very clearly left open the possibility for further decisions that will uphold the law, even though she believes certain segments of it do preempt federal law. It should also be noted that during the arguments the judge found the government's preemption arguments very, very troubling. It is likely that if her final ruling does indicate that the law preempts federal law, it will be extraordinarily limited in scope, and could leave the door open for appeals.

Either way, this WILL end up in the hands of the supreme court. Preemption is a very serious issue, and this particular judge's skepticism regarding the government's arguments could indicate the judiciary's response as a whole. To be blunt, if it reaches the Supreme Court, the government will lose. I would be shocked if the court ruled in favor of the government, because it has shown no interest in giving the government the sort of expansive authority that they are arguing in this case.

The arguments given make a good case for preemption for much of Arizona's law. The caution is good, though; just pronouncing "preemption!" and striking things down is bad precedent.

What I like is that she indirectly suggests ways in which the law could be fixed.

I have not yet heard any legitimate argument that the Arizona law is not constitutional. All I've heard is emotionally-based ranting (see above), with little to no rational arguments explaining why.

Wow.

Read the decision -- it gets heavy, but it's quite rational. I also don't like some of it, but that doesn't make it not rational.

 

[Jack Springer]

You don't have to carry a driver's license with you now, and if you don't have a passport when you travel outside the country, you won't be allowed into your destination country and won't be allowed back into the country. They'll just drop you someplace where no one is paying attention. Don't worry, though, I hear the real estate market in Somalia is very favorable for renters right now.

In what U.S. state do you not have to carry identification?

 

[construct]

In what U.S. state do you not have to carry identification?

You don't have to carry identification in Texas.

 

[Jack Springer]

You don't have to carry identification in Texas.

I am dumbfounded construct. I always thought it was required to carry an ID. In a little research I found out that most US states don't require it.

Crazy laws.

 

[Lostlover]

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I've been in Singapore for a few months and don't pay much attention to US politics while I'm gone, but wasn't it found that the dude was killed by an American criminal not an illegal immigrant?

Molten! Glad you're back. Lookin good. Sexy! Sexy!

And yes, it was an American not an illegal immigrant. Arizonans here have conveniently forgotten that.

 

[JB3]

no

it means its still against the law for states to create laws that supercede federal laws, and that people even in the majority cannot engage in actions that can harm people in the minority.

Note that the decision did not take any position in regards to the law's impact on the minority in this case. The ONLY aspects of the law that this judge commented on, and the reason why she issued the injunction, was because of questions concerning preemption.

 

[MercuryJones]

I guess that I'm the only leftie here on JUB who thinks laws should be enforced.

I don't know what being a "leftie" has to do with it, but I think the Constitution should be upheld. And that includes fighting laws that are unconstitutional.

 

[BostonPirate]

She has put a few sections on hold -- granted, they're the core, but it's only a few sections.

she only left one actual part in place. She did not interfere with the new law in regards to human smuggling.

 

[iman]

I am dumbfounded construct. I always thought it was required to carry an ID. In a little research I found out that most US states don't require it.

Crazy laws.

I am dumbfounded that a card carrying conservative would believe that citizens would be required to carry ID. As I understand it, persons without ID may be detained briefly until they can be identified if there is reason to believe they were involved in a crime.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_a..._.E2.80.9Cstop-and-identify.E2.80.9D_statutes

 

[BostonPirate]

Note that the decision did not take any position in regards to the law's impact on the minority in this case. The ONLY aspects of the law that this judge commented on, and the reason why she issued the injunction, was because of questions concerning preemption.

because she was answering the federal complaints which focused on that aspect of the law.

 

[BostonPirate]

heard on Fox News (don't judge, CNN was on a commercial break) that AZ is thinking about suing the federal government for not enforcing immigration laws if the fed won't let them enforce them themselves.

neat.

I wonder how the people who pay txes in Arizona are going to feel about having to constantly foot the bill for lawsuits that have little legal grounds but cost millions upon millions of tax dollars....

lovin that dang fence!

Arizona has got to address the fact that while it can go rogue to an extent, the other states that have the cash and the populations will not be so inclined to help them in their endeavor to politicize race.

 

[BostonPirate]

ok... the papers please law of arizona was for russians, irishmen and jews.

now is it less or more about race?

how about is it the truth?

Arizona has Isolated itself from the states with the cash and they are now plowing into spending millions for defending something that will never be allowed to stand.

that is not serving the people of Arizona.

Believe me, ther eare a host of things I think is wrong with america and our society, but I am not going to waste time noney and effort on trying to make a deal or law that will never fly.

this is political grndstanding at the expense of a minority and the taxpayers. it is ludicrous and it is a crime.

I will say this again... If arizona wants to do something about immigration reform, tell their dumb ass congressmen to stop blocking votes on the bills that come up on the topic. Until that happens they are all collectively full of crap.

nothing personal Johann, I was speaking to the whole thread more than to you directly