Arizona Judge strikes down papers please law

[MercuryJones]

I submit to you that some of the time, it is indeed racial, but some of the time, it's a simple desire for law and order.

Johann, I respectfully submit that there is a flaw in your argument.

Every nation has the right and responsibility to police borders and manage immigration.

What no US state has is the right to deprive citizens of due process.

Of course we want law and order, and we could greatly increase both by simply violating due process left and right. But our Constiution prohibits it, even when the outcome is appealing.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

She listed a dozen sections that wouldn't be touched, right there in the decision.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

And well they should. A bold higher court would rule that if the U.S. government is not enforcing laws, and that has a detrimental impact on a state, the state is entitled to enforce those laws itself, as it sees fit.

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.

"Legal grounds" -- that's an argument that keeps parasites sucking blood from us, i.e. keeps lawyers busy turning common sense inside out and twisting it beyond recognition.

If Arizona sues the feds and loses, they should file in the World Court, demanding that the FedGov enforce its laws.

 

[Kulindahr]

Johann, I respectfully submit that there is a flaw in your argument.

Every nation has the right and responsibility to police borders and manage immigration.

What no US state has is the right to deprive citizens of due process.

Of course we want law and order, and we could greatly increase both by simply violating due process left and right. But our Constiution prohibits it, even when the outcome is appealing.

Criminals hide behind the law all the time. The problem is that correcting the situation often involves trampling the rights of everyone in ways that just increase arbitrary police power and feed corruption.

There's a guy here who's ripped me off on the order of a thousand bucks. Since I stayed at his house a few nights, the cops have decided it's a civil matter. Now, I could assert that it's my business and right to go kick the guy's door in and stand there with a gun while friends collect what's mine. But if we make that law, what's to prevent others from claiming things that aren't theirs? Or I could demand that the police be empowered to just go with me to get my stuff -- but what if some cops decided they'd help people get things that weren't theirs, for a cut of the take?

Thanks to the way things run, I'm left without recourse; just filing in small claims court would take most of my food budget for a month, and if I win, and the guy has sold my stuff or traded it for drugs (most likely), it'll cost a bunch more to get the court to transcribe the session, deliver that to the clerk, where it will cost more to get the judge's order printed out, and then more to get the sheriff to deliver it, and then even more to get the guy's employer (none) or bank to handle paying me what I was awarded.

So it's tempting to take things into my own hands -- but would that be a precedent I want to provide?

 

[JB3]

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....
.

They'd have plenty of legal ground. The federal government isn't taking care of their responsibilities regarding immigration and preventing illegal immigration. If they're going to make the argument that immigration is solely the purview of the federal government, then Arizona would have grounds to sue if they don't feel the government is doing enough.

 

[Red Storm]

Magdalena De Kino, Mexico (CNN) -- Oscar Vazquez will likely read this story. He has the internet. He has a television, too. Then, he'll go off to work at a car parts factory.

He buries himself in work in this small Mexican town to keep his mind off thoughts of his wife and young daughter back in the United States.

"I try to keep myself busy," Vazquez said. "Like weekends are really tough. Most days, I just go to work and come home and sleep and sleep as much as I can and go back to work."

It's not the life Vazquez thought he'd be living after earning a mechanical engineering degree at Arizona State University.

Across the border, Vazquez's wife, Karla, and 2-year-old daughter, Samantha, live in Phoenix, Arizona, where it's relatively safer.

Karla Vazquez said she would have moved to Mexico with her husband if not for Samantha.


Like many Mexican border towns, Magdalena De Kino has seen its share of violence. A few months back several men were shot and killed just down the street, Oscar Vazquez said. The bullets scarred the front of his house.

More:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/07/29/arizona.immigration.oscars.story/index.html?hpt=C1

 

[fasteddy]

The judge in striking down portions of the law discarded or ignored previous guidlines for facial cases from the Supreme Court. The court ruled that state laws may not be struck down for presumed or what if scenarios. She did just that and played "what if all the crabs come out of the ocean at the same time" game and for that alone will probably be reversed.

The law specifically prohibits profiling, and really is a little more than an assist to the federal law. Of course the real argument, the elephant in the room if you will, is that if the law is found constitutional, and is mimicked in other states, and tons of illegals are sent back to their legal homeland, the democrats will lose a bunch of potential voters. Let's be honest here, that's what it is all about, granting ammesty to the 11-14 million in order to insure democrat control of the country for the forseeable future.

 

[MercuryJones]

The law specifically prohibits profiling, and really is a little more than an assist to the federal law.

Then AZ should try to make that case. But they'll probably fail.

Especially since that doesn't address the Judge's ruling.

For these reasons, the United States has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on its 18 claim that the mandatory immigration verification upon arrest requirement contained in 19 Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law.

Federal resources will be taxed and diverted from federal enforcement priorities as a result of the increase in requests for immigration status determination that will flow from Arizona....In combination with the impermissible burden this provision will place on lawfully-present aliens, the burden on federal resources and priorities also leads to an inference of preemption. Therefore, for the purposes of preliminary injunction analysis, the Court concludes that the United States has demonstrated a likelihood of success on its challenge to the first sentence of Section 2(B). Section 2(B) in its entirety is likely preempted by federal law.

Section 3 attempts to supplement or complement the uniform, national registration scheme by making it a state crime to violate the federal alien registration requirements, which a state may not do “inconsistently with the purpose of Congress.” Hines, 312 U.S. at 66-67; 25 see also A.R.S. § 13-1509(A). While Section 3 does not create additional registration requirements, the statute does aim to create state penalties and lead to state prosecutions for of the federal law..Section 3 stands as an obstacle to the uniform, federal registration scheme and is therefore an impermissible attempt by Arizona to regulate alien registration. See Hines, 312 U.S. at 67. As a result, the Court finds that the United States is likely to succeed on its claim that Section 3 4 is preempted by federal law.

By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a “distinct, unusual and extraordinary” burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose... The Court thus finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5), created by Section 6 of S.B. 1070, is preempted by federal law.

If enforcement of the portions of S.B. 1070 for which the Court finds a likelihood of preemption is not enjoined, the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm. This is so because the federal government’s ability to enforce its policies and achieve its objectives will be undermined by the state’s enforcement of statutes that interfere with federal law, even if the Court were to conclude that the state statutes have substantially the same goals as federal law... The Court thus finds a likelihood of irreparable harm to the interests of the United States that warrants preliminary injunctive relief.

Also, fasteddy, this was a preliminary injunction - the judge did exactly what the judge was supposed to do.

And also of note:

The Court by no means disregards Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money. Even though Arizona’s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws... The Court therefore finds that preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely preempted by federal law to be enforced.

 

[BostonPirate]

the governors request for a fast track trial was denied by the judge yesterday. this will not be seen in court until november at the earliest.

Until that time comes, the holds will stand.

 

[cocksucker4use]

The judge in striking down portions of the law discarded or ignored previous guidlines for facial cases from the Supreme Court. The court ruled that state laws may not be struck down for presumed or what if scenarios. She did just that and played "what if all the crabs come out of the ocean at the same time" game and for that alone will probably be reversed.

The law specifically prohibits profiling, and really is a little more than an assist to the federal law. Of course the real argument, the elephant in the room if you will, is that if the law is found constitutional, and is mimicked in other states, and tons of illegals are sent back to their legal homeland, the democrats will lose a bunch of potential voters. Let's be honest here, that's what it is all about, granting ammesty to the 11-14 million in order to insure democrat control of the country for the forseeable future.

What IT is about is the supremacy of the federal government and the supremacy of the US contitution over state laws that would erode or abrogate the rights guaranteed by the constitution. That every state should have its own Jim Crow laws on immigration and arrest and detain and perhaps even deport one class of persons can not be allowed.

Would Cindy McCain be pulled over and asked for her passport, or birth certificate or whatever PROOF of citizenship the county Barney requires that day? If she doesn't have it, would she be thrown into a detention camp until she comes up with it? Would she be at risk for being deported to East Anglia or Saxony without John or the kids being notified?

 

[laikaNYC]

What IT is about is the supremacy of the federal government and the supremacy of the US contitution over state laws that would erode or abrogate the rights guaranteed by the constitution. That every state should have its own Jim Crow laws on immigration and arrest and detain and perhaps even deport one class of persons can not be allowed.

Would Cindy McCain be pulled over and asked for her passport, or birth certificate or whatever PROOF of citizenship the county Barney requires that day? If she doesn't have it, would she be thrown into a detention camp until she comes up with it? Would she be at risk for being deported to East Anglia or Saxony without John or the kids being notified?

Have you even read the bill? It seems you most certainly haven't. You're spouting the same lies that the bill's opponents continue to perpetuate. If Cindy McCain was pulled over I'm sure she would provide a valid driver's license. The only people who have anything to fear are criminals

 

[BostonPirate]

Have you even read the bill? It seems you most certainly haven't. You're spouting the same lies that the bill's opponents continue to perpetuate. If Cindy McCain was pulled over I'm sure she would provide a valid driver's license. The only people who have anything to fear are criminals

the judge who revued the case specifically disagreed with your interpretation of the"facts"

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.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thinking of the possibility of Arizona suing the feds, I found this bit by the judge amusing:

Federal resources will be taxed and diverted from federal enforcement priorities as a result of the increase in requests for immigration status determination that will flow from Arizona....In combination with the impermissible burden this provision will place on lawfully-present aliens, the burden on federal resources and priorities also leads to an inference of preemption. Therefore, for the purposes of preliminary injunction analysis, the Court concludes that the United States has demonstrated a likelihood of success on its challenge to the first sentence of Section 2(B). Section 2(B) in its entirety is likely preempted by federal law.

In other words, since the federal government is being lazy-assed and hasn't done much to enforce its own law, it isn't to be bothered with efforts by the states to clean up the mess it's making and imposing on them.

 

[grantt]

^ Funny that the judge would use the word "Taxed".