Arizona anti-immigrant law goes down, sort of

#27
#27
So what is the deal with the provision that didn't get struck down? Is Arizona free to enforce it, or does something else have to be done?

It seems like that was the main issue, here.
 
#28
#28
tvolsfan said:
So what is the deal with the provision that didn't get struck down? Is Arizona free to enforce it, or does something else have to be done?

It seems like that was the main issue, here.
Click to expand...

They can enforce it, but when they do, they open themselves up to a new challenge.
 
#30
#30
tvolsfan said:
So what does that mean? It has to go to court again?
Click to expand...

it seems that Kennedy et al are saying, "this section of the law may be ok, but we can't predict how it will actually be implemented or interpreted by Arizona courts. we hold that it's not preempted and abstain from commering further at this time."
 
#31
#31
lawgator1 said:
The provision at issue was not "upheld." The ruling by the majority was that too little is known about its enforcement by the state to be able to rule.
Click to expand...


Here's the question for me. Does this mean that the 9th Circuit will re-hear this regardless of implementation or that it CAN be retried after implementation if it is challenged (which it likely will be).

IOW - is it automatically sent down to be reheard after x period of time or does the rehearing depend on a future challenge after implementation.
 
#32
#32
TNGlen said:
How did that happen with Kagan recusing herself? Wouldn't it have to be 5-3?
Click to expand...

Yeah.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissent- ing in part. KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
 
#33
#33
TNGlen said:
^this.....what is scary is that Congress can "decide" that they OWN a particular area of legislation and the States can do absolutely nothing about it. For example, Congress can decide that it owns health care in this country and basically we are screwed because then the states can't pass laws to either inhibit federal enforcement or even aid federal enforcement.
Click to expand...

How did Congress decide they own this area? It's an enumerated power.
 
#34
#34
volinbham said:
Here's the question for me. Does this mean that the 9th Circuit will re-hear this regardless of implementation or that it CAN be retried after implementation if it is challenged (which it likely will be).

IOW - is it automatically sent down to be reheard after x period of time or does the rehearing depend on a future challenge after implementation.
Click to expand...

It will go back but not for reconsideration on this record. There are just some procedural steps for conforming the 9th circuit and the district court files to what the scotus says.
Any stay on enforcement is lifted.

What they are saying, in my view, is that if you enforce this in such a manner as to use it to regulate immigration, then it would be preempted. If, on the other hand, it is part of routine checks, maybe not.

There is no doubt that the proponents see it as an immigration enforcement tool. The notion of randomly stopping Hispanic looking people because they MIGHT be illegal is where they would get themselves in trouble.

The state may see the writing on the wall and make checks as they do for other things, like warrants. That I think would be okay.

Brewer, however, is a true believer. She will advocate for the random checks application.

Really going to end up being a battle within arizona's political system as to how that all plays out.
 
#36
#36
#37
#37
Federal officials said theyÂ’ll still perform the checks as required by law, but will only respond when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.
Click to expand...

yeah we don't like that law so we'll just ignore it. Amazing
 
#40
#40
myrobbins7 said:
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Arizona police - Washington Times
Click to expand...

utvolpj said:
yeah we don't like that law so we'll just ignore it. Amazing
Click to expand...


The State of Arizona has been antagonistic towards the federal government, and this administration in particular, since day one. Even just in terms of the personalities, both Brewer and Arpaio have tried some pretty caustic stunts to try to embarrass and humiliate Obama, just on a personal level.

Add to that this statute, and its pretty easy to see that there is no love lost here. The far right will interpret the above action you cite as more federal arrogance.

But if you ask me, they are doing Arizona a pretty big favor. By refusing to cooperate in the immigration checks absent indicating you have stopped a felon, the feds are severely narrowing the day-to-day application of the provision of the law not yet struck down as preempted. The simple fact is, if you can only run it on felony record folks, odds are that the subject is either gone already or the check will come back positive.

Arizona now can't run the checks just randomly. And if they try, it will be so transparent that its just harassment of Hispanics that even the police will have to know the practice can't survive a challenge.

Ergo, what will happen is that the provision will rarely be enforced. If ever. And certainly not randomly in any significant numbers.

For the cameras and the microphones, Brewer & Co. will scream bloody murder and throw the base some serious red meat. In private, they'll be thanking God that the administration made it impossible for them to make this worse for Arizona than it already is.
 
#42
#42
NEOCON said:
Countries do fall and sometimes from within.

I hope this never happens but of the feds continue to place burdens on the state that they cannot afford the end game could be ugly.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with you... Just seems to be a lengthy extrapolation over this ruling.
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
The State of Arizona has been antagonistic towards the federal government, and this administration in particular, since day one.
Click to expand...

maybe because this admin is failing in all capacities to do what is required of them by law. They are saying they will enforce what they want and there's nothing any state can do about it. Congrats, that's what you voted for

lawgator1 said:
Arizona now can't run the checks just randomly. And if they try, it will be so transparent that its just harassment of Hispanics that even the police will have to know the practice can't survive a challenge.

Ergo, what will happen is that the provision will rarely be enforced. If ever. And certainly not randomly in any significant numbers.
Click to expand...

you have no idea what AZ is like. This was never intended to be random and the law was written that way. If it was simply to harass Hispanics it would have been throw out.
 
#45
#45
milohimself said:
Not disagreeing with you... Just seems to be a lengthy extrapolation over this ruling.
Click to expand...

It just seems in the last decade that state rights vs the feds has become a larger issue and many states are feeling that its not in their best interest to have the feds making decisions for them.

I think if Obamacare is overturned then this will help relieve some of that pressure but it does appear to be mounting.
 
#46
#46
utvolpj said:
maybe because this admin is failing in all capacities to do what is required of them by law. They are saying they will enforce what they want and there's nothing any state can do about it. Congrats, that's what you voted for



you have no idea what AZ is like. This was never intended to be random and the law was written that way. If it was simply to harass Hispanics it would have been throw out.
Click to expand...


Okay, wrong and wrong. As usual.

But well written, so two gold stars on your permanent record.
 
#48
#48
NEOCON said:
It just seems in the last decade that state rights vs the feds has become a larger issue and many states are feeling that its not in their best interest to have the feds making decisions for them.

I think if Obamacare is overturned then this will help relieve some of that pressure but it does appear to be mounting.
Click to expand...


The states furthest to the other side of the political spectrum than the administration always feel that the feds are keeping them from doing what they ought to be allowed to do.

I don't see how one gets away from the fact that the feds do regulate immigration into the United states. There is not then a sub-immigration question for each state.

If there was, well, you can just imagine the consequences.
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
Okay, wrong and wrong. As usual.

But well written, so two gold stars on your permanent record.
Click to expand...

easy to say but hard to prove. Oh wait, you have no intention of providing any facts but would rather demonize the people of AZ trying to help their state which is overburdened and has just been told they will receive no help from the feds.

How are the following wrong:

1) the feds will not enforce certain laws in this country
2) the AZ law was not written to be random
 
#50
#50
utvolpj said:
easy to say but hard to prove. Oh wait, you have no intention of providing any facts but would rather demonize the people of AZ trying to help their state which is overburdened and has just been told they will receive no help from the feds.

How are the following wrong:

1) the feds will not enforce certain laws in this country
2) the AZ law was not written to be random
Click to expand...


1) It is not the law of this country to have a wall around it. Or to shoot Latinos in the desert.

2) The feds do not have the resources to patrol like we all wish they could. That does not in turn unleash to the states some sort of extra-Constitutional power to take matters into their own hands.

3) If you won't acknowledge that a major component of the Arizona law was the far right's hope to be able to harass, and more importantly, to be make it known that they might harass, anyone with Latino features and who might not have the right paperwork, then you are a bigger numbskull than I thought.

After this decision, Arizona is free to enforce that provision as long as it does not amount to a regulation on immigration. If you are right, then they should have no trouble doing that.

My guess is that they'll try, though, and get smacked on the nose yet again.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top