Monday, June 25, 2012

I'm Back, Arizona SB 1070

One heck of a week off.  Back surgery was successful, and have taken my first steps in two years that haven't been associated with pain.  The downside is that my spine still hasn't straightened, but I think time will cure that.

I also don't toss and turn at night now due to the pain.  This is awesome, as I am finally getting some sleep.  Now back to the fray.

Arizona S.B. 1070

In a broad sense, the situation was that illegal immigration in Arizona was out of control.  The feds weren't doing their jobs as immigration enforcers, and crime was rampant along the border.  Governor Brewer stepped in and said that they were going to do the job the feds weren't.  Napoleon was like "NUH-UH RAYCISM".  The Arizona legislature said differently, and passed SB 1070 (linky-linky), signed by Gov. Brewer 23 April 2010.

Four sections were struck down by the ninth circuit, otherwise known as the "Department of Judicial Activism".  The sections were 2(b), 3, 5(c), and 6.

Arizona v USA

Split decision.  Noted that Kagan recused.  Let's get to the highlights.

Section 3: Arizona tried to regulate alien registration.  Justice Kennedy: "Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field in which Congress has left no room for States to regulate...The federal registration framework remains comprehensive. Because Congress has occupied the field, even complementary state regulation is impermissible. Pp. 8–11."

Analysis: State tried to take away some federal power.  That's a no-no.  Justice Kennedy ruled on prior precedent, wagged his finger at Arizona.  I have no problem with this.

Section 5(c): Arizona legislated that it's a misdemeanor for an illegal alien to seek employment in this country.  Justice Kennedy: "Section 5(C)’s criminal penalty stands as an obstacle to the federal regulatory system...The correct instruction to draw from the text, structure, and history of IRCA is that Congress decided it would be inappropriate to impose criminal penalties on unauthorized employees. It follows that a state law to the contrary is an obstacle to the regulatory system Congress chose. Pp. 12–15."

Analysis: Federal trumps state.  Congress said no penalty, and no penalty shall be assessed.  Personally, I don't agree with this one.  If an illegal breaks the law (like trying to get a job in this country), shouldn't there be penalties?  In other words, an illegal gets deported, comes back illegally, applies for a job.  Gets discovered, cycle repeats.  Wouldn't a penalty in theory discourage them from coming back?  Don't ask what penalty I would come up with, because I have no idea.  For use of example, branding.  Moving on. (ed-in rereading this, i might have missed the simple rule: federal trumps state; i think my point is how can you break a law and not be penalized?).

Section 6: Allows state/local officials in Arizona to arrest suspected illegals without a warrant at any time (this is important), i.e. without federal supervision.  Justice Kennedy: "By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable...Section 6 attempts to provide state officers with even greater arrest authority, which they could exercise with no instruction from the Federal Government. This is not the system Congress created. Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform an immigration officer’s functions. This includes instances where the Attorney General has granted that authority in a formal agreement with a state or local government. See, e.g., §1357(g)(1). Although federal law permits state officers to "cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States," §1357(g)(10)(B), this does not encompass the unilateral decision to detain authorized by §6. Pp. 15–19.

Analysis: In effect, the state of Arizona again tried to take federal power away and give state/local PD entirely too much power.  Federal trumps state.  I agree with the opinion, basically because we all know Barney Fife would put an entire town on lockdown at gunpoint based on a hunch.  No thanks.

Section 2(b): Officers who stop, detain, or arrest may in some circumstances verify immigration status.  Justice Kennedy: It was improper to enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that §2(B)’s enforcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives. Pp. 19–24.(a) The state provision has three limitations: A detainee is presumed not to be an illegal alien if he or she provides a valid Arizonadriver’s license or similar identification; officers may not consider race, color, or national origin "except to the extent permitted by the and §2(B) must be "implemented in a manner consistent with federal law regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens."

Analysis: Check with ICE if they don't have a valid ID.  Don't profile (wink-wink).  This section merely affirms Federal law, and is allowed to stand.  And I concur.

  • Three of four sections struck down.  All four ruled upon the same way in the majority opinion.
  • Justice Sotomayer concurred to uphold section 2(b) (as did the other 7; Kagan recused).  Guess she's now a wise white person, because that was the most racist-y racist law to every racist a racism.  Or something.
  • Justice Kennedy relied heavily on past precedent to draw a clear line in state vs. federal powers.  His logic was clear and sound in this opinion.  The ACA decision will be handed down this week.  As we saw in the oral arguments of said case, Justice Kennedy could not provide, and was not given, any prior precedent regarding the use of federal power in the manner the Federal Government stated it could.  In fact, toward the end of arguments he got rather flustered that the AG/SG clownshow couldn't answer any of his questions.  While he did favor the federal side of the equation in this opinion, it's his technique which should be noted.  This bodes well for Thursday.
  • Just a thought, but will the ID check of section 2(b) be tied into whole "disenfranchising minorities" blather? 
Gov. Brewer is correct when she states that today's decision was "A win for the rule of law".  It was also a pimp slap to Napoleon who for some reason doesn't want people to enforce federal law.

Can't wait to hear the "RACISM" snarl this afternoon.


Dean said...

Great wrap up. Tweet and link forthcoming.

drozz said...

Thanks for the support!

B-Daddy said...

Better summary than Greta or any of the talking heads on TV.

B-Daddy said...

Also, I did not know about your back. But I'm really glad you are feeling better.

B-Daddy said...

Better summary than Greta or any of the talking heads on TV.

drozz said...

thanks for the well wishes and feedback.

What really infuriates me here is the regime's response. 3 of 4 were struck down-this would have been a perfect time to extend an olive branch. instead, the spitefull and malicious regime stcked the immigration enforcement deck. nasty people.

Road Dawg said...

Good wrap up.
I don't buy the Barney Fife argument. Whether you are a local cop, soldier, officer of the court, or elected official,(even citizens) are we not sworn to uphold the laws of the land? Isn't this the mood of your wrap up?

Maybe I am being to simple here, but somewhere the locals have to take care of their own back yard. The local association isn't mowing the grass at the foreclosed house next door, but I don't want the weeds or ugliness next to me so I might trespass and take care of it.

Everything grinds to personal responsibility. If I feel unsafe and don't believe the police can protect me, I should have a gun. 20yrs after the Rodney riots should teach us that much.

I am a big believer in granting more sovereignty to the states. We keep losing liberty to the Feds every time we don't call them on their BS. If they can't do their job, why are they taking so much money from our pockets?

It's the protection racket..... Gone

But that was a great point-by-point of the decision. I was very unhappy the way it went. We should have the right to protect ourselves, when others who take our money to do so, abdicate their responsibility. This seems to be the intent of the Arizona law.

I received a copy of the Declaration of Independence a few years ago and was stunned we have become so removed from these thoughts.

Get well with your back pain.

drozz said...

"I am a big believer in granting more sovereignty to the states. We keep losing liberty to the Feds every time we don't call them on their BS. If they can't do their job, why are they taking so much money from our pockets? "

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, as Justice Kennedy pointed out, "congress has occupied the field".

I do not believe it to be in the SCOTUS realm to take power from the fed and hand it off to any state when there is clear law and history, even if one of the parties isn't doing their damn job.

i applaud governor brewer for standing up for her state and making the US take notice. that will have to do for now, until we find elected officials with some cahones to start dealing with the issues in this country (hint: rhymes with "flea sarty"). until then, stay armed, loud, and vote.

i cannot think of an instance when a state legally took back federal power. it would be nice if the states could grant themselves some kind of immunity to federal law when it can be proven the feds are willingly not enforcing, or straight obstructing the laws. but that might snowball into civil war.

as you said, responsibility is key. this regime takes none except when politically expedient. and the people along the border are losing their lives because of it.

when i was in the air force, a test had to be taken to reach e-4. The material covered included constitution and the DOI. In rereading both for the first time in years, it dawned on me that I wished people still wrote like that.

drozz said...

ugh i meant "RD"