Tag Archives: SB1070

Is Arizona Being Punished?

Is Arizona being chastised by this administration? Just minutes after the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of law enforcement to check citizenship on detained individuals the White House issued a bold statement. The Department of Homeland Security would suspend existing agreements with Arizona police and would stop responding to most of Arizona law enforcement calls related to illegal immigrants. In addition, a complaint telephone number has been posted for anyone who may feel police stopped him due to racial profiling.

Instead of offering further assistance to secure the border of Arizona DHS has stated that no additional officers will be provided.

In the short clip below former border patrol official Robert Gilbert reminds us that Americans are expecting ALL law enforcement to work together.

Listen to long time border Sheriff Larry Dever explain the insult to the professionalism of Arizona law enforcement.

Today as many hear the news they are asking if Arizona is being punished for attempting to do the job that the Federal Government won’t.

 

What does the SCOTUS ruling on SB1070 really mean

Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that states cannot create laws that are intended to make up for a federal government’s failure to enforce them which has far reaching implications beyond SB1070.

Consider the current administration’s decision to not enforce deportation statutes and The Defense of Marriage Act. Whether Americans agree or disagree with those laws, this decision means that states do not have the right to create the same or stricter laws and enforce them within their borders.

Now consider other federal laws and amendments to the Constitution:

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Taking SCOTUS’ decision into account, are states now banned from creating more restrictive laws on gun carry and ownership? It would seem to be so. The premise that the second amendment states that this right may not be infringed is the basis upon which many second amendment challenges by groups like the NRA, CALGUNS and more have asserted there cases. Perhaps the Supreme Court has just strengthened every one of those cases.

The Government’s argument was that federal law preempted or “trumped” the state’s efforts to strengthen immigration laws. Is that not what several states have done with the second amendment?

Environmental Laws

Many states such as California have chosen to write environmental regulations stronger than those posed by the EPA. Since the EPA is the federal legal authority, do states no longer have the right to create and enforce state-level laws more restrictive than those set by Congress and implemented by the executive branch?

Summary

The SCOTUS decision on SB1070 seems in the short term to be a weakening of State’s rights and an empowerment of the federal government. While it seems to be a protection of individual liberties in these cases, it may also limit the ability of states to experiment with lighter or stricter laws – an inherent characteristic of our governing framework. The soft spot may be that no state may write a law that trumps the federal which gives our central government even more motivation to create more laws and bureaucracy. The more laws the misfits in D.C. create, the less power left in the hands of the states.

Focused attention on Congressional elections will be required this year – very focused.

SCOTUS on AZ SB1070: Mixed Ruling – 1 of 4 Provisions Upheld

BREAKING: It appears the only part of the Arizona SB1070 law that has been upheld is that police can check the papers. In ruling the court has said that a state does not have the right to undermine the federal government. Depending on your personal opinion this was a partial win for Arizona or a net win for Obama.  Supreme Court AZ vs United States

Update:

Section 3- Unconstitutional. Results: A person in the US does not have to carry identification papers. Federal law requires a legal alien to carry a ‘green card’.

Section 5- Unconstitutional. Results: Cannot be a violation for the state to say it is illegal for any person to look for a job.

Section 6- Unconstitutional. Results: Cannot routinely stop a person to check immigration status.

Section 2-Sent back to 9th Circuit: If a person has been stopped with reasonable suspicion of a crime it is okay to ask for identity/proof of residency.

What’s Really Happening with Arizona’s Immigration Law?

jan brewer Gov. AZArizona Governor, Jan Brewer signed her State’s new tough immigration bill (full unedited text of SB1070) into law this week.  There is heavy support from Arizona residents, but firm opposition from liberal-leaning organizations.

Arizona has been pleading for assistance from the Federal government for years, so this is not a new problem, nor did Obama cause it.  Immigration was a problem Obama had promised to solve in the first year of his presidency and his failure to follow-through has given Governor Brewer no choice but to act at the State level.

The opposition comes from mainly religious, civil liberty and Latino organizations.  The bill is even being compared to the Japanese internment camps of WWII and South African apartheid.  Some complications with those comparisons are that those were injustices against people who had not committed a crime.  Being Japanese and a rightful citizen of the United States is not a crime.  Any race or ethnicity that chooses not to apply through the existing processes and laws, but reside in the U.S. anyway, is breaking current Federal law.  The opposition tries to downplay the criminal aspect of illegal immigration by calling the law-breakers “undocumented workers”.  Whether they work or not, they aren’t documented because they are only here by breaking the law.

Brewer is right to point out that this is a public safety matter.  Crime will go down if there are fewer illegals.  There are studies that have been done over the past ten years that say that illegal immigrants commit crimes at the same rate as citizens, and other studies that say the criminal rate is higher among them – especially for sexual predation.  Assuming that the crime rate among illegal aliens is identical to citizens, those are still crimes.  If the illegal aliens weren’t there, should it be assumed that some other person would go commit that same crime in their stead?  The large number of illegal aliens in the justice system also increases costs for state and local governments.

Day laborersThe law does not give state law enforcement any new powers for search and seizure.  The law still requires reasonable suspicion, the same tests applied for other crimes committed by both citizens or aliens.  The law actually mandates that they must enforce the existing federal law to its full extent.  Some might find it puzzling that they weren’t already doing that.  A few new state provisions make the federal crimes into state crimes, such as failing to apply for or carry alien documentation.  Perhaps the only contentious provision is that which makes it illegal to impede traffic while picking up day laborers as not all day laborers have violated immigration law.  The point of contention is that perhaps they could have put this into a traffic safety bill instead, there is certainly nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.

Many are also ignoring the economic drain these workers represent.  They are undocumented and therefor do not pay federal income tax or state income tax, but they do need the roads, hospitals, services, and infrastructure provided with such taxes.  Additionally, a significant sum of money is sent to Mexico directly from the migrants that do work.  That money is pulled out of the U.S. economy – probably the largest reason for the objections of the Mexican government.

Should we stop immigration – surely not.  We must stop illegal immigration.  Immigrants should apply, be screened, documented and subject to our laws, including taxation.  The screening process can help us identify undesirable criminal applicants (or weed them out naturally as they might not apply at all).  They are welcome to share our country and what it has to offer, but they surely should also share the burdens that come with working and living in the United States.  If health reform continues to mandate insurance, they should also be forced to buy a plan.

The process for legal immigration should also be simplified.  Many argue that illegal aliens do many of the jobs that a citizen would not.  Well, then open the floodgates for those skills – by allowing more in through the legal process, but don’t just tear down the gate.

President Obama has called Governor Brewer’s actions, “irresponsible”.  The Governor is the chief of the executive branch for her State and so charged to enforce the laws applicable within that State.  She has now had to sign a law explicitly saying that Arizona will enforce Federal laws, because the Federal government won’t.  She’s performing her responsibility, by taking action when the Obama administration failed to perform theirs.