Immigration Law

Remove all ads!

I didn't say you still were denying it. It was a question -- sorry you had to answer it, though.

Yes, I answered that after NOG's post.

Some feel it is a consequence of the new law in AZ, so that would make it topic related. Nevertheless, at the risk of asking too many questions (that you feel are not topic related), do you feel it was unfair in this instance?

 

I would argue its relevance on the grounds that the unaddressed weaknesses found in the enforcement of federal law will almost certainly be present with the Arizona law as well. As I conceded earlier, the Arizona law doesn't really cause or employ any more racial profiling than the Federal law does. It does, however, introduce several elements that could easily lead to uneven enforcement.

I'm mainly opposed to the lawsuit provisions found in the law, how broadly "lawful contact" can be defined, and with the new law trampling on federal territory. If the law "just" empowered or required police officers to check the legal status of all individuals* that they have charged with a crime or misdemeanor and turn the illegals over to ICE, I'd have no problem with the law.

* All individuals -- without regard to race, accent, language proficiency, etc. For a legal citizen, this would take next to no time or resources at all (a drivers license or non-driver ID would suffice, and the police already have to run additional ID checks on individuals who possess or offer neither), and wording the law so broadly neatly sidesteps the issue of racial profiling in its entirety.

 

Ah, well then this law doesn't have anything to do with it. At worst, thrusting the immigration issue into the political spotlight caused this. I find it more likely that things like this happened anyway, and just didn't make it to the national spotlight themselves.

Again, it's only racist if it's actually only applied to Hispanics. There's one case, as far as I know, and it was a Hispanic. What if it happens tomorrow to an Asian trucker? Is it still racism?

I agree that 'lawful contact' could be replaced with 'lawful arrest' or 'indictment'. I think the lawsuit provision is important to go after sanctuary cities. You can't make a law specifically against 'sanctuary cities' because, of course, it's not an official distinction. Cities don't have to openly announce that they're sanctuary cities, they can just ignore immigration issues. I don't see any other practical way to go after them than this.

As for handing the illegals over to ICE, I do believe that's what the law commands. I'm not 100% sure about that, but I believe it authorizes police to detail suspected illegal immigrants, confirm their status as illegals, and then hand them over to ICE.

 

If you go to visit AZ are YOU going to bring YOUR BC?

 

Here is an interesting article. The first five paragraphs (small ones) are nothing new, just talking about the court case (it was written before the new ruling), but much of the rest of it describes a federal program which sounds like it would really work well if it were implemented widespread.

My question is, if the Feds make it mandatory (not sure if they could or not), would they go after sanctuary cities and other groups that refused to employ it with the same fervor they're going after Arizona now. Illegal immigration rights groups are already protesting, with many of the same complaints as they raised over the Arizona law.

 

I'm guessing this will end up being fast tracked to the Supreme Court. My understanding is that the judge didn't say they were "wrong", but delayed them so more time can be spent on the matter (although I may be wrong).

 

My take is this: The judge enjoined parts of the law precisely because he could not rule out they were violating constitutional law, or that their application would violate individual rights. So the judge is saying that the claims may have merit and that he cannot rule out that the enjoined parts of the law are 'wrong'.

In order to prevent an illegal law being applied and to prevent possible violations of individual rights through an application of the the law, he enjoined the parts in question. It's akin to an interim injunction. Owing to the preventative character, the threshold of proof is lower than in regular proceedings. The court will make an in depth assessment at a later time in a regular trial.

 

She.

 

Right. District Judge Susan Bolton.

 

My take is that the judge is a coward. This was a way to not make a ruling and to basically say it was someone else's problem. We will have to keep an eye on this judge. I'm guessing that before Obama leaves office he will try to get her bumped up to the appelate court as a nice thank you.

 

Ah yes, I take it you just forgot to mention her obvious liberal bias.

Imagine your state puts out a law that decrees that all Snooks are to be castrated, and authorities zealously enforce that law. You turn to the court out of preposterous fears that the application of the law may in some way infringe upon your and other Snooks rights.

The interim injunction is a way to stop application of the law until a regular court can review it in depth. The idea is that, if they keep on castrating Snooks apace, they may have already cut your balls off before you've had your day in regular court to challenge the law. If the court then finds the law was wrong, that won't help you much since it won't give you your balls back. Since it is impossible to have a regular court deciding on such an issue immediately, the interim injunction bridges that gap.

It has nothing to do with cowardice. It's just that you don't like her decision.

 

That may be the most idiotic example I've ever read. Any judge who can't make a ruling on their own that castrating people based on their internet moniker is wrong deserves to be impeached. Once again you are trying to inject racism into an immigration problem.

In the real case the judge was being called on to make a ruling on a very controversial issue, that no matter what the judge said was going to be appealed, and chose to not rule.

 

Snook,
the judge for an urgency appeal who issues a temporary injunction is not allowed to make a final judgement because he or she is not responsible (not the regular judge) and thus not allowed to (not to mention that he or she doesn't have the time to judiciously analyze the case). That's how it is in German law and it won't be much different in the US.

Except for that, you didn't get the point of the example: A court verdict will not help you when the (perhaps irreversible) damage is already done when the final verdict eventually is issued. Thus the need to bridge the gap through a temporary injunction.

On an abstract level getting your balls cut off - just like, say, racial profiling - is simply a violation of your individual rights. It is also a grave and probably irreversible violation of your rights.

For reasons I thought transparently clear in light of that example it is often unacceptable to expect a citizen to wait until a regular judge can deal with a matter - what can mean having to wait for months - and to endure possible or certain, perhaps grave or irreversible, rights violations in the meanwhile. Do you ask a citizen to endure a rights violation to then win in court the right to sue the government for compensation? Do rights mean so little? It is not preferable to not have the rights violated in the first place?

Finally, doubt about the constitutionality of laws must mandate enjoining questionable rules and measures if the rule of law is to mean anything - after all it mandates that illegal or unconstitutional law is not being applied.

 

It is approximately as I thought. From the verdict [PDF]:

The 'likelihood of succeed on merits' refers to the possibility that SB 1070 is in part in violation of federal law and federal prerogatives - and, like it or not, that legally the arguments brought forth by the Federal government are conclusive. That is a prognosis on which she bases her decision to enjoin parts of the law, in order to prevent preempted (i.e. unconstitutional) law from being applied.

PS: Besides, the ruling offers a concise overview on SB 1070. Recommended reading.

---------- Added 2 hours, 13 minutes and 57 seconds later... ----------

PPS: Judging by an apparent eagerness to dismiss her ruling on SB 1070 as 'cowardice', Judge Bolton's decision is unpopular with some Americans. And it is apparently even more unpopular with others - she has received hundreds of threats at her court offices within hours of her ruling last week.

I see such comments and such threats against judges as indicative of the partisan polarization in America today. It doesn't matter that Judge Bolton earned herself a reputation as a fair and thorough judge.

IMO that's what the meme of 'activist liberal judges' gets you. The rancor of accusations that judges who don't rule as people rather liked them to rule, must engage in political favoritism - she was appointed by Clinton (on the recommendation of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl) after all, and are someone to be kept an eye on - IMO all that is a fairly unhealthy thing.

 

I think the analysis of the promulgation of such threats in the quoted article is better. The fact that they coincide with the rise of blogs and common internet use indicates that it's less the common masses becoming more active and more the common masses having more easy access. We already know that people online are more likely to express extreme opinions, vent, and generally type without thinking than they are face-to-face or in a letter. This just seems to be a further extension of that.

 

Aha. And you don't think that politics have anything to do with that?

Let me think, this internet, these blogs ... what is happening there ... hmm, what would it be that people talk about ... on the internet, on the bogs ... oh yes, I got it: Certainly not politics. Anything but politics. This thread? A complete aberration!

Don't you think that the internet merely is another realm in which the partisan culture that characterizes US politics is practiced, with all its rancor, and, thanks to the anonymity, then some more? That it is the virtual public square - and as such an extension of the traditional public square?

 

No, I was thinking of people on blogs, message boards and in newspaper comment sections writing stuff like that Judge Bolton is a traitor (and thus worthy of ...) for having ruled that way. There is a lot of partisan rancour in America. Sometimes, as in this case, it expresses itself in people writing death threats, or just venting on comment sections, message boards and blogs, while other, supposedly more reasonable people, are content with 'having an eye on Judge Bolton'.

And of course, there is this happier third kind for whom death threats and hate mail against judges have nothing to do with politics, but are merely a wondrous manifestation of the many things the internet makes possible.

The rancour is not even strictly a right vs. left wing thing, even though I ascribe to the right wing a currently greater propensity for violence (rhetorical and practical; with their love of and fear for their guns, their paranoid socialism psychosis, talk radio and all that). With a committed Communist in the Whitehouse the left wingers are currently appeased.

* sarcasm alert *