Immigration Law

Remove all ads!

T2,
the opinions were bad legally. And I don't dare you to 'prove it' but invite you to persuade me, if what you're interested in is debate. I think I have done my share of work on this thread, and I am confident I made a reasonable case, and I might add, it's not even a controversial one.

CD
One - I wanted to make the point that the situation of state and federal legislative authorities in a federal system is something I am familiar with, for what it's worth. To an extent law follows a certain logic that transcends legal systems. I think this is such a case.

Two - I don't consider you-don't-live-here-so-how-can-you know a surrogate for an argument. Challenge my arguments, not my credentials, or nationality. What the law is like, I can read. You may have noticed that I limited myself to the legal aspects of the immigration bill. I presume that knowing what life in Indiana is like won't have all that great an impact on my views in this regard, but granted, I know next to nothing about that.

Point is, the matter interests me legally, because of the structural similarity to my country, and I lined out why I think the law will face problems, and what problems it will face. I think the AZ law is unconstitutional. I don't lose sleep over that. It is not my problem, but it is interesting to watch. Do I think the law is an bad idea? Certainly. The matter also interests me politically to the extent as the question why the law was enacted is concerned. Do I think the bills sponsors were motivated by nativist sentiment? Quite probably. I also think the claim to 'inherent authority' included in the bill is questionable legally. Do I think Arizona has a problem with illegal immigrants? Yes I do.

That all said, I couldn't care less if you are interested in my observations or not, or whether you like my conclusions or not. You are free to disagree. Fortunately this board allows you plenty of space to elaborate on your views if you so wish.

I'll leave it to some of the American lawyers to clarify whether I wildly missed the mark in my assessment of the Arizona law.

 

Ragusa, I think there are two big points you should realize:
1.) even though Germany has a federal system, I strongly doubt (and I know a few things about this) it is the same as the US federal system. Specifically, issues like balance of power and legal precedence are sure to be different.
2.) even your linked article said the law's constitutionality was uncertain, and that it was designed to be pre-emption-proof (though maybe not too well).

All in all, it comes down to whether the courts ruling on it (which will undoubtably eventually be the SCOTUS) believe that creating special rules for a class of criminal (illegal aliens being criminals) amounts to laws concerning that crime. There's room for arguement, certainly, but I don't think it's open-and-shut either way.

 

Of course it is not the same. But the matters of competing or exclusive legislative and executive authority of states and the federal level are posing an identical set of problems, resolved in a similar way - exclusive legislative authority of either states or the Feds (or cooperative authority for that matter). And it appears that is indeed just the way it is here - the questions boils down to whether the law was pre-empted (i.e. whether the Feds have exclusive authority). It doesn't take an American to figure that one out.

And I agree that the case will go to court, and that it will take a long time, but I think that the case against the AZ law is far stronger than the one for it. Current precedents appear to suggest the AZ law will be struck down in court, but you never know whether the supreme court changes its view. On the other hand, this might be a case where federally minded conservative judges will vote against the AZ law. Anyway, changes of opinion at the Supreme Court have happened before, and every commentator knows that and is consequently only realistic in hedging their bets.

I am not in their position and can speak my mind.

 

I agree the Supreme Court is largely political these days, but this is going to be argued on a large scale. On the one hand, you may have 50 states with 50 laws on immigration, but only the federal government enforcing the laws (illegals have to be turned over to the feds), with its own set of laws. At that point, the feds can do as they please, because federal law generally will trump local law. As far as I know there are no state immigration courts.

All this will be brushed aside once the real work begins on comprehensive national immigration. The Republicans killed the last real attempt (which was GWB!), because they don't really WANT reform. It's funny to hear them all now complaining over the lack of "federal action" on the issue. They are only pointing the fingers at themselves in this regard. GWB actually had a comprehensive plan for dealing with this problem, which they killed. This is a great issue for them with older, white voters (which really do vote), so the less resolution, the more irritation at the "government" over this issue they can muster. Where is that Tea Party? Hey, I heard they planning and going to have one in England. Really! Should I bring the chips and "Old Glory?"

Again, round up the illegals, put them back on the other side of the border, only for them to come back again, so we can do more of the same. The real end game? Think of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, and now...really?...in search of an end game? Not as long as old, white people can vote.

 

Ragusa - I can see where you're trying to come from with all these links and, in your mind, legal precedents as to why the bill in AZ won't work. I guess what it all boils down to is the fact that we were asked to give our opinions on this article and many of us have - in fact it seems a good number of my fellow Americans seem to agree with me on some points in regards to my opinion on the matter.

Opinions are supposed to be what we think, see, feel, etc., about something - they're not meant to hold legal weight. Why do you think that opinions and hearsay are not allowed in a court of law? It's because it's what a person believes and belief is not fact - of course they might be bad legally. I don't feel the need to back up my opinion with sources and facts because they're my beliefs and I understand that not everyone will agree with them. I don't mind that you don't agree with me. I don't have a problem with you nor with what you're saying (for the most part) but I do ask that you respect the fact that we're airing our opinions and that in doing so, we shouldn't have to back up our thoughts and feelings with factual legal documents.

 

@CD, I'm sure he means that in the context of a 'legal opinion,' which is in fact a law term specific to arguments made for or against whatever given thing. In other words, in saying "the opinions were bad legally," he is asserting that they (the legal 'opinions' or rationale of the writers of the law) have no merit or were flawed as applies to law. He's not saying, I don't believe, that yours or anyone else's general opinion on the topic is 'bad.' He may think that independantly, but I don't think that's what he's saying here.

 

Thanks.

We will.

After getting a seizable sum paid to write that bill one would expect Kobach to express confidence. And I assume that pushing the new law through the courts to the tune of Kobach’s fee of $250 per hour is an attractive goal all in itself. Being expensive aside, it wouldn't be the first unconstitutional law penned by him. With SB 1070 that suggests a trend. The inherent authority claim of his is ... extensive, to be charitable. Extensive views on government (state or federal) powers have a tendency to collide with constitutions and to be struck down in court. My hunch is that his political (and financial) ambitions only start with becoming Secretary of State for Kansas.

As for the confidence, let's just keep in mind that confidence is key to a confidence trick. It certainly is no indication of legal correctness. I remember a lot of legal baloney, like the one about the president being allowed to order a child's testicles crushed if that is what it takes to make a terrorist talk, being uttered with utmost confidence by people like John Yoo (also a law professor). First reactions to so confidently formulated theories of his at the Justice Department were: 'This is insane, who wrote this?'. Eventually the OLC found his legal opinions on torture to be "deeply flawed", and attested him, very politely, "poor judgment". Which in no way diminishes Yoo's confidence.

 

I'm sorry, Chandos, but this is rosy memory. Bush's immigration plan was to give a pseudo-amnesty to any immigrants with a job, or prospective immigrants with a job offer. That's not immigration reform, that's a re-hash of the 'reform' the Dems gave us in the 80s. It didn't work then, it wouldn't work under Bush, and it won't work now. Addressing the immigrants here won't help anything until we address how more get here.

 

Exactly. Conservatives do not believe immigration reform involves amnesty. Immigration reform involves keeping the people we don't want in the country out of the country. We have enough poor people, give us your educated and productive people and we'll talk.

Bush and Obama are essentially the same on this issue. That is why Republicans shot Bush down and are trying to do the same with Obama. As to the Tea Party not existing when Bush was around, that is because things weren't as bad as they are now.

 

Ragusa, a lot of your argument are just ... odd. First of all, federal law enforcement often overlaps with state and local jurisdictions -- this is especially true for the DEA and Immigration Authorities.

IIRC, $250 per hour is a relatively low charge for an attorney. I believe the standard rate (at least in Chicago) is $300 per hour. Using $250 PER HOUR as an argument seems very trivial.

 

$250 here and there ... it adds up. Valley Park, Mo., in a federal appeals case, owes Kobach $270,000 in legal fees. That's some real money, and probably quite a crunch for the budget of a community of 7.500 souls.

I mean, what he proposes is really easy, isn't it? Just enforce immigration laws locally, because all local cops have inherent authority to enforce federal law! Eventually, the magic bullet! The quick and easy fix! Why didn't we do that earlier? Because it is illegal? If it sounds too good to be true it probably isn't.

Let me make it clear to you: My hunch is this, and it is just a hunch, Kobach is doing something akin to goldbricking. Instead of suckering people with bricks coated with gold, he is providing risqué legal advice to communities trying to come to grips with immigration related problems, writing them real tough legislation, which will then predictably and inevitably end up in court.

These predictable and inevitable lawsuits create legal costs, that end up in his pocket when he is representing or counselling. Whoever loses, pays, be it the Feds or the city pressing the case through the instances. And all that legally! It's win-win for Kobach, he profits in terms of real money, and in terms of his reputation as a guy who is tough on immigration, who just happens to be running for office.

 

I don't see it that way at all. Arizona is simply making it a crime to work in their state without US citizenship or proper immigration papers. There will still be visitors and tourists -- it is not a crime for a foreign tourists to visit the Grand Canyon. Suspicious activity (such as climbing the fence at the border) or criminal activity could warrant shifting a "tourist" into this category. While I agree prosecution may be difficult, the Arizona authorities can now arrest suspected illegal aliens and turn them over to the federal government. Sounds like a win-win to me.

 

As I said, if it sounds too good to be true it probably isn't. Those having to execute (and pay for it) certainly have their doubts.

The cities of Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff consider fighting the bill because they can't afford implementing it. Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police (AACOP) continues to be opposed to the bill. The Pima Sheriff refuses to implement the law:

And that is just about practical and fiscal problems. The expected wave of lawsuits of course is a consequence of the risqué lawyering on Kobach's part in the bill.

 

No, really, it isn't. It's just what I claimed, judging by your remarks about his immigration policy. I didn't say those of you on the hard right agreed with it, only that the hard right killed it. All you are doing is giving me the hard right's take on why they killed it. And then the usual follow up with a typical attack on the Dems. Business as usual.

What are you talking about?

Everyone already knows that the hard right has no interest in amnesty. That is nothing new.

Yes, they are:

NOG & Snook - The Republicans had Congress and the White House for 8 years and they accomplished little regarding "comprehensive" immigration reform. When Republicans speak of "federal inaction" they are quite "slkilled" on that subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/19/AR2009051903404.html

 

When I spoke of legal immigrants I was not referring to the original colonists from England. I think most would agree that pushing the native Americans off the north American continent should probably be considered genocide. While I don't want to dismiss that, the colonization of the Americas was not what my statement was referring to.

When I said legal immigrants, I was more referring to the wave of immigration that took place from the mid 1800s, and continued through the early to mid 1900s. Many people of Irish, German, Polish, and Italian ancestry (the latter of which includes myself) along with many Slavic people from Eastern Europe trace their family coming to America in this time period, and were not among the original colonists. By that time period, the lands controlled by the US were pretty much the same as they are today, and the US as a nation had an immigration policy.

There are even theories regarding pre-Clovis people. However, while the Clovis people appear to have been replaced, it is uncertain that the Clovis people ever fully colonized the Americas by themselves (or if there were other peoples colonizing the Americas contemporaneously or possibly even earlier), or if the second wave of immigration simply ended the Clovis culture, or of all people that were in the Americas previously (some of which may have been pre-Clovis). So I don't have an exact answer for you (nor does anyone, I suspect). The only thing that we can say with certainty is that the initial Americans came from Asia, and that all the people living in the Americas prior to the colonization (regardless of when exactly they got here or if there were others before them) were also Asian.

 

Not that long ago, the Feds stripped Sheriff Arpaio's and deputies of their power to enforce federal immigration laws.

That is a very interesting thing. If they can be stripped of their enforcement authority by the DHS, the power to enforce and to delegate enforcement lies with the Feds. When they have been stripped it also means they previously had to be empowered, which flies in the face of Kobach's claim that they have inherent authority anyway.

In fact, Kobach was hired by Arpaio to train his deputies force on immigration law. In light of that, it isn't particularly surprising that SB 1070 which Kobach wrote just happens to try to 'fix' the issue of stripped authority by discovering 'inherent authority'. Arpaio is just delighted at the new law.

And just like Kobach, Arpaio is interested in running for office. I feel vindicated in my suspicion that this was primarily about politics and little else.

 

Wow, I used to deliver that paper when I was a kid -- they've changed the name, it used to be the Mesa Tribune....