Thread: Arizona immigration law unlikely to survive federal lawsuit

Not surprising coming from that rag. Arizona has passed previous laws re illegal immigration and ALL have withstood court challenges.

This story is as expected slanted towards the leftist point of view. Arizona didn't create new immigration laws. They created a state law that mirrors Federal law. The only way the feds could make a legitimate arguement was if Arizona created an immigration law that either didn't already exist on the federal books or they created a law that exceeded what was on the federal books. Since Arizona did neither their arguement should fall flat. Yes, it has already been decided that states can enforce federal laws within their respective states. This happens everyday in every state in the union. What they are trying to say here is that illegal entry is a "Civil misdemeanor" and not a "criminal misdemeanor" and therefore claim that our law is making being in the US, Arizona specifically, a "criminal misdemeanor" offense. That is what they are trying to use as their basis that we are creating a new immigration law that doesn't exist. That is a very weak arguement because it is clearly in the immigration act as a misdemeanor and the feds have been ignoring that most of the time and treating it in a civil manner by using voluntary deportation. But the facts are illegal entry to the US is a criminal misdemeanor and re-entry after deportation a criminal felony offense. It doesn't matter how the feds have been handling most of the intitial illegal aliens cases as civil. In otherwords, them choosing more often then not to treat in in a civil manner. Therefore, Arizona has not created any new laws.

Example, bank robbery is a federal felony offense but in all states bank robbery is also a state felony offense. Both can arrest and charge for the offense.

It has been customary that with bank robbery the feds usually get the case and take jurisdiction but not always. They could and have opted to let a person be charged and prosecuted under state criminal statutes.

This article is opposite of other articles you read. most I read is that they have no grounds to file suit and they would likely lose if they challenge SB1070.

I donated to Arizona's fund today. We have to take a stand here!

Just a reminder ALIPAC is doing their drive as well!

seeing as how it comes from LA and its the LA Times. i dont give much credibility to it

The Times quotes two anti-law lawyers thinks the feds might have a case, then there are the three groups on the other side who say absolutely no:

Some legal experts think the Supreme Court may be ready to reconsider the issue.

"This is an unsettled area of constitutional jurisprudence. The last major pronouncement on the question was against a completely different landscape," said Temple University law professor Peter Spiro. The justices "may be willing to cut [states] some slack in the face of Washington's now persistent failure to deal with immigration reform."

The current court also may view more favorably the Arizona law giving police more arrest authority.

"It wouldn't surprise me that five members of the court would think that the mere enforcement of immigration law does not change immigration law," said John Eastman, dean of the Chapman University School of Law.

Arizona's lawyers say their law, due to take effect July 29, would not conflict with federal law because it authorizes police during a lawful stop to question a person when there is a "reasonable suspicion" he or she is here illegally.

From this the Times concludes it will likely go down? Seems like they came up with the conclusion first then tried to write a story to fit it!!!

The administration also asserted that the federal policy is to target "dangerous aliens" such as violent criminals, fugitives and gang members, rather than to arrest and deport the millions of illegal immigrants living in this country.

"There is a tension between the federal policy and the state of Arizona," said Washington lawyer Paul Virtue, former general counsel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, an agency that no longer exists. "The state is setting different priorities and different penalties

It is really not about Arizona changing the law, it is about the government wanting to set policy and priorities according to their political agenda without any checks. How can they explain a state enforcing the same law that they choose to ignore. What if Arizona and other states solve the illegal immigration problems in their states without Comphrensive Immigration Reform?

The Constitution authorizes Congress to set a "uniform rule of naturalization" and says the laws of the United States are the "supreme law of the land." The Justice Department cites this basic provision in arguing why the Arizona law should be declared "invalid, null and void."

Hey, Stupid! Setting a uniform rule of naturalization may fall under the authority of the feds, but according to the 1996 Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibilty Act that was passed by Congress, and signed into law by the President, enforcement of the immigration laws is a joint responsibility for both the feds and the states. The court can't change this without Congress.

This article is nothing more wishful thinking on the writer's part.

What happens to illegals that get arrested after Jul 29th? Ultimately, who will be in charge of their removal and under whose jurisdiction? Federal or State?
Who will provide the manpower for removal? AZ?

Originally Posted by legalalien

What happens to illegals that get arrested after Jul 29th? Ultimately, who will be in charge of their removal and under whose jurisdiction? Federal or State?
Who will provide the manpower for removal? AZ?

They will immediately be granted amnesty and given a multitude of free taxpayer funded benefits.

Post comment on the USA TODAY site @

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... ral-suit/1