What is Going On in Arizona?

[guido911]

ummm... where?  I'll admit there are a few of the amendments that I have not read, but beyonjd that I have not seen this anywhere in constitution.  And as far as I know, there has been no supreme court decisions that have stated that the part of the constitution that says that States cannot enter into a treaty with a foreign nation applies to internal immigration laws.  In fact, if this is true, then our own law in Oklahoma would be unconstitutional, yet it still stands.

I couldn't find the word "immigration" during a find search of the constitution. There is this in Article I, Section 8:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

And there is this in the fourteenth amendment: 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction  thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I noted in an earlier post that federal preemption of state law is possible where the state law interferes/conflicts with federal law (or the intent of federal law). I do not see it in this case, nor has anyone attempted to show me the conflict. Rather, I have been reading federal law this/federal law that. I also have read about the words "reasonable suspicion" being unconstitutionally vague. Of course reasonableness (or even "unreasonableness" in the context of the fourth amendment search and seizure) often appears in statutes, criminal procedure rules, jury instructions, and common law proof requirements. The other popular constitutional challenge I guess is equal protection. However, if the statute is racially neutral, I do not see the violation. Still the state will have to deal with individuals claiming their civil rights were violated, but that's not an unconstitutionality argument.

[heironymouspasparagus]

This is hilarious.  Arizona is the new Oklahoma!

Talk about unintended consequences - they WILL be able to have Obama on the ballet, but if they actually go by that law, they WON'T be able to have McCain on the ballet, especially if he shows his birth certificate!  His birth certificate doesn't qualify!

Luckily, that is not the only qualifier required to be a citizen, so at least that part of the law will be found unconstitutional.

This is the kind of crap that hurts states rights.  Makes the Federalism case.  And makes it tough to get real laws enforcement of immigration law.  There is NO lack of laws that cover the topic.  There IS a lack of will in enforcement, since we have decided as a society over 50 years ago that cheap, easily controlled labor is much more critical to us than actual law enforcement.
The reason we have so many illegals is strictly because we invited them!!

One law could and would solve the problem overnight.  Make it a felony for the officers of a company to hire, borrow, or use illegal labor.  Make it a felony for a property owner to rent or lease to an illegal.  And apply both prison time and large fines.  The illegals would disappear quickly if they cannot find work or a place to live.

But that would make sense.

LOL....over and over and over and over and over....
And, by the way, did I say "over and over"??

[rwarn17588]

Man does TNF have a ton of constitutional geniuses or what? I laugh every time I read posts like RW's or WE's where they are so "matter of fact" that a court will strike down a law. Seriously, how many legal opinions have they even read cover to cover?

So many that I don't remember the number. I'm many years removed from my college days. But, suffice it to say, I most certainly did read dozens and dozens of legal opinions from cover to cover at the law library. Not willingly, of course ... it was like watching paint dry. But it was part of the coursework.

It's funny how you keep making assumptions about other people that are wrong.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It all starts with actually reading the Constitution.  (And if you want some really exciting reading, go to the Supreme Court website and start reading.  Oh, wait, that's the insomnia cure.  Where is that exciting reading...I knew it was here just a minute ago...)

And if comprehension ensues, the enlightenment of realizing that the Constitution, by definition was designed from the ground up to be a "living, breathing, changing" thing.  And the guys the wrote it kicked off the process by showing HOW to do it.  Not just once, but 10 times.

And the realization that the Constitution itself defines the Supreme Law of the land as;
The Constitution
The Code of Federal Regulations (the laws passed by representation and interpreted by judicial)
Treaties entered into with the President and approved by the Senate

Takes all three - unlike the tea-baggers who grasp and cling to only one, while not even understanding that one.  Or even reading it - just listening exclusively to the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch machine.  Fox, AM radio, Wall Street Journal, etc.

Hey, here's an idea, if one wants truly fair and balanced - for real.  Tune into PBS and NPR.

[guido911]

And the realization that the Constitution itself defines the Supreme Law of the land as;
The Constitution
The Code of Federal Regulations (the laws passed by representation and interpreted by judicial)
Treaties entered into with the President and approved by the Senate

Nope. First, you omitted federal statutes. Second, the CFR are regulations/rules and not "laws" plus they are created by agency rule making and not via "representation". Third, please source where you come up with the suggestion that the constitution was supposed to be "living, breathing, changing thing." It seems to me that the amending process which you noted runs counter to that notion.

I am a little embarrassed for you given your attack on the tea-baggers apparently being stupid or naive.

[azbadpuppy]

ummm... where?  I'll admit there are a few of the amendments that I have not read, but beyonjd that I have not seen this anywhere in constitution.  And as far as I know, there has been no supreme court decisions that have stated that the part of the constitution that says that States cannot enter into a treaty with a foreign nation applies to internal immigration laws.  In fact, if this is true, then our own law in Oklahoma would be unconstitutional, yet it still stands.

Power of enforcement was assigned to congress in the Naturalization clause in I believe the 14th amendment.

It is explained here:

http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-usimmigration-insoverview.html

And if you are referring to Oklahoma's HB 1804 immigration bill, according to this news article from February 2010, the 10th circuit court upheld an injuction blocking 2 of the bill's 3 provisions from being signed into law, meaning they will not be enacted.

"The judges said the two provisions that can not now be enforced are likely to be held unconstitutional."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100202_12_0_DENVER90561

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ouch.  Zing, zing.

Yes, I did forget statutes.  Sorry.  Add that to the list.  In fairness, I did mention in parenthesis laws passed by representation, but it WAS out of context.  Was supposed to be with the statutes listing.  Fingers going faster than brain.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And in answer to the last part; "It seems to me that the amending process which you noted runs counter to that notion."

It seems to me the addition of the process, plus the fact of immediately using the process, and whole way it has been used for the history of the nation does not run counter, but actually is the proof of the notion.

[azbadpuppy]

I noted in an earlier post that federal preemption of state law is possible where the state law interferes/conflicts with federal law (or the intent of federal law). I do not see it in this case, nor has anyone attempted to show me the conflict. 

But isn't requiring Arizona officials to have to enforce the new state immigration laws a conflict with Federal enforcement laws?

[guido911]

Power of enforcement was assigned to congress in the Naturalization clause in I believe the 14th amendment.

It is explained here:

http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-usimmigration-insoverview.html

And if you are referring to Oklahoma's HB 1804 immigration bill, according to this news article from February 2010, the 10th circuit court upheld an injuction blocking 2 of the bill's 3 provisions from being signed into law, meaning they will not be enacted.

"The judges said the two provisions that can not now be enforced are likely to be held unconstitutional."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100202_12_0_DENVER90561

Come on azbad, I gave you the constitutional provisions just a few posts above. When I talk politics, I will concede I am obviously conservative. When it comes to the law, though, I really do try to do some research so folks here know what the law is rather than what they think the law is. I really want to have good debate on law-related issues.

[Jammie]

I'm trying so hard to understand why many people oppose this law in Az. Maybe I'm missing something. But take a look at Mexico's immigration policies~

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632

Maybe we could learn something from them.

I've glanced at the policies of a few countries and most of them require that you have an employer who is a sponsor and that the job you will be doing can't be filled by a citizen of that country.

Our own country is struggling with high unemployment rates, the inability to feed and provide healthcare for our own citizens, and yet we welcome more in with open arms just because they managed to cross our borders. They drive down our wages since they'll work for peanuts because they have no problem sharing a household with many others rather then living separately as families. Their medical care is often provided by emergency rooms and charged to our counties. They drive without liability insurance and just don't seem to want to assimilate and truly become U.S. citizens. Many prefer to speak their own language and fly their own flag within our borders. Will they join our military and fight for our country like our own ancestors did?

As far as racial profiling~if white European descendants would be causing a lot of problems and I'd be aware that I may have to prove my citizenship when I'm out and about, why would it be so difficult for me to put a copy of my birth certificate or my citizenship papers in my purse? I already have my driver's license, proof of insurance, medical card, credit card, work ID card, etc. with me so what would be the big deal with having another paper proving who I am and what country I belong in?

[guido911]

But isn't requiring Arizona officials to have to enforce the new state immigration laws a conflict with Federal enforcement laws?

How so? First, state law enforcement officials enforcing state laws even in instances where there may be similar federal laws being enforced by federal law enforcement officials happens all the time. Moreover, I would suggest that in the end, Arizona law enforcement are actually achieving the ultimate end of federal immigration policy (assuming there is no abuse in the reasonable suspicion which I concede is a strong possibility), which is combating illegal immigration in the country.

[guido911]

I'm trying so hard to understand why many people oppose this law in Az. Maybe I'm missing something. But take a look at Mexico's immigration policies~

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632

Maybe we could learn something from them.

I've glanced at the policies of a few countries and most of them require that you have an employer who is a sponsor and that the job you will be doing can't be filled by a citizen of that country.

Our own country is struggling with high unemployment rates, the inability to feed and provide healthcare for our own citizens, and yet we welcome more in with open arms just because they managed to cross our borders. They drive down our wages since they'll work for peanuts because they have no problem sharing a household with many others rather then living separately as families. Their medical care is often provided by emergency rooms and charged to our counties. They drive without liability insurance and just don't seem to want to assimilate and truly become U.S. citizens. Many prefer to speak their own language and fly their own flag within our borders. Will they join our military and fight for our country like our own ancestors did?

As far as racial profiling~if white European descendants would be causing a lot of problems and I'd be aware that I may have to prove my citizenship when I'm out and about, why would it be so difficult for me to put a copy of my birth certificate or my citizenship papers in my purse? I already have my driver's license, proof of insurance, medical card, credit card, work ID card, etc. with me so what would be the big deal with having another paper proving who I am and what country I belong in?

Better duck.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Guido,
Ok, here is a seed question on law related - well, actually it is still political -
Ok, two questions...

First, are there actually any law-related issues that aren't political.  I have thought about this in the past, and I can't really think of anything, even in the civil, that isn't somehow political.  (Personal opinion moment;  I believe that anytime we get away from the basics of the Golden rule and the Ten Commandments we start to lose our way in the weeds and we are by my possibly feeble definition, political.)


Second, how do we reconcile the concept of personal liberty, non-intrusive government, and many fine libertarian ideals with the idea that somehow have not just the right, but the obligation to intrude on so many levels?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Why does my clock say 8:05 pm and the board clock says 7:05 pm??