Actually, from what I've heard from my lawyer brother, on this issue the 9th Circus has typically been fairly sympathetic to the general sense of the Arizona law, so this is probably a real blow to its prospects.
That law was never going to survive the court challenges anyway, though. For as much as the Federal Gov't has failed in its duty with regard to illegal immigration, their arguments from the Supremacy Clause and the Constitutionally-mandated federal jurisdiction over immigration are valid and compelling.
It's probably much more effective to do as some states are moving to do ... and to bring suit against the FedGov to actually deal with the problem on the basis that their failure to do so is imposing large costs on the several states.
Why do we need court challenges? This is the peoples business; not the courts.
I found those arguments neither valid nor compelling. The Federal Government has already passed laws requiring local law enforcement to cooperate with the Feds in enforcing immigration laws much like the Arizona law requires. States like New York that do not cooperate are actually in violation of Federal Law. That Bozo and his AG don't prosecute does not make the law invalid.
that is good that AZ has another avenue. If the feds won’t let them pass certain immigration legislation, then sue the fed for crime and damages by illegals. If it is the fed job to do, they’re handling it quite poorly.
I said this on the other thread, but....the first thing I noticed (I haven't yet read the opinion) is that it was partly a unanimous opinion. Also, John Noonan voted to uphold the injunction. That's not a good sign. Noonan is about as conservative a legal thinker as they come and even as a sitting judge he was (and is) an OUTSPOKEN critic of Roe.
He's not a conservative shrinking violet, and the fact that he voted to uphold the injunction, probably isn't a good sing of things to come.
It's a question of jurisdiction. While the feds can make rules for naturalization, they have no direct authority over people who do not apply for citizenship. Those people are under the jurisdiction of the State in which they reside, not the federal government.
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
If you read the opinion you will find the objections of foreign meddlers being used as a legitimate objection to SB1070 in more then one place.
This little act of heresy is legitimised by reference to the comments of a Secretary of State in the past.
Umm, who cares?
This is a patchwork of BS where a Mexican hegemonist "judge" throws a dirt clod of crap against a wall to see if anything sticks. It's the legal equivalent of cocktail argument, and the presiding judge - Carlos Bea - said so in the opinion.
The entire stupid diatribe will be deconstructed by Scalia, Roberts and Thomas, and Kennedy will go along. It's nothing more then a cheap attempt at obfuscation.