Skip to comments.Letís not forget about the parts of SB 1070 that already went into effect
Posted on 06/26/2012 7:09:33 AM PDT by Qbert
Theres a lot of talk today about the Supreme Court ruling, and Ive seen some good analysis here. However, there are many provisions in SB 1070 that went into effect two years ago that should not be ignored, and, hopefully, are being picked up in other states.
Only 4 parts of the law were enjoined. The rest was left standing, and because it DID have a severability clause, the rest of the law remains untouched. Theres a great analysis of the enjoined sections and, as Governor Brewer pointed out, the law is only a few pages long and is easy to read.
Here are the sections that were already implemented:
Sanctuary cities or neighborhoods will no longer be tolerated.
Citizens can sue sanctuary cities and fines will be imposed on cities which do not comply with the law.
Unauthorized aliens to be turned over to ICE immediately upon release from prison for another offense.
Immigration status can be shared within the AZ government to determine eligibility for state benefits.
Smuggling human beings is a felony in Arizona.
Drivers cannot block the roadway to hire dayworkers.
Dayworkers cannot enter cars that are blocking roadways.
It is against AZ law to transport, harbor or encourage unauthorized aliens.
An employer may not hire an unauthorized alien, nor knowingly hire a contractor who does and may lose their business license(s) if they do.
Granted, the Obama administration has already said that it wont respond to requests to aid in the enforcement of the provision which was upheld today (no surprise.) But, there are many parts of this law that help to take AZ in the right direction that have already been implemented.
Time to stop hand-wringing and start working on getting another Supreme Court Justice in there who we can trust before the standing sections are challenged on supposed Racial Bias grounds.
Citizens have more rights and less restrictions than law enforcement officials.
Why not just perform massive Citizens Arrests of ANYONE we damn well suspect of breaking our sacred Federal Immigration Laws?
What would Wyatt Earp do? ( WWWED )
Of course that's only really disturbing to someone who might actually want to get a handle on illegal alien infiltrators. Now, let's say you're just an old curmudgeon into trouble-making and you think you see a way where state and local governments can substantially reduce the costs of their own governments by relying on the arguments in this case.
I point to the issue of "exclusive jurisdiction" or "preemption". If the court can argue that any federally law totally pre-empts any state law governing the same material, then it is logical for a state to argue that any federal law that preempts a state law passes exclusive jurisdiction for enforcement to the federal government.
This next step in the line of thought is a tad difficult for some to get their minds around, but if all of that is so then we can look at these special federal laws with their special and possibly exclusive jurisdictions and begin to cut back police and emergency services support where those federal laws may be involved.
For example there's a federal law that protects federal employees, appointees and elected officials from murder and mayhem. Fortunately the Congressional Research Service already did this for us at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41574.pdf
If you read through there the federales outlaw murder just like a state might outlaw murder!
A state, on the other hand, would probably not get away with passing a law that outlawed the murder of your ordinary citizen but otherwise excluded federal executives, but there it is ~ a list of federal laws some of which outlaw murdering federal executives but otherwise lend no protection whatsoever to your ordinary citizen!
Applying the logic in the Arizona case, it's pretty clear that NO STATE nor subdivision of a state has any business protecting any of these officials from murder, nor in identifying, capturing and bringing their murderers to court.
Let me tell you, if Obama were coming to town and your city didn't want to spend more on the cops than was already budgeted, it looks like it'd be well within their rights to just ignore his visit and treat him like an ordinary citizen ~ which would leave him to the mercy of his Secret Service detachment, and to local stop lights and other traffic signs.
If these laws had been applicable in the JFK assassination, the Dallas cops could have given the feds a salute and wished them good luck finding the killer, but, BTW, clean the street ~ we don't do that stuff for the feds.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20220626short_end_of_the_stump_obama_leaves_hub_on_hook_for_fundraising_stop/srvc=home&position=0 ~ things like this ~ Democrats take Obama to Boston and run up a $200,000 tab for extra cops. Under the exclusive jurisdiction and enforcement doctrine enunciated by the USSC yesterday, Boston would not need to put a cop on the street, or try to make a deal for reimbursement. Obama would show up; take his chances with his otherwise quite limited Secret Service resources; and then go away ~ to an airport where he would not get any extra security beyond what any normal passenger would get.
Thanks for the post ! That makes me feel better.
Before you decide to “citizen’s arrest” or otherwise detain or interfere with illegals here you should look up what happened to Roger Barnett. Illegals are pretty much untouchables.
I’ll look up Roger Barnett.
Meanwhile, is it OK if I head for the Corral?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.