Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arizona Immigration Decision (Andy McCarthy dissects Bolton decision-not good.)
National Review ^ | July 28, 2010 | Andy McCarthy

Posted on 07/28/2010 12:45:31 PM PDT by greyfoxx39

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Arizona Immigration Decision   [Andy McCarthy]

On a quick read, the federal court's issuance of a temporary injunction against enforcement of the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law appears specious.

In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department's preemption argument — i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can't do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement ... which is nuts.

The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as "a thing apart," and that Congress had therefore "manifested a purpose ... to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system" that would not unduly subject them to "inquisitorial practices and police surveillance." But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. And it is not requiring them to register with the state; it is requiring proof that they have properly registered with the federal government — something a sensible federal government would want to encourage.

Judge Bolton proceeds from this misapplication of Hines to the absurd conclusion that Arizona can't ask the federal government for verification of the immigration status of arrestees — even though federal law prohibits the said arrestees from being in the country unless they have legal status — because that would tremendously burden the feds, which in turn would make the arrestees wait while their status is being checked, which would result in the alien arrestees being treated like "a thing apart."

The ruling ignores that, in the much later case of Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court has emphasized that

Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State's economy generally, or the State's ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation's borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns. [Emphasis added.]

Furthermore, as Matt Mayer of the Heritage Foundation notes, the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court similarly held in Lynch v. Cannatella (1987) that "No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation's immigration laws."

However this ruling came out, it was only going to be the first round. Appeal is certain. But the gleeful Left may want to put away the party hats. This decision is going to anger most of the country. The upshot of it is to tell Americans that if they want the immigration laws enforced, they are going to need a president willing to do it, a Congress willing to make clear that the federal government has no interest in preempting state enforcement, and the selection of judges who will not invent novel legal theories to frustrate enforcement. They are not going to get that from the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats. 

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; andrewmccarthy; arizona; gloatingleftists; illegals; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: roses of sharon
Can't count on the jury box or the ballot box, and the soap box is only preaching to the choir these days. We're almost out of options.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

21 posted on 07/28/2010 1:05:23 PM PDT by wku man (Steel yourselves, patriots, and be ready. Won't be long now....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Her comments about "overwhelming" the federal immigration enforcement bureaucracy is absurd. It merely points out the severity of the problem. Her claim amounts to the assertion that the problem is so bad, the federal government simply can't cope with it. So Arizona better not try.

What this has to do with the "Constitutionality" of the law God only knows. It is nothing more than political muttering, better known as Legislating from the Bench.

Today we have seen one woman overthrow the duly made laws of the Legislature of the State of Arizona, based on her own prejudices and chatty opinions.

22 posted on 07/28/2010 1:11:29 PM PDT by Regulator (Watch Out!! The Americans are On the March!! America Forever, Mexico Never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

TRANSLATION: A Clinton appointee (probably APPROVED by Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, etc) simply ignored/misrepresented/prostituted the law. What a shock!!

23 posted on 07/28/2010 1:14:01 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
" Just do it anyway."

Arpio has been doing for years.

24 posted on 07/28/2010 1:14:09 PM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: moehoward

Yeah, I don’t see why Brewer doesn’t implement 287-G statewide ... Surely it would cost less to detain than it would to pay the moochers there free services.

25 posted on 07/28/2010 1:18:34 PM PDT by Tarpon (Obama-Speak ... the fusion of sophistry and Newspeak. It's not a gift, it's just lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
Constitutionally, I only see where Congress has the power to define "uniform rules of naturalization." It doesn't say anything about enforcement of the law.

Congress can define the rules to become a citizen for all states, but the states still have the power of law enforcement.

I also don't buy the argument that a federal decision to not enforce the law is binding on states to not enforce a law. This judge is saying that the feds affirmatively decided to ignore a law, and therefore that is a decision that the states have to abide, because states forcing the feds to live up to their laws takes away the power of feds to ignore their own laws after they are passed?

She's nuts...


26 posted on 07/28/2010 1:19:04 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

I could not agree anymore, fonebone.


The war has begun.

27 posted on 07/28/2010 1:30:52 PM PDT by Herbster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

I don’t know. AZ has been stuck with millions in shortages because the feds don’t reimburse. I still say attrition is the way out of this mess. Make them want to leave the same way they got here. Threaten this law or that. Cops can still impound cars and detain Illegals with or without 1070.

28 posted on 07/28/2010 1:31:30 PM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
feds refuse to enforce the law

US Constitution, Article II Section 3
"[the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

Grounds for impeachment.

29 posted on 07/28/2010 1:36:53 PM PDT by garbanzo (Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wings-n-Wind
>Susie Q is a Klintoon (x42) appointee...

And, I think, also a McCain comfirmee...

30 posted on 07/28/2010 1:37:15 PM PDT by JohnBovenmyer (Tear down that BARACK-ade!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: moehoward
The author of the law stated that it was a temporary injunction and Bolton allowed the portion of the bill that requires agencies to enforce federal immigration law to the fullest extent to remain in place.

There will be a lot of adjusting going on until SCOTUS settles the matter.

31 posted on 07/28/2010 1:42:04 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Rush "They hate me because I am the most prominent, effective and unrelenting voice of conservatism")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.


32 posted on 07/28/2010 1:45:51 PM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Another vile, despicable, undemocratic decision from a cheap, agenda-driven political hack in judge's robes. In the hands of those who want a divided, balkanized, hyphenated America, this government is lurching inexorably towards illegitimacy. God help us!
33 posted on 07/28/2010 2:05:34 PM PDT by Godwin1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
She's nuts...

Read her bio. Third rate attorney from lightweight schools.

A political hack doing nothing more than the bidding of her masters.

34 posted on 07/28/2010 2:08:42 PM PDT by Regulator (Watch Out!! The Americans are On the March!! America Forever, Mexico Never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

Judge Susan Bolton must be removed from the court. This decision is beyond outrageous.

35 posted on 07/28/2010 2:17:35 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx

“I can see November from Arizona.”

And I can see an Alaskan November in 2012!

Only one candidate has spoken out in this direction (so far)

36 posted on 07/28/2010 2:20:59 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wings-n-Wind

It looks like it’s gettinhg to where 0’b and his judges can’t get together as to which foot to shuffle off on fist.

37 posted on 07/28/2010 3:13:47 PM PDT by Waco (From Seward to Sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
You can't expect a judge to burden the federal government to do the job it is supposed to be doing. Their too busy writing laws that give them a whole set of new powers which they can selectively choose to enforce.
38 posted on 07/28/2010 3:32:59 PM PDT by eggman (Journolist - All the news we choose to use and abuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Funny. Those were the very words I was thinking of when I saw this.

My ancestors rebelled against a king over less.

39 posted on 07/28/2010 3:38:19 PM PDT by Regulator (Watch Out!! The Americans are On the March!! America Forever, Mexico Never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country,

Any state that has a border against a foreign country
or boundry should have a direct interest, if for nothing
else the protection of their own citizens.

If nothing else they could set their own STATE border
INSIDE the national one, call it an agricultural inspection zone etx.

I don’t see the current supremes backing the courts
reasoning but you never know.

40 posted on 07/28/2010 3:47:48 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson