Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Immigration gridlock

Esther Cepeda has a good analysis of the appellate court ruling on SB 1070, particularly how it does not clearly articulate the proper relationship between federal and state governments with regard to the foreign policy issue of immigration.  I really like her conclusion, and I agree completely:

Observers of Arizona's audacious law had hoped its judicial spectacle would at least prod the federal government into some action. But based on this decision, it seems that at least for the foreseeable future Washington's message to Arizona and other states who want to take immigration matters into their own hands is: You're not allowed to deal with illegal immigration yourselves, only we can. And we will. Sometime. Maybe. Stand by.

6 comments:

Vicente Duque 11:23 AM  

Constitutional Law Prof Blog - April 28, 2011 : "Arizona's Immigration Law, Supremacy, and Federal Preemption" - Arizona's SB 1070, violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution in (at least) two ways :
.

Even if Arizona's new law doesn't fall under field preemption, it almost certainly falls under conflict preemption. The federal immigration and naturalization scheme includes a place for state and local authorities.

This page is not easy to understand, but it has many discussions and links to opinions on the Constitutionality or Unconstitutionality of SB 1070.




Constitutional Law Prof Blog
Arizona's Immigration Law, Supremacy, and Federal Preemption
April 28, 2011

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizonas-immigration-law-supremacy-and-federal-preemption.html

.

Vicente Duque 11:23 AM  
This comment has been removed by the author.
leftside 12:30 PM  

1070, particularly how it does not clearly articulate the proper relationship between federal and state governments with regard to the foreign policy issue of immigration.

I thought the decision was pretty clear on the key point - that States can not get into the foreign policy arena. States may not like the national immigration policy, but they can not substitute their own.

How was this not clearly articulated?

Greg Weeks 1:26 PM  

Congress has often delegated that authority, which is the heart of the constitutional controversy, so it is not clear.

Vicente Duque 2:43 PM  

Best Site on SB 1070 : "In the context of unauthorized immigrant employment, Congress has deliberately crafted a very particular calibration of force which does not include the criminalization of work. By criminalizing work, S.B. 1070 Section 5(C) constit
By criminalizing work, S.B. 1070 Section 5(C) constitutes a substantial departure from the approach Congress has chosen to battle this particular problem." :


This is the best site on "SB 1070" or at least the blog where I understand more of the material, like studying with a wonderful teacher that explains with clarity many issues of Federal Preemption.

In a split decision from a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the of Arizona's Federal Judge Susan Bolton has been upheld in the case of the United States v. Arizona, the SB1070 case. The panel produced three written opinions, the first by Judge Richard Paez, a concurring opinion by Judge John T. Noonan, and a dissent from Judge Carlos T. Bea.



USA v. ARIZONA - THE SB1070 CASE ON APPEAL - PART FOUR

http://ideas-observations--mentalmachinati.blogspot.com/2011/04/usa-v-arizona-sb1070-case-on-appeal_18.html


Some excerpts :

Paez makes the distinction between Congressional intent and Arizona's statute. "In the context of unauthorized immigrant employment, Congress has deliberately crafted a very particular calibration of force which does not include the criminalization of work. By criminalizing work, S.B. 1070 Section 5(C) constitutes a substantial departure from the approach Congress has chosen to battle this particular problem." Since Congress did not intend to criminalize employment by the unlawful alien Arizona's SB1070 creates an obstacle to the regulatory scheme adopted by Congress.

Finding that this section, like §2(B) has a detrimental effect on the foreign affairs of the nation Paez went on to find that "the United States has met its burden to show that there is likely no set of circumstances under which S.B. 1070 Section 5(C) would not be preempted, and it is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding the same."
.

Vicente Duque 11:46 AM  

The Supreme Court is not going to pass this monster of SB 1070 - I hope it for the good of the USA and the World and for the general Harmony inside and outside America.

If the Supreme Court approves this SB 1070 then it is preparing the Federal Government and the Presidency to be continually challenged in many matters by Rogue States of the Union.

Do People want internal conflicts ??, endless judicial discussion ??, rogue or scoundrel states forever contradicting the intentions of the President ??, the Federal Government and the U. S. Congress ??

This is a Juridical, Judicial, Constitutional and Legal matter.

But has very grave political implications for the future.

It is more than Mexican Laborers working for a pittance and a few crumbs of bread. It is about leadership of the presidency and congress. It is about the future in many matters not pertaining to Immigration.

Imagine a Triumph of SB 1070 in the Supreme Court ( Gedankenexperiment! ) : What a wonderful paradise only for Lawyers earning lots of money - Smile !

Vicente

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP