Thursday, July 21, 2011

Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?

The Georgia immigration law originally had a provision allowing for anyone to sue if they felt it was not being enforced. That was a terrible idea, and has been replaced by something that is both terrible and creepy.

Called the Immigration Enforcement Review Board, the seven-member panel will have the power to investigate complaints filed against city, county and state officials, hold hearings, subpoena documents, adopt regulations and hand out punishment. That punishment could include loss of state funding for government agencies and fines up to $5,000 for officials who "knowingly" violate the laws.

So the solution to immigration is an unaccountable and costly bureaucracy that can cripple anyone it wants.


Defensores de Democracia 12:22 PM  

Many Legal Experts think that the Supreme Court is not going to study and decide on SB 1070 at least for two years. SB 1070 is ideal to burn the court and to produce reversals in the Future with another more Liberal Supreme Court

The Supreme Court knows that SB 1070 is a VERY HOT POTATO ideal to burn the court, and therefore they want the lower courts and the Circuits of Appeals to be busy with the many immigration cases that come from Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, Utah, South Carolina, etc ... etc...

These lower courts will produce more legal studies, opinions, theories, views, etc... that can be used later by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can send back SB 1070 to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to be judged by a panel of 11 judges.

This Arizona State Law and its clones have International Law and International Human Rights implications, and therefore are of Great Interest to the State Department. Hillary Clinton, the secretary of that Department has already been asked in foreign countries that feel that their nationals can be harassed, corraled and herded in miserable crowded prisons, persecuted, demeaned and debased in Arizona and the other mentioned states.

As time goes on and after the new President is elected or reelected in 2012 then things will be more clear and the fog of Bad Feelings and Resentments can be somewhat partially dispelled ( Hopefully ).

Take into account that the International Conflicts, Wars, etc .... receive an impact of what is going in the "Racial Profiling" of these "Confederate States" and the USA is easily accused of being a "Racist Nation" or "Apartheid Nation" as Racial Profiling proceeds.

Time is of the essence of the Solution... This is like muddy water that needs to be decanted in a reservoir.

Vicente Duque

Defensores de Democracia 1:12 PM  

Professor Kevin Johnson, Dean of U.C. Davis School of Law, strongly scolds Carol Swain, professor of Political Science and Law at Vanderbilt University, for writing "Why the Supreme Court should uphold S.B. 1070" -
Supreme Court of the United States Blog -
By Kevin Johnson -
Dean of University of California at Davis School of Law -
Tuesday July 19th, 2011

Some excerpts :

Although not feeling a need to elaborate on my legal analysis or predictions, I do feel compelled to register disagreement with the rhetorical approach of one of the contributions. Professor Carol Swain (“Why the Court should uphold S.B. 1070”) states that “[c]riticisms of S.B. 1070 seem to be politically motivated and orchestrated by groups and foreign entities that benefit directly or indirectly from lax immigration enforcement.” This blunt accusation unfortunately denigrates the good faith legal concerns with Arizona’s foray into immigration regulation. Indeed, several contributions to the symposium, at least in my estimation, raise valid legal concerns with S.B. 1070 and do not appear to be “orchestrated” by outside agitators.

Professor Swain’s summary defense of S.B. 1070 blames “excessive crime, homelessness, and high employment” on “the uncontrolled influx of illegal aliens across the Southwestern border,” with Arizona’s “capital city of Phoenix dubbed as the `kidnapping capital of America.’” Given the hyperbole, I almost expected a reference to Governor Jan Brewer’s fabricated claim of headless bodies in the Arizona desert as one of the reasons the state needed S.B. 1070.

These strong, unqualified, and charged claims hide the fact that these are deeply contested propositions with which many, probably most, respected immigration scholars would disagree. A quick perusal of the evidence is to the contrary. For example, an in-depth USA Today investigative report last week concludes that, despite the hyperbolic claims by politicians of a border “crime wave,” crime rates in border cities have been decreasing for several years.

And how can one colorably contend that there has been an “uncontrolled influx of illegal aliens” when the undocumented population has decreased by roughly a million people over the last few years?

Despite the fact that the Obama administration has deported more noncitizens than any presidency in U.S. history – close to 400,000 last year, Professor Swain states emphatically that the U.S. immigration laws “are not being enforced by the federal government,” and that the resulting “crisis . . . threatens the sovereignty of the nation.” That is because, in her words, “President Obama, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security have sided with interest groups who favor open borders and amnesty.”

In the immigration debate, inflammatory rhetoric all too often obscures the truth — that the claims about the alleged litany of horribles brought by the “invasion” of immigrants simply are not substantiated by the facts. Unfortunately, this kind of approach is characteristic of far too much of the national debate over immigration and demonstrates the difficulties in having an informed national dialogue on this all-important topic – or apparently even a discussion among lawyers and professors about how the Supreme Court might rule on the constitutionality of Arizona’s S.B. 1070.

To achieve true immigration reform, what the nation needs is an open and fair discussion, based on the facts, of the issues surrounding U.S. immigration law and its enforcement. It seems to me that academics, policy-makers, and commentators should strive to promote and facilitate such a discussion of the issues, not foment divisions among us through mean-spirited sloganeering. Careful analysis, learning and adhering to the facts, and listening to – not denouncing – people’s concerns are what are necessary.

Defensores de Democracia 2:23 PM  

40 pages, Legal Scholars : Immigration State Laws of Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, etc, are unconstitutional. State enforcement would be unconstitutional even if it were explicitly authorized by Congress. U. S. Congress cannot remove constitutional powers from President and share with non-Executive branch officials

Social Science Research Network
Duke Law Journal, Forthcoming
The Unconstitutionality of State Regulation of Immigration through Criminal Law
Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 10-25

Gabriel J. Chin
University of California, Davis, School of Law

Marc L. Miller
University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law

The “mirror image” theory of cooperative state enforcement of federal immigration law is a phenomenon, one of the most wildly successful legal movements and ideas in decades. The mirror-image theory proposes that states can enact and enforce criminal immigration laws based on federal statutes. The theory that it is unobjectionable for a state to carry out federal policy is the basis of Arizona’s SB1070, similar immigration laws already in force in seven states, and copycat bills pending in dozens more. The mirror-image theory has succeeded not only in legislatures, but also as an idea in the larger political culture: it has been embraced by dozens of U.S. Senators and Representatives, by policy groups, private citizens, and commentators including George Will, Sarah Palin, and the editors of the New York Post and Washington Times.

The mirror image theory is indeed appealing. But it is also fundamentally flawed. This article, the first to subject the mirror image theory to sustained scholarly scrutiny, demonstrates that the mirror image theory fails to identify a legitimate source of state power to legislate on immigration matters.

No one denies that Congress and the Federal executive have exclusive authority over the substance and procedure of admission, exclusion and removal of non-citizens, documented and undocumented. To the extent there has ever been any question, this proposition was firmly established by a pair of Supreme Court decisions from 1876. The mirror image theory does not challenge this deep-rooted idea head-on, but instead proposes that state legislative authority over immigration flows from cases and provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizing states to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law. However, those authorities contemplated state assistance with enforcement only through arrests. Arrest authority does not imply the power to legislate or prosecute. To the contrary, other provisions of the INA make clear that federal agencies have exclusive power to make prosecutorial and administrative decisions after arrest, and to create supplementary regulations.

The mirror image theory rests on the erroneous premise that Congress has implicitly authorized state enforcement of federal immigration law. This article argues that state enforcement would be unconstitutional even if it were explicitly authorized by Congress. First, the federal immigration power is exclusive and non-delegable. Second, criminal prosecution and immigration enforcement is an executive power which Congress cannot remove from the President and share with non-Executive branch officials. Finally, the Supreme Court has held that states cannot prosecute crimes which affect only the sovereign interests of the United States. Accordingly, state immigration prosecutions are irremediably unconstitutional.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP