Monday, July 26, 2010

Arizona Madness - The Totalitarians Continue


Unless a US District Judge issues an injunction prohibiting it from going into effect, Arizona law permitting law enforcement in Arizona to make inquiry about a person's citizenship status when they are otherwise stopped by law enforcement goes into effect on July 29, 2010. This bill is facially unconstitutional in that it oversteps and infringes on Federal supremacy in regulation of immigration. A person who regularly comments on this blog and I were discussing this law recently, and he brought to my attention a US Supreme Court case which he believed to be controlling. The case is De Canas v. Bica 424 US 351 (1976). However, the case, while discussing immigration, is not on point. There are several ways to distinguish De Canas from the case before us here.

In De Canas, supra, the Court held that a California law which made it a crime to hire an undocumented worker was not a regulation of immigration, and was not therefore preempted by the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). However, the Arizona law, in its most insidious parts, has nothing to do with the hiring of undocumented workers. It purports to empower Arizona law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. The enforcement of such laws are specifically enforced by the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security (ICE). Although Section 287(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does allow for ICE to partner with state and local authorities, it also requires that ICE supervise and train those officers who are going to be enforcing immigration law, and it requires a Memorandum of Understanding with the local or state law enforcement department which must state with specificity, among other things, the scope of authority and the limitations on what procedures or functions that the properly trained individuals in that department are able to perform. Arizona's law seeks to grant blanket authority for immigration investigations and determinations to all law enforcement officers in the State of Arizona, without any such training requirement or certification. This is clearly a case of where federal supremacy over a state's laws would apply, and federal law dictates that ICE agents are the primary enforcers of US immigration law. While it is true that ICE can and does delegate some of its responsibility to local law enforcement on occasion, under its partnership with local law enforcement, this delegation is also subject to federal oversight.

The proponents of the Arizona legislation say that because the US Government has failed to curb illegal immigration, they must take this action. However, the proponents of this legislation are all Republicans. It is also republicans who have thwarted any real movement on immigration reform by their mean-spirited and laughable attempts to repatriate all those who are in the United States illegally. At an estimated 11 to 12 million people, where do they think they are going to get all the buses necessary?

The proponents of the legislation also forget that US Law already makes it illegal for an employer to hire someone without the proper documentation of the right to work in the US, but that the business community has for years, (largely with the help of Republicans) fought any attempt to seriously stop the practice. Hugely punitive measures that would cause real pain to companies who routinely hire undocumented workers are unpopular with the business community, because these workers can be underpaid and have little recourse to demand better working conditions and higher pay. This results in higher profits which is pleasing to the stockholders and to their board of directors.

Hopefully, the Hon. Susan Bolton, the US District Court judge hearing this case, will issue a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect, followed by a permanent injunction shoving this law into the dust pan of history. The Republicans who voted for this law should also be held to account by the registered Hispanic voters and other fair-minded citizens of Arizona who should recognize the heavy-handed police state tactics as being counter to the traditions of American fair play and democracy.

6 comments:

  1. What I find most striking is that those who advocate for State's rights, are happy with trampelling it to advocate the McDonald decision, and those same people, people who demand the "Constitution" be followed in the way they desire - are ready to toss aside supremacy.

    They are going to have their law struck down because it is unconstitutional and was knowingly so when passed, and then they'll bitch about a lack of federal support, yet want state protection.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Strategically speaking, it may be more damaging to Republicans if the law is allowed to be enforced. I'm curious as to how this will play out.

    I'd like to see a token arranged arrest within a specified context so the law can be challenged peacably and effectively.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Forty eight hours and counting.

    If some kind of injunction doesn't result in that time frame, AB, you may very well get your wish.

    I dislike the idea because it would probably mean someone has to go through a very unpleasant experience so everyone else can benefit.

    Welcome back AB! We've missed you! And good luck with the new incarnation of your own blog (hope you will still have a link to Penigma). I promise to update the Penigma link to it, sometime this week. Hope you will still write for us from time to time, as the spirit moves you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ToE, you left out the part of the decision that said, " Standing alone, the fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute does not render it a regulation of immigration." Also the court defined regulation of immigration as deciding who may legally stay in the US. Since the targets of this law are people here illegally to start with, it would not seem to be a regulation of immigration. The other thing they said is that unless a law conflicts with federal enforcement or Congress specifically forbids states from enforcing the law that states can enforce a law that compliments federal law. Now I have not read the whole Immigration and Naturalization act but everything I read by people in Arizona says the modeled their law on it so it would not conflict. What I don't get is why people are so up in arms about this. There are a few hundred cities across the southwest and in California that check the immigration status of anyone they arrest or give a citation, so why is that ok and a State saying they must do it not ok?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tuck,

    Have you read the complete opinion? If not, here is a link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=424&invol=351

    What is fatally flawed about this
    Arizona statute is that it violates the supremacy clause of the US Constitution. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 give specific jurisdiction for enforcement to the INS (and its successor, ICE). You are correct, there are over 1,000 cities and other local law enforcement who have partnered with ICE to have their officers trained in immigration enforcement, including 8 entities in Arizona. However, the discretion as to whether to partner with local law enforcement is solely on the part of ICE, and it CANNOT be mandated by a state.

    I suggest that you do more reading, Tuck. The people in Arizona have a track history of distorting the truth, and their darling, Sheriff Arapio, is currently under investigation by a federal grand jury for abuse of power.

    I also remind you that under the partnership program, for a law enforcement agency to participate, the officers who are going to be certified must attend a training program, paid for by the agency. This is expensive and lasts 3 to 4 weeks. Only those officers who are certified can enforce immigration law, NOT the entire department unless all personnel are certified by ICE.

    This is clearly, as I've stated again, a violation of the supremacy clause of the US constitution, and Arizona and its bigoted republican controllers are going to waste lots of taxpayer money to find that out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://gabrielasaucedomercer.blogspot.com/ Gabriela Saucedo Mercer Must Be Stopped ... Watch as she single handedly runs for federal congressional office while supporting state legislation making it a crime for a teacher to read from a "partisan" BOOK, a crime punishable by termination and loss of credentials ... Thrill as she stands before an audience of like minded fascists and expresses her fear of the inevitable declaration by Barak Huesein Obama that he is "dictator" ... Gasp as she extolls the future of American Education culminating in an all out "KRISTALLNACHT" ... Hyperventilate as the naturalized hispanic citizen supports SB 1070 ... Cringe in Terror as she promotes the film "AGENDA" which describes the subversion of the United States by "communism, socialism or whatever you want to call it". Yur eyes won't believe what they are seeing, your ears will deny what they are hearing ...

    ReplyDelete