|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:26 pm Post subject: The Federal Challenge of SB 1070 (the AZ Immigration Law) |
 |
|
The Case Against Arizona
| Chris Good wrote: |
The Department of Justice filed its long-awaited lawsuit against the state of Arizona today in federal district court. How will Attorney General Eric Holder challenge the state's immigration law, specifically? The case rests on two points:
1) That Arizona's law, SB 1070, violates the Constitution's Supremacy Clause by setting up a state-level immigration-law regime. The Constitution gives the U.S. Congress the power "to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization" in Article I, Section 8; Article VI, the Supremacy Clause, states that the Constitution "shall be the Supreme Law of the Land," above any state law.
2) That SB 1070 conflicts with federal immigration law and enforcement. Immigration laws are drafted, and enforced by DoJ and the Department of Homeland Security, with a host of federal concerns in mind, such as relations with other countries. Arizona's law, which would punish anyone found to be here illegally (aka, unable to supply papers), interferes with the sensitive and, at times, selective enforcement of immigration statute. For instance, the federal government will grant some illegals asylum from persecution, and it will provide special visas to victims of trafficking or violent crimes. Furthermore, federal agencies "principally" target suspected violent criminals in enforcing immigration statute, and the violation of immigration laws, federally, doesn't always necessitate criminal punishment. By requiring everyone to show papers and criminally punishing everyone who doesn't have them, Arizona interferes with those nuances, DoJ argues. |
You'll notice queasiness about racial profiling isn't among the concerns.
I think this case is pretty cut-and-dry, actually. The Constitution clearly enumerates that Immigration and Naturalization is a Federal matter. Combined with the Supremacy Clause, the case is a slam dunk. We don't have 50 immigration policies. That way lies madness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the complaint filed in the US District Court for the state of Arizona.
Paragraph 36 summarizes the whole case best.
| Quote: |
| Arizona�s adoption of a maximal �attrition through enforcement� policy disrupts the national enforcement regime set forth in the INA and reflected in federal immigration enforcement policy and practice, including the federal government�s prioritization of enforcement against dangerous aliens. S.B. 1070 also interferes with U.S. foreign affairs priorities and rejects any concern for humanitarian interests or broader security objectives, and will thus harm a range of U.S. interests. Thus, because S.B. 1070 attempts to set state-specific immigration policy, it legislates in an area constitutionally reserved to the federal government, conflicts with the federal immigration laws and federal immigration policy, conflicts with foreign policy, and impedes the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress, and is therefore preempted. |
The next quote is for Fox.
| Quote: |
53.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-2928 makes it a new state crime for any person who is �unauthorized� and �unlawfully present� in the United States to solicit, apply for, or perform work. S.B. 1070, Section 5(C)-(E).
54.
Arizona�s new prohibition on unauthorized aliens seeking or performing work is preempted by the comprehensive federal scheme of sanctions related to the employment of unauthorized aliens � including 8 U.S.C. �� 1324a�1324c. The text, structure, history, and purpose of this scheme reflect an affirmative decision by Congress to regulate the employment of unlawful aliens by imposing sanctions on the employer without imposing sanctions on the unlawful alien employee.
Enforcement of this new state crime additionally interferes with the comprehensive system of civil consequences for aliens unlawfully present in the United States by attaching criminal sanctions on the conditions of unlawful presence, despite an affirmative choice by Congress not to criminalize unlawful presence. |
Finally, the complaint claims the AZ law mucks with removal proceedings.
| Quote: |
59.
Section 6 makes no exception for aliens whose removability has already been resolved by federal authorities, despite the fact that only the federal government can actually issue removal decisions. Section 6 will therefore necessarily result in the arrest of aliens based on out-of-state crimes, even if the criminal and immigration consequences of the out-of-state crime have already been definitively resolved. For that reason, as with Section 2, Section 6 of S.B. 1070 interferes with the federal government�s enforcement prerogatives and will necessarily impose burdens on lawful aliens in a manner that conflicts with the purposes and practices of the federal immigration laws. Additionally, Section 6 will result in the arrest of aliens whose out-of-state crimes would not give rise to removal proceedings at all. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm.
| Quote: |
(5) Order for civil money penalty for paperwork violations
With respect to a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section, the order under this subsection shall require the person or entity to pay a civil penalty in an amount of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for each individual with respect to whom such violation occurred. In determining the amount of the penalty, due consideration shall be given to the size of the business of the employer being charged, the good faith of the employer, the seriousness of the violation, whether or not the individual was an unauthorized alien, and the history of previous violations.
(1) Criminal penalty
Any person or entity which engages in a pattern or practice of violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) of this section shall be fined not more than $3,000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom such a violation occurs, imprisoned for not more than six months for the entire pattern or practice, or both, notwithstanding the provisions of any other Federal law relating to fine levels.
(2) Enjoining of pattern or practice violations
Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a person or entity is engaged in a pattern or practice of employment, recruitment, or referral in violation of paragraph (1)(A) or (2) of subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States requesting such relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person or entity, as the Attorney General deems necessary. |
This seems to be a heavily under-enforced policy. No place of business would be hiring illegal immigrants if it reliably cost them $3000 a head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fines are 'not more than' $3,000. I mean, I'm not exactly a fervent supporter of particularly singling out and punishing employers of immigrants, but that seems low for those engaging in 'a pattern or practice of violations.' Frankly, if I'm Tyson Foods, I continue hiring illegals and just eat the costs.
Americans oppose the challenge to the AZ law
| Quote: |
Favor/Oppose lawsuit?
Favor Strongly 26%
Favor, not strongly 7%
Oppose, not strongly 12%
Oppose Strongly 38%
No Opinion 17% |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Supreme Court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law
| Quote: |
The Supreme Court said Monday that the federal government has the sole power to enforce the laws against illegal immigration, striking down three key provisions of Arizona's first-in-the nation crackdown on undocumented residents.
"Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration,� said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, "but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."
But the 5-3 decision was not a total loss for Arizona. The justices cleared the way for state officials to begin enforcing a provision that calls on police, when making lawful stops, to check the immigration status of people who may be in the country illegally. These status checks should not "result in prolonged detention," Kennedy said.
The high court struck down parts of Arizona's SB 1070 that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work and to not to carry immigration papers. The justices also blocked a provision that gave the police authority to arrest immigrants for crimes that may lead to deportation.
"Federal law makes a single sovereign responsible for maintaining a comprehensive and unified system to keep track of aliens within the nation's borders,� Kennedy wrote. If Arizona could arrest and hold immigrants for not carrying papers, "every state could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zackback
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
Location: Kyungbuk
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We don't need 50 immigration policies?
If the Federal Government did their job then no we wouldn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zackback
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
Location: Kyungbuk
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Increased deportation? Big deal more numbers have been coming in. All the presidents were awful on this issue.
Seal the border...all of it...now! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zackback wrote: |
Increased deportation? Big deal more numbers have been coming in. All the presidents were awful on this issue.
Seal the border...all of it...now! |
Better yet, create a significant Federal sales tax to replace income tax, and give partial rebates to legal residents. That will discourage illegal residency in a big hurry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zackback wrote: |
| Increased deportation? Big deal more numbers have been coming in. |
After some 40 years, the flow of Mexicans southward into the US has come to a standstill and may even have reversed
| Quote: |
The Mexican population in the United States peaked at a net 12.6 million in 2007. By 2011, it had fallen to 12 million.
The standstill in Mexican immigration seems to be a result of the weakened US economy in which jobs are harder to find, heightened border control, greater danger crossing the border illegally, and a rise in deportations. Other factors include an improved Mexican economy and a decline in birthrates in Mexico. |
Last edited by Kuros on Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zackback wrote: |
Increased deportation? Big deal more numbers have been coming in. All the presidents were awful on this issue.
Seal the border...all of it...now! |
Actually the numbers have been decreasing steadily due to the worsening American economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just in case he hasn't made it clear enough for you on this thread, Zackback is a troll.
Scalia's rant/dissent
| Quote: |
| �The issue is a stark one,� he went on. �Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive�s refusal to enforce the nation�s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the states conceivably have entered into the union if the Constitution itself contained the court�s holding?� If this had been the original view of the Framers of the Constitution, �the delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall.� In other words, according to Scalia, if Arizona had known what was coming from his colleagues yesterday, they never would have joined the United States. No other state would have either. The Arizona ruling, in Scalia�s telling, would have destroyed the country even before it was born. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zackback
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
Location: Kyungbuk
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah I'm a troll and you just quoted Scalia (see below) which confirmed what I previously said.
.."...the federal executives refusal to enforce the nation's immigration laws."
Seal the borders now. Put troops there now. One of the things that define a sovereign nation is the fact that it has borders. People are just pouring in so why even have a border? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Just in case he hasn't made it clear enough for you on this thread, Zackback is a troll.
Scalia's rant/dissent
| Quote: |
| �The issue is a stark one,� he went on. �Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive�s refusal to enforce the nation�s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the states conceivably have entered into the union if the Constitution itself contained the court�s holding?� If this had been the original view of the Framers of the Constitution, �the delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall.� In other words, according to Scalia, if Arizona had known what was coming from his colleagues yesterday, they never would have joined the United States. No other state would have either. The Arizona ruling, in Scalia�s telling, would have destroyed the country even before it was born. |
|
I wonder if any of these thoughts passed through his mind when he was signing on to overturn Montana's campaign finance laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
