Legal battle against Arizona’s law could become complicated

[Frosty]

Just received from NAFBPO

Will someone tell the ACLU to take a friggin hike (read the last paragraph)

Legal battle against Arizona’s law could become complicated
Wednesday, 5/19/10

__________________

El Financiero (Mexico City) 5/18/10

A press report states that a legal memorandum dating to the administration of ex-President George W. Bush could complicate Barack Obama’s efforts to confront Arizona’s law SB1070. If the government decides to start legal action to prevent that law from going into effect, the document seems to be in conflict with the central argument that legal experts anticipate would be the core of the official case.

The existence of the document, written in 2002, turns out to be ironic because of the current administration’s intention to confront a law which President Barack Obama has called “ill guided.” The document from the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice concluded that local law enforcement has the “inherent power” to detain undocumented immigrants for violation of a federal law. The author of the Arizona law cited the authority granted to local law enforcement in that memorandum as a basis for the controversial legislation.

The Obama administration has not rescinded the memorandum, and a legal action on the part of the Department of Justice would be embarrassing at least. Robert Driscoll, an ex-official of the Department of Justice, who represents a sheriff in Arizona, pointed out how difficult it would be to “charge someone for carrying out the authority which the Department says they have.” The Attorney General, Eric Holder, has stated that his office is considering a lawsuit against Arizona and that the Civil Rights Division is conducting legal consultations on the matter.

Cecilia Wang, a lawyer with the ACLU, rejected the complications that the 2002 memorandum may cause because the Arizona law, she said, “goes much further” than the basic authority that document grants in order to carry out arrests.

[fightingquaker13]

OK, lets put politics aside and just look at the legal issues. I hate (well I don't hate, its what I do for a living), to burden you with a Con Law geekgasm. Still, this one is a doozy.
The Constitution grants the feds the right to set immigration and citizenship policy.
The feds have, by statutes and legal memmorandi set immigration policy.
The Supremacy Clause says the feds trump the states when it comes to Enummerated Powers.
The same clause gives the states the right and duty, to enforce federal law.
The state wants to enforce federal law. The feds don't want it enforced.
Here we have a classic case of intent vs plain wording. Who will win? Forgive me if I'm enjoying this a little too much. Its just that this case may require the feds to ackowledge that the states may and must, refuse to enforce federal law in order to obey federal orders.
FQ13 who wants a bowl of popcorn! ;

[tombogan03884]

Kind of like video of your ex in a car crash but with lawyers  

[fightingquaker13]

Kind of like video of your ex in a car crash but with lawyers  

Yeah, but in this case the the ex is a combination of every president since Reagan in 1986 and the lawyers are every single "states rights" Republican and every "enforce federal power" Democrat. All of them hitting the wall of their own hypocrisy at high speed. God bless Arizona!
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Yeah, but in this case the the ex is a combination of every president since Reagan in 1986  Johnson and the lawyers are every single "states rights" Republican and every "enforce federal power" Democrat. All of them hitting the wall of their own hypocrisy at high speed. God bless Arizona!
FQ13

FIFY   

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

FIFY   

Thanks! Honestly, this is like the drug war. Its one of those issues that anyone who has ever taken econ 101, or worked a day in retail should figure out. No demand equals no supply. High demand equals high supply, laws be damned. They aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Want to stop illegal immigration? Dry up the demand for illegal labor by cracking down hard on those who employ illegals. Do it to a degree that they find it safer and easier to pay more to hire an American instead. No jobs equals few illegalls. Same with prohibition and the drug war. We aren't willing to put our kids (or ourselves) up against the wall for smoking a joint or drinking a beer. The result? A high demand and a steady supply. You want to close down a black market, fight the demand side. Otherwise you are taking a very expensive tax payer funded piss in the wind. I think and hope we have the will to go up against the demand side on immigration, even though there are well connected opponents to enforcement. If we don't, we may as well give up and turn the Border Patrol into tour guides and get used to working for a dollar a day.
FQ13

[Solus]

Thanks! Honestly, this is like the drug war. Its one of those issues that anyone who has ever taken econ 101, or worked a day in retail should figure out. No demand equals no supply. High demand equals high supply, laws be damned. They aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Want to stop illegal immigration? Dry up the demand for illegal labor by cracking down hard on those who employ illegals. Do it to a degree that they find it safer and easier to pay more to hire an American instead. No jobs equals few illegalls. Same with prohibition and the drug war. We aren't willing to put our kids (or ourselves) up against the wall for smoking a joint or drinking a beer. The result? A high demand and a steady supply. You want to close down a black market, fight the demand side. Otherwise you are taking a very expensive tax payer funded piss in the wind. I think and hope we have the will to go up against the demand side on immigration, even though there are well connected opponents to enforcement. If we don't, we may as well give up and turn the Border Patrol into tour guides and get used to working for a dollar a day.
FQ13

Your assumption is that all but an insignificant number of illegals come here to work. 

I have no facts, but my suspicion is that a good number of illegals enter for the free benefits provided and, perhaps, the hope of amnesty.

Stopping the handouts and being firm on finding and prosecuting illegals would address those reasons also.

[ericire12]

ACLU was founded by a communist

[Frosty]

Reply to Solus's remark - I have no facts, but my suspicion is that a good number of illegals enter for the free benefits provided and, perhaps, the hope of amnesty.

Stopping the handouts and being firm on finding and prosecuting illegals would address those reasons also.

I saw an article that compared the illegal alien handouts to a bird feeder and it made a hell of alot of sense - stop feeding the birds (handing out free benefits to the illegal aliens) and they will stop coming to the bird feeder (the U.S.) - seems simple to me! The illegals that are here now do expect to be granted amnesty
We need to hammer corrupt corporations and landscape/construction co's for hiring the cheap slave laborers with massive fines, big jail time as well as take away their business license for a couple of yrs.

[tombogan03884]

FQ and Solus are individually wrong. Together their replies dead on. Stop the hand outs AND the jobs.