Was on with Alan Colmes today, had a blast talking about immigration and Lebron James....
So the Conservatives are claiming that the US Dept of Justice's failure to challenge the Arizona law on racial profiling grounds means that the law will not cause racial profiling. Let me give them a Con Law 101 lesson (which they are well aware of but they are counting on the public to keep eating whatever they feed them)
The Arizona Law does not take effect for 2 weeks. For the DOJ to bring a case on profiling they would need a victim who has been profiled under this law to have STANDING. Standing is required to bring a case unless the law violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, in which they can bring a preemptive challenge before the law takes effect. That is what they did here.
Immigration is within the preview of the Federal Government. The United States Constitution is absolutely clear about this. I find it hilarious that all these members of the Federalist Society are running around pretending that the states have the right to legislate here. One of the main reasons we abandoned the Articles of Confederation in the 1780's was to have a unified policy on immigration and commerce.
Do we need comprehensive immigration reform. Yes! Is this the way to get it. No, but it sure has got everyone talking about it. Like I said yesterday, its an election year and I would be shocked if real reform happens this year. Piecemeal actions by individual states, however, will only make the problem worse. The courts will not allow it. Even Justice Scalia will vote this law down.
Christopher; you wrote: "Immigration is within the preview (sic) of the Federal Government. The United States Constitution is absolutely clear about this. I find it hilarious that all these members of the Federalist Society are running around pretending that the states have the right to legislate here. One of the main reasons we abandoned the Articles of Confederation in the 1780's was to have a unified policy on immigration and commerce."
ReplyDeleteAs Donald Surber writes (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/17297),
"And sanctuary cities such as San Francisco and New York City that refuse to uphold the federal law are violating the Constitution.
The sanctions that the New York Times wishes to impose on Arizona (striking down the immigration law) would, fairly, be placed on the sanctuary cities."
If you are willing to have Arizona be punished for trying to legislate on immigration, would you also be willing to have these other localities punished for doing the same thing?
Chris, I don't understand what "standing" is. Can you please explain what that means?
ReplyDeleteI also think that each state should be able to do what is best for that particular state and its people.
If racial profiling occurs then it can be dealt with at that time.
Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
You must have a case in controversy to have standing. What that means in English is something has to have happened.... So for the DOJ to bring a suite challenging that the law promotes racial profiling someone would need to claim they were racially profiled due to the law. That can't happen until the law takes effect at the end of July. As for States being involved with Immigration. The Constitution reserves the immigration policy to the federal government otherwise we would have a patchwork of immigration policies as each state would need to create their own policy... This would be confusing and would upset commerce... hope that helps...
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that this administration is bringing a law suit against a State that is trying to protect itself and do a job the Federal Government is NOT doing while they drop a case of voter intimidation by a group that wielded billy clubs while spewing racial comments. Can you explain the administration’s and the DOJ’s motivations since you clearly think you know so much about the motivation of the so called members of the Federalist Society. If they are really interested in the rule of law why don’t they also bring suit to the sanctuary cities? Maybe you can explain.
ReplyDeleteThese quote "Sanctuary Cities" that Cons like to talk about, they don't exist... they are made up by conservative commentators to muddy the debate... Its not the job of local law enforcement to actively enforce immigration policy. Thats the whole problem with the Arizona law.....
ReplyDeleteHere's where Conservatives are right, We need comprehensive immigration reform in this nation that includes a path to citizenship for hardworking men and women who are here. 10 GOP Senators including John McCain supported this concept 2 years back... Let's see where the new McCain falls on the issue now that he has a challenge from his right....
Putting aside the issue of whether the Arizona law is a good or bad idea (debatable), and whether we really need a revamped, comprehensive national immigration policy (absolutely), I suspect that the issue of the legality, or constitutionality, of the Arizona statute is not going to turn on the question of the Federal preemptive "legislative" right to set immigration policy. That much is absolutely clear. However, it seems less clear to me that a state conflicts with that federal preemptive power unless it enacts legislation (or policy) that directly contravenes a federal statute or impedes the enforcement of that statute. States enacting legislation, which violate the wishes of a specific federal administration in power or even the wishes of a sitting congress, that does not contradict, contravene or impede the enforcement of enacted federal legislation in its arena of preemptive power, might turn out to be quite legal, and the issue is not without judicial precedent. Congress may have to enact new legislation to make the current Arizona statute "illegal." I will be interested to see what happens. I am sure we will have a court decision on the matter before we have national immigration reform, which I expect to happen somewhere around the end of time plus ten years. In any event, you and I can debate the endless possibilities on the next far-ranging "walk and talk" in Huntington.
ReplyDelete