9th Circus rules against Arizona, as expected
This was always going to go to SCOTUS
Arizona can’t enforce its law requiring police officers to determine the immigration status of people stopped for questioning, a federal appeals court ruled.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco today upheld a lower court ruling that barred the central provisions of the law from taking effect.
“By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government’s authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement, turning Arizona officers into state-directed [Department of Homeland Security] agents,” the appellate panel said.
Today’s ruling may be appealed by Arizona or go back to U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton for a trial on whether to permanently block the law as unconstitutional. Arizona, with the backing of 11 states in court papers, had argued Bolton’s July 28 preliminary order blocking the law should be invalidated.
Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that the federal government is pleased with the ruling.
While the panel didn’t reach broader constitutional questions raised by the challenge to the law, Judge John T. Noonan Jr. wrote in a separate opinion that “foreign policy is not and cannot be determined by the several states.” ‘Absurdity Too Gross’ “That fifty individual states or one individual state should have a foreign policy is absurdity too gross to be entertained,” he said. [That States should not have control over their own police is an absurdity too gross to be entertained, I would have thought]
The panel noted that presidents of five Central American and South American countries and governments of others protested the law.
Arizona Governor Janice Brewer, a Republican, has said the law is a response to the federal government’s failure to help the state deal with an influx of illegal immigrants. The statute makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. “I remain steadfast in my belief that Arizona and other states have a sovereign right and obligation to protect their citizens and enforce immigration law in accordance with federal statute,” Brewer said today in a joint statement with state Attorney General Tom Horne.
U.S. Supreme Court
Brewer said the state is considering its legal options, including whether to seek reconsideration by an 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction imposed by Bolton.
Bolton ruled that Arizona can’t require police officers to try to determine whether someone is legally in the U.S. and then detain that person if they suspect he isn’t. She also blocked a piece of Arizona’s law that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit or perform work. In addition, the ruling barred police officers from making warrantless arrests of people they think might be illegal immigrants.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children: A Look at Cash, Medicaid, Housing, and Food Programs (Backgrounder)
2. H-1B + K-12 = ? A First Look at the Implications of Foreign Teacher Recruitment (Memorandum)
3. Amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to Eliminate the Diversity Visa Lottery Immigrant Program (Testimony)
4. BIA Does the Right Thing – Let's Hope America Publicizes It (Blog)
5. Arizona Prop 100 Upheld (Blog)
6. Viewing the H-1B Program from a Different Angle (Blog)
7. Birthright Citizenship Report Sparks Debate (Blog)
8. USCIS Shoots Self in Foot Trying to Streamline an Application Process (Blog)
9. DOL Adds Big D.C.-Area School System to List of H-1B 'Willful Violators' (Blog)
10. 'A Special Political Responsibility of Protection and Nourishment' (Blog)
11. Importing Poverty (Blog)
12. On Decoding ICE Press Releases; or, Why Was That Farmer Criminally Charged? (Blog)
13. USCIS Waives Fees at the Rate of at Least $44 Million a Year (Blog)
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment