Let's look at the Court's finding which not by coincidence aligns perfectly with Dimocrat political rhetoric, a bit closer. The 2-judge majority decided the AZ law "interfered" with the Federal government's exclusive purview over foreign and immigration policy.
Quote:
|
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a federal judge in Arizona who found that provisions of the law, known as SB 1070, were an unconstitutional intrusion into immigration and foreign policy, which is the prerogative of the federal government.
|
What is the nature of this interference? Does SB1070 allow AZ to deport illegals? No. Allow AZ officials to determine an individual's immigration status? No. The AZ law calls for local officials to check with the INS and then if advised by the INS that the person is in the country illegally, turn them over to the INS. The determination of a person's legal status remains entirely in the hands of the Federal government. Yet somehow the court determined the continuation of the immigration legal status quo was unConstitutional because the state law enforcement was putting people into INS hands.
Moreover, the prospect of state law enforcement turning over more suspected illegals to INS makes it "impossible" for the Federal government to conduct immigration law enforcement. According to the Court's decision only the King's men are empowered to selectively apprehend illegals despite a long history of coordination between Federal and state law enforcement.
Quote:
|
Judge Richard Paez, who was appointed by President Clinton and wrote the majority opinion, argued that requiring police to perform immigration enforcement makes it impossible for the federal government to regulate immigration.
|
The absurd conclusion rendered by the Court is that more enforcement of Federal immigration laws detracts from the Federal governments ability to well, enforce immigration law. Brilliant.
The more outrageous aspect of the Court's decision involves SB 1070's supposed interference with foreign policy. As with the purported interference with immigration policy AZ 1070 makes no change to existing Federal policy nor does it inhibit the Federal government's ability to make changes in the future. But wait, the all-knowing justices "blessed" us with their foreign policy wisdom.
Quote:
|
Judge John T. Noonan, an appointee of President Reagan, wrote a separate concurring opinion emphasizing that Arizona had clearly tried to create its own immigration — and, therefore, foreign — policy. He noted that a number of countries protested the law, which begins by stating that "attrition through enforcement" is now the state's policy.
|
Foreign policy cannot be made by the state of AZ but the good Federal Appeals judges show no restraint in dictating foreign policy from the bench. No longer is US law to be subjugated to whatever the judiciary determines are superior laws in other countries, we are to reject any law eliciting protests from foreign governments as "unConstitutional." US citizens cannot be restrained from exercising their rights by a hecklers veto but thanks to the Court foreign governments are given that power merely by lodging a protest.
Quote:
|
But Judge Carlos T. Bea, an appointee of President George W. Bush, contended in his partial dissent that Arizona had a right to tell its police to check immigration status because Congress had clearly authorized local police to aid in immigration enforcement. Bea, a native of Spain who was nearly deported from the United States before winning his citizenship, also warned against giving foreign governments a "heckler's veto" by citing their objections.
|
What's hailed as a victory for the Administration is in fact an abuse of the Federal judiciary's power. There is nothing in the Constitution or in logic giving these judges the latitude to decide enforcement of existing laws is somehow unConstitutional while tacitly acknowledging the Constitutionality of immigration laws or to permit the Courts to enjoin the creation of US laws if foreign governments object to them.
04-13-2011, 09:32 AM
Re: Court upholds judge's ban on Arizona immigration law
Linear Mode
