I mentioned this the other day, now it appears as if the law has been signed
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer today signed a controversial immigration bill into state law, advancing a politically charged debate that is already having reverberations in Washington.
I wonder what is just so darned controversial and politically charged?
The law, which will take effect in 90 days, will make it a state crime to be in the country illegally. The measure would require migrants to produce papers verifying their status when asked to do so by a police officer, according to a story in The Arizona Republic.
Ah. I didn’t realize that upholding the law was so darned controversial and politically charged. Of course, the liberal nuts were out in force prior to her signing it and afterwards, and “The Los Angeles-based Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund is already threatening to test the law’s constitutionality.” In other words, an organization that supports people who break the laws of the land.
Anyhow, from Gov. Brewer’s statement
There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to
the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and
violence compromise our quality of life.We cannot delay while the destruction happening south of our international border creeps its way
north.We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act.
But decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable
situation.
Lefties
- Excitable Alan Colmes: This is the toughest anti-immigrant bill in the country, and will likely incur lawsuits that will cost Arizona taxpayers millions of dollars. (No, Alan, it is the toughest ILLEGAL-immigrant bill.)
- Firedoglake takes the unhinged pro-illegals approach
- Wonkette: Sucks to be brown in Arizona “today.†(If you are an illegal, yup. BTW, many Middle Eastern Islamists cross the border, too.)
- Crooks and Liars does their typical unhinged lying, calling this the “first police state for immigrants.” It does get tiring explaining to the Leftards that they are here illegally.
Others are out and about.
Do I particularly like this law? No. But, as I wrote over at a different post on the same subject at Alan Colmes’ site
Perhaps if the federal government got off its collective butts and did something to stop the illegals, States would not need to use their 10th Amendment Rights to attempt to safeguard their citizens. And, yes, I do include George Bush and many Republicans in the mix.
Want to stop the majority of illegals coming across the border? Make the penalties for employing illegals so draconian that no one would dare hire them. Pass measures that allow for migrant workers and keep it under control. No amnesty. Measures to deal with those who overstay their visas. Make it easier for those who want to become citizens to do just that. That is “comprehensive reform†that would work. Start with #1.
Los Federales, unfortunately, keep trying to mix amnesty into comprehensive reform. No. Hell No! It really is very simple. As usual, Washington has to make it so Godawful complicated that it can never be fixed.
If you want to solve the immigration problem it’s very simple – crack down on the employers. If no one hires them they won’t come. This Az bill is barely a band aid will do nothing.
Fine the employers millions of dollars and throw them in jail for hiring illegals and your illegal problem will go away.
IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WONT ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS–STATES WILL.
Legal citizens who jumped through hoops are welcome–but illegal immigrants will not get any Amnesty–leading to citizenship.
Arizona Govern Jan Brewer has more–SPINE–than the majority of our politicians, to fight the overpowering onslaught of illegal immigration. She signed the 1070 immigration bill. Arizona a border state is rampant with murders, home invasion, kidnappings, rapes, assaults and one of the highest crime rates, by illegal immigrants. Its ignorance and indifference of Washington to enforce our immigration laws. In fact they have purposely under funded them.
San. Harry Reid (D-NV) is not being outed just for health care reform, but being a puppet of open border-special interests groups? LETS MAKE THAT CLEAR.One thing for absolutely sure, desperate illegal alien families will be fleeing Arizona, for more greener pastures such as California. Seeing California is a Refuge state for illegal foreigners and already has the largest illegal population in Unites States other than New York. Now starving for billions of dollars, California will have to amend there own enforcement laws to stop the massive migration or pay a heavy price in extorting more money from taxpayers. Then there is always Utah, Texas, New Mexico or even farther states such as Washington. ONE THINGS FOR SURE, THAT THEY MAY PASS SOME FORMULATION OF IMMIGRATION REFORM. BUT AMERICA WILL FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL THAT NO “PATH–TO–CITIZENSHIP” FOR THOSE WHO CAME HERE ILLEGALLY. I am personally a tea partier a moderate Conservative and definitely not a Democrat and Republicans.-and illegal immigration is the no.1 priority to me, and must be stopped for good.
Californian’s are under financial hardship owing to the welfare programs that caters to illegal alien families, and with an outpouring of Arizona’s illegals the Sacramento budget will triple in handouts. Californian’s, specifically Angeleno’s and San Francisco There should be no excuse why FEDERAL SOLDIERS SHOULD BE NOT DEPLOYED TO THE 2000 MILE BORDER. They need to police the border, with the under-manned border patrol and even a poorly funded law enforcement agencies. Sheriffs and deputies that are in a very dangerous area are rudimentary armed, against heinous felons, drug cartels, skin traffickers, smugglers and the flow of unceasing indigent illegal immigrants. LET ME REITERATE, THAT IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IS ONLY SEEN TO WORK. BUT THE TRUTH IS ITS NOT ENFORCED–THAT RIGHT NOW HOMELAND SECURITY HAS CUT BUDGETS FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT. If you are–NOT–an open border extremist, join the organization that is fighting for our rights, your language, freedoms and liberty at NumbersUSA.
Fine the employers millions of dollars and throw them in jail for hiring illegals and your illegal problem will go away.
Interesting concept.
Some kid comes to you door and asks if you want your grass cut. The grass is long and the day is hot, so you negotiate a price for the service of cutting the grass.
An hour later you pay the kid. You got your grass cut and the kid got some money.
A few hours later, the police show up and arrest you for hiring an illegal alien.
How does that million dollar fine sound now?
There is a difference between hiring an illegal immigrant and knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant. This bill has a good provision in it that if the employer has verified the status of an employee through the e-verify system, they are not responsible if the employee is actually in the country illegally. That still doesn’t get the home owner off the hook, but it is still a good provision.
Someone the other day noted that stopping someone to see their papers is reminiscent of harsh, dictatorial regimes. I agree with that assessment. I don’t want the police stopping everyone demanding papers. Doing so is an assault on the freedoms and liberties of legal American citizens.
If a person is stopped as part of another crime or suspected crime, or even asking for services from the state, proof of residency is a good thing. Stopping Joe Schmoe walking down the street to see his papers is reprehensible.
When you think about it, this is a win-win issue for each party. By signing the law the republican base is happy and they will be coming out in force to try and oust those who oppose a crackdown on illegal immigration, because face it, it is breakin gUS law.
But Obama and the other lefties will use this as a “look-see” issue for the fall elections as a scare tactic to try and get every Hispanic person out to vote for a Democrat if they don;t want to be deported.
What surprises me is that groups like the MALDEF are so adamantly opposed to any sort of enforcement of immigration laws. There is a process to go thru to come to the US and live here legally. Why wouldn’t they put more time and effort into possibly streamlining the process so it is easier to go thru the proper channels to get here rather than just hopping to border. And speaking of that, Just tell yourself that the people who have made such a muck-up of immigration are going to now be the people controlling your health care.
The law actually states that if you are in the STATE illegally, then you have now broken this new state law. This is a first for states. It is true, most states have left this enforcement up to the feds, but now that the feds are not upholding their duty, the states are now forced to enact their own laws.
NOW, the state has the authority to go after illegals. And no, that is not against all migrants. Just the illegal ones.
Also note, Obama was at a naturalization ceremony for former foreigners who came to the US and earned their citizenship the right way. While there, he attacks this bill that fights against those who break federal felony laws and now the state laws.
GO AZ!!
The law actually states that if you are in the STATE illegally, then you have now broken this new state law. This is a first for states.
If that is the case, then the law is in trouble. We already have rulings that the US Constitution has authority under Article IV, Section 4. The state cannot act upon what is federal jurisdiction. Hazleton PA tried something very similar to this law and it was declared un-Constitutional.
I don’t know the answer to this dilemma. Clearly the Federal government has to act but they are too scared and in the pockets of groups that support people entering the country illegally.
I can only think that a Federal lawsuit to compel the Federal government to follow its own laws and guidelines will work. Lawsuits against the EPA, Fish and Marine, etc have all forced the Feds to live up to their responsibilities, and a suit may be the only way to get them to live up to their responsibilities for immigration.
Hi gitarcarver,
Wasn’t the Hazelton “thing” about renting and illegals? How people had to get “permits” to rent? And thus, the city determined who was illegal or not by who got permits?
From what I am gathering, in this case, AZ allows local and state law enforcement personnel defer that “legal” status upon the state. Because, for this to work right, the state only gives licenses and IDs to legal citizens. Thus, it is now the state that determines who is legal and the state that enforces the new law.
Now, whether this difference will hold up to scrutiny as you suggest, is … something to keep an eye on.
Here’s a question, if there is a matter that the feds don’t or refuse to handle, is it constitutional if the states take that duty upon themselves?
Just as legal as healthcare Mr. Obama. You can do what ever you want but when states are over run with crime and do something, it’s a crime? This had to be done. The thing is, D.C. should have dealt with this 20 years ago. Instead they left it to the states to deal with.
captainfish,
Wasn’t the Hazelton “thing†about renting and illegals?
The Hazleton case did deal with the issues you bring up. It also dealt with enforcement of immigration policy. The Hazleton law allowed the police to stop what they felt may be illegal aliens and demand to see proper documentation. (Sound familier?) In the opinion, the judge specifically cites that a state or municipality does not have the right to enact laws that basically usurp the authority of Federal law and the US Constitution. This is based upon the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution.
The Hazleton case was slightly different, but the core issues are the same when looking at the Arizona case. Also remember that Arizona sits in the 9th Circuit which is notoriously left leaning.
Thus, it is now the state that determines who is legal and the state that enforces the new law.
And therein lies the problem. Who is “legal” or “illegally” here in the US is a Federal determination, not a state determination.
Here’s a question, if there is a matter that the feds don’t or refuse to handle, is it constitutional if the states take that duty upon themselves?
I don’t think that it is. The Feds have the authority. Inclusive in that authority is some discretion.
About 20 years ago a group of citizens in California sued the Federal government to re-coup monies the state was forced to pay for costs incurred by illegal immigrants. The theory was that as the Feds weren’t enforcing the law, they should pick up the bill.
The case was thrown out because the court said that the citizens lacked standing to bring a suit dealing with the finances of the state government.
The state never initiated another lawsuit.
Terry,
Just as legal as healthcare Mr. Obama. You can do what ever you want but when states are over run with crime and do something, it’s a crime?
The analogy to ObamaCare is a good one. Conservatives are upset because the bill is contrary to the Constitution. I agree with that assessment.
I am sorry, but I can’t sit here and say “I want the Constitution followed when it suits my beliefs and not followed when the issue is contrary to my beliefs.”
ObamaCare is illegal (not a crime) because it is against the Constitution. I have a sneaking suspicion that the courts will find that the Arizona law is contrary to the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
I believe that a lawsuit will have to be filed in order for the Federal government to enforce the laws on the books dealing with immigration. That being said, that will take political will and that is something that I don’t see much of in politicians these days. It will take standing up to the ACLU and the special interest groups that support illegal immigration. It will take spitting in the face of the vilification by those groups against the state government that goes forward with actually representing the will of their citizens.
We have the laws. We just need the politicians and the will to enforce them.
very good points gitarcarver. I was unsure to the specifics of Hazelton. While those on the typical right are hesitant protecting the Constitution, those on the typical left are NOT hesitant to impose their will. Thus, you are probably right, AZ will be sued and lose, no one will sue ObamaCare and US will lose.
Two final things:
1) I apologize for being verbose. I can never get in a discussion that has a lot of nuances without using a lot of words.
2) I want and expect the Feds to enforce the immigration laws on the books. It is wrong to me that people that wait, follow and respect our laws are jilted to some extent in favor of those who do not.
CaptainFish,
As far as I know, there are 11 states that are launching and supporting lawsuits against ObamaCare. I fully support their efforts. My favorite is (as I remember) Colorado where the Governor wants to sue and the Attorney General, a liberal Democrat, won’t file the suit. So the Governor found some law firms willing to do the lawsuit pro bono and they are going forward with it.
All of these suits will eventually go to the Supreme Court which will be interesting. It would be one of those cases and arguments I would LOVE to see live on TV. It won’t happen, but it should as the Supreme Court is as much of the governmental process as the Senate.