A lesson for tenthers in the Arizona ruling
On the angry end of the political spectrum, secession is in the air and a narrow reading of the US Constitution — with severely limited powers for the federal government — is all the rage. But the Constitution is interpreted by federal courts (according to the Constitution), and an Arizona federal judge has delivered a blow to tenthers who believe that the federal government should be allowed to do very little.
In rejecting key parts of the Arizona immigration law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton agreed with the Obama administration’s views on “pre-emption,” a belief that states cannot usurp important federal powers.
From the WSJ:
A judge’s ruling blocking major portions of Arizona’s immigration law strengthened the Obama administration’s hand in a battle over states rights that appears destined for the Supreme Court.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix sided with the Justice Department on the most important federal arguments accusing the state of crossing a constitutional line with a law aimed at curbing illegal immigration.
Several other states are considering similar laws, amid broad anti-immigration sentiment, and the ruling likely will contribute to deterring some of them. Underscoring the political implications of the legal fight, Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer used her gubernatorial-campaign website to vow an appeal of the ruling, and the Republican Governors Association sent out a fund-raising letter from Ms. Brewer seeking donations. . .
Federal courts have given the federal government wide latitude over immigration laws, dating to 1880s laws aimed at limiting Chinese migrants. But in recent decades, courts have also allowed state laws that rely on federal law for their force.Jonathan Benner of Reed Smith LLP said the judge’s ruling was “surgical” in carving out areas where he believed the state clearly crossed the line. “She’s dealing with an area that’s suffused with federal authority,” he said.
An analysis in the NYT agrees that the ruling will likely deter other states from adopting a harsh law similar to Arizona’s:
Although Judge Bolton’s ruling is not final, it seems likely to halt, at least temporarily, an expanding movement by states to combat illegal immigration by making it a state crime to be an immigrant without legal documents and by imposing new requirements on state and local police officers to enforce immigration law.
“This is a warning to any other jurisdiction” considering a similar law, said Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund , which brought a separate suit against the law that is also before Judge Bolton.
I doubt if the ruling will serve to deter many states from similar laws. There may be a few governors and state legislatures who have the good sense — in these times of gaping state budget deficits — to refrain from engaging in expensive lawsuits they are unlikely to win. But most will not.
After all, governors and legislatures are endorsing such laws strictly for political reasons — to appease a nativist constituency that is angry over immigration. That backlash won’t be halted by common sense.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
355 comments Add your comment
Starring Kam Fong as Chin Ho
July 29th, 2010
12:04 pm
So now, if I’m the Gov of Az, I’m suing the Fed Gov’t for every dime that their refusal to protect the border costs my state. For incarcerating the criminals, for treating illegals in hospitals, for educating their kids, etc. If I’m the widow of the rancher that was slaughtered by illegal scum, I’m suing the Feds for the loss of my spouse. They have stated that it is the Feds responsibility and no one elses, so let them take responsibility.
Richard
July 29th, 2010
12:04 pm
We need an immigration Czar- what is Vincente Fox or Sean Penn up to- may have co immigration czars
HaHa
July 29th, 2010
12:05 pm
“otherwise law-abiding people”
They break the law continuously every day by remaining in the Unived States and by getting jobs that they legally can not work at. There’s no ‘otherwise’ about it!
Duh indeed!
HaHa
July 29th, 2010
12:06 pm
that’s supposed to be UNITED States
Hankie Aron
July 29th, 2010
12:06 pm
I agree completely Swede. As long as comprehensive reform is not lip service for blanket amnesty which is clearly not your opinion. The opinion of our goverment, well that might be blanket amnest for political reasons.
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2010
12:07 pm
Ref Starring Kam Fong…..
That might be a way to get the federal government to act but would go nowhere. The federal government has imposed all kinds of direct mandates (e.g. No Child Left Behind) on the states and the states have been powerless.
TheMunn
July 29th, 2010
12:08 pm
HDB
So what is barry doing to bring us back together? That seems to be the lefts answer to everything. What is being done to change what is happening now? When I was a newborn I released my bodily waste in my pants. As I progressed I realized this is not the way of the future. So I changed. This whole administration has done nothing but blame everything on the prior administration, wasn’t Barry the one who promised change? Perhaps you should move back into your cave or at least step up and demand the change that was BO’s promise.
QueDawg12
July 29th, 2010
12:10 pm
Swede Atlanta……………..Very well put. One critical error. You labeled yourself as a Liberal so now what you said (no matter how well stated) went in one ear and out the other!!
Drawing Black Lines
July 29th, 2010
12:14 pm
Swede Atlanta,
I agree that legal action by the state is costly. However, state unemployment (of citizens), crime (whether decreasing or not), and the total disregard for laws that break our hearts is even more
costly.
As for preemption this already occurs with other federal laws. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 is a federal law but is enforced by state and local Police. This is why preemption will not hold up in the Supreme Court.
As for solutions. What is America to expect from Liberals? The Party of “NO” seems to fit democrats more these days as Democrats have not come up with one comprehensive piece of legislation for immigration reform. All we hear is “Path to Citizenship” and nothing about control the boarder. Additionally, SB 1070 has in it more pressure on those who hire illegals.
Scooter (the Original)
July 29th, 2010
12:16 pm
So does this mean the executive branch is free of its constitutional RESPONSIBILITY to protect the states from invaders, both foreign and domestic?
TheMunn
July 29th, 2010
12:21 pm
These left wing nuts will say and do anything to defend this poor excuse for leadership. The man stinks at being president. In the future I see him as a Fox movie critic.
Alatsea
July 29th, 2010
12:23 pm
Kamchak, it is your turn to swab the deck, matey.
Grayson
July 29th, 2010
12:25 pm
“…who believe that the federal government should be allowed to do very little.” But that’s just the point. The Federal government has not done anything about illegal immigration. Wonder why? The Hispanic vote!!! It’s all about staying in office.
barking frog
July 29th, 2010
12:26 pm
State and local law enforcement are not only allowed to enforce
Federal law, they are required to enforce federal law. Supreme
Federal law is treaty law, therefore the Attorney General
of the United States has jurisdiction in cases involving
aliens. The AG has to send ET home.
john
July 29th, 2010
12:27 pm
The Democrats will pay heavily for this in November. This, like healthcare, is widely unpopular, and people are seeing the crap that continues to spill out of this administration.
Obama and his team are a complete train wreck. It will be interesting what they have to say as the Mexican cartels spill over into Arizona and California and 15 people are shot in the crossfire of one of their gun battles. These are practically daily occurances in parts of Mexico very close to the border. I feel sorry for the residents near the border who have to live with this on a day to day basis.
Instead some liberal jerks who live thousands of miles away and have nothing to do with it, get to control this issue
Kamchak
July 29th, 2010
12:31 pm
Alatsea
Never been aboard a ship in my life, and not really sure I care to, though several of my friends have tried to sell me on the joys of cruises.
tyrone from east point
July 29th, 2010
12:32 pm
CT,
Since you are obviously a lap dog for the Obama administration, please explain why allowing the States to assist the feds with enforcement is such an awful idea?
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2010
12:32 pm
Drawing Black Lines
The Drinking Age Act you reference requires states to pass legislation making purchase and possession of alcohol by anyone under age 21 illegal and for enforcement. The federal government’s only recourse against the states, however, is in the Federal Highway Act that claws back a percentage (believe up to 20%) of a state’s federal highway funds if they don’t comply.
Federal pre-emption still applies. A state cannot unilaterally say it is going to enforce federal law. The federal government can prescribe, as they did with the Drinking Age Act, the states to do this but that authority is nebulous. The real power with the DAA is the gotcha with federal highway funds.
The actual authority, however, for making and enforcing immigration policy lies at the federal level. That federal pre-emption is clearly embodied in the Constitution and case law.
As for the party of “No” I have to laugh. This Administration has tackled some very tough issues including the Federal Stimulus Act, Healthcare reform, Financial Services reform. All 3 of those are interrelated regarding the state of the economy. They were priorities. Whether you agree with those policies or not they were intended to address the acute needs to keep the economy from sliding further toward recession, reform a healthcare system that works for few and protect the economy from the excesses of the free market.
Immigration Reform isn’t something the Democrats have said No to. They simply haven’t taken it up yet. You can’t say No to something that hasn’t even been placed on the agenda. The President has called for Congress to begin work on this.
Obviously in an election year this kind of issue will not be tackled until after the elections and likely until the new Congress is seated in January.
midtownguy
July 29th, 2010
12:32 pm
A couple of random observations:
1) When you hate the messenger, the message is irrelevant. Some people are so filled with vile toward the current president that his actions don’t matter (the same was true for the previous president, just a different group).
2) As a child of the 60’s raised in Alabama, the term “states rights” or “state authority” just sends shivers down my spine.
3) I have among my circle of friends several hispanic legal immigrants. In my observation, they are the ones most riled up by illegal immigration. One is a hispanic female who fled Cuba and was shot while she was escaping, but it still took her five years to get asylum. She says, “why didn’t I just go to Mexico and walk in”.
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
12:33 pm
Cynthia and Granny,
Move to Arizona and see if your stance on this law changes. Are you against the seemingly white majority who favors this law? Or is it that you’re in favor of more illegal Mexican immigrants so that it takes away from the prominence of black crime in the news? Either way, you’re racist — just as much as you may call profiling racism.
James 34
July 29th, 2010
12:35 pm
This is shocking…a Clinton appointed hack, sometimes referred to as a federal judge, takes action to increase the number of deadbeat democratic voters and CT and others refer to this as correct???
Tech Man
July 29th, 2010
12:36 pm
Granny Godzilla
July 29th, 2010
7:44 am
So Obama is spending more than previous administrations.
We are in class together and take an exam. All of us get a failing grade, however, Obama gets the highest score, say a 68. The net result is still a failure. That is unless the professor applies a curve. Should the nation apply a curve and say that is ok you got the top score or should we say the efforts are unacceptable and you have to do better?
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2010
12:36 pm
Ref John
Yes, liberals like Geroge W. Bush, Dick “the shooter” Cheney, John Ashcroft, etc. have failed to enforce our laws.
The current administration has actually increased enforcement of immigration-related laws (see several previous postings). Bush and Company slept on immigration issues for 8 years because their masters (i.e. American business interests) didn’t want anything to be done about it. It allowed them to maximize their profits.
Tech Man
July 29th, 2010
12:38 pm
CT – The lesson will be taught at the ballot box.
Logic 88
July 29th, 2010
12:39 pm
Has anyone else noticed that CT fails to address logical arguments … rather, she goes with emotion.
casual observer
July 29th, 2010
12:40 pm
If this Administration continues to govern against the will of the people. There is going to be some interesting times ahead in this country.
Betsy
July 29th, 2010
12:40 pm
1. The federal goverment DOES have limited powers, thanks to Thomas Jefferson, especially when it comes to meddling in state governments. I refuse to let this country turn into a socialist mire just because one man and his panting puppy dog followers like Pelosi think that’s what he wants; it isn’t what WE want, it isn’t in the people’s best interests, not even those of the “poor” or minorities he thinks he’s helping.
2. The judge is an Obama left-wing sycophant who did what she thought Obama would want her to do.
3. The lawsuit is/was an incredible ill-advised, vain waste of money – OUR money – when we are horribly in debt up to and beyond our eyeballs already with no relief in sight.
4. There would have been no need for the law, which enforces existing law, if the federal government would enforce existing federal law, dang ‘em. Congress makes laws constantly, but a sitting Congress only bothers to enforce the ones that work in their favor.
5. It isn’t over.
Patriot
July 29th, 2010
12:41 pm
Have you actually read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and anything the founders of this country wrote while drafting the Constitution? The whole purpose was to have a SMALL Federal government that didn’t intrude on the States abilities to govern yet kept an association between them to ease commerce, travel, and provided for a common defense. Are you aware that the Bill of Rights that we cling to so dearly almost didn’t exist as many thought it irrelevant since there was no power to regulate speech, religion, arms, etc. provided to the government by the Constitution. Its not that its a ‘narrow’ reading its what happens when you read the words on the page without a lawyer present to twist and turn it into what you want it to mean to push an agenda. Why don’t we just read the document as it was written? Anyway, I’ll take my ‘narrow’ reading of the Constitution over your far reaching, bloated, incompetent, ideal of a strong Federal government any day.
Charlie Tax Wrangler
July 29th, 2010
12:41 pm
Enforce the law as Ike did in the 50’s! Wetback Roundup worked then and would work now if we had a real President with a real set of balls!
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
12:43 pm
Here’s are ideas for all foreign U. S. wannabes who oppose Arizona’s proposed law.
Just as my friends and coworkers from Vietnam, Russia, Slovakia, Mexico, Kenya, India and El Salvador have done:
Apply for a visa and visit legally. If you decide you want to stay, apply for a work permit and get a job and an extension to your visa. If you want to stay, apply for citizenship. It may be hard work and take a while, but IT’S WORTH IT!
My friend from Russia left his practice as a doctor to come here and deliver pizzas for a living. He worked six and seven days a week, lived in a small apartment and worked his way up. Now he’s a citizen, has his family here and owns a nice home. He’s a role model not just for immigrants, but for all Americans. He made the American dream a reality, LEGALLY.
If Arizona doesn’t get to deal with the laws as they propose, there will be vigilantes out there who take law into their own hands. Yay. Violence! Way to go…
Drawing Black Lines
July 29th, 2010
12:43 pm
Swede Atlanta
The Bill was passed by the Senate on June 26, 1984 and signed into “LAW” by Ronald Reagan on July 17, 1984. Is this not a Federal Law?
tiredofitall
July 29th, 2010
12:48 pm
Once again the right loses – what a great day for America!
Alatsea
July 29th, 2010
12:49 pm
Kamchack
At sea we swab on land we mop. I like the sound of mop better. One thing about being at sea is you really understand that you are nothing but a little,tiny dot in the grand scheme of everything.
Richard
July 29th, 2010
12:49 pm
Tech Man- spoken like a Tech Man- oh the wailing wall-
HDB
July 29th, 2010
12:52 pm
TheMunn July 29th, 2010
12:08 pm
“This whole administration has done nothing but blame everything on the prior administration, wasn’t Barry the one who promised change? Perhaps you should move back into your cave or at least step up and demand the change that was BO’s promise.”
First: EVERY Administration blames its predecessors for the problems inherited; at times, the claim is bogus (Reagan blamed Carter)…but at times, it’s factual! Every Administration has to deal with the failures of its predecessors!! For many in this nation, the problems generated by conservative Administrations greatly inhibited the ability for the nation to unite! Lest you forget: when Clinton left the WH, there was a surplus…and Bush squandered it with tax cuts and wartime spending! Bush also squandered the world’s good will after 9/11!!
You asked what Obama is trying to do to bring us together; look at health care OBJECTIVELY….he’s trying to get health care to those who have been left out of the mix….bring down the costs…and make it easier for employers to hire people! Obama’s spending is what’s necessary to jump-start the economy! The problem is that many who are against Obama have ulterior motives behind the disagreements! Example: Tea Party!! Economically speaking, it’s going to take three years to get things back in some semblance of order….
This nation wants problems solved at the speed of light…but it can’t happen that way!!
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
12:33 pm
“Cynthia and Granny,
Move to Arizona and see if your stance on this law changes. Are you against the seemingly white majority who favors this law? Or is it that you’re in favor of more illegal Mexican immigrants so that it takes away from the prominence of black crime in the news? Either way, you’re racist — just as much as you may call profiling racism.”
Note how you’re approaching this: the WHITE majority!! From this, it seems as though you would have supported Jim Crow!! Are you so conserned about the Hispanics to forget that those involved in 9/11 came to the US from CANADA!! What about the white immigrants that overstay their welcome…are you ignoring them just to target Hispanics? Are you desiring to abrogate your FREEDOMS in the guise of being safe?? This nation is better than that; laws had to be broken so that black people could participate in the American Dream….racial profiling MUST be eliminated so that immigration reform can TRULY be a color-blind proposition!! There, but by the grace of God…could be YOU!!
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2010
12:52 pm
Drawing Black Lines
It is indeed a law but the federal government has limited ability to actually make the states do this. They would be in litigation against many states trying to seek enforcement.
The real power of the federal government over the states is the pursestring. The state of South Dakota wanted to fight this law and that was when they amended the Federal Highway Act to let S.D. know that if they didn’t comply they would lose federal highway dollars. S.D. came around.
Let’s face it, money talks.
@josh
July 29th, 2010
12:55 pm
Of course Tucker isn’t going to debate King. She still remembers how Neal Boortz publicly undressed her in their debate.
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
12:58 pm
HDB –
This blog is about Arizona. No, I would not have favored Jim Crow laws. I think I also mentioned in a later post about several of my immigrant friends. Some are white. Some are not. I have learned a lot from them and appreciate what it took for them to come here and become Americans. I did however forget to include my Canadian friends. I have several of those too. None of them are here illegally. A Mexican friend of mine was detained for six days last year because he could not prove that he was here legally. He’s been here since he was six years old. He agrees it sucked, but was his own fault for not keeping up his documentation. He’s not yet a citizen, but has since fixed the situation and feels the police did no wrong in doing their jobs. He’s on the path to becoming a citizen.
So in short, no is your answer. I’m not pro-white. I’m pro-legal. Guess what, I’m mult-racial, so your presumptions are as racist as Cynthia and Granny’s.
HDB
July 29th, 2010
12:59 pm
Patriot July 29th, 2010
12:41 pm
If you have read the Constitution, you’ll discover that a vast part of the populace wasn’t considered when the Constitution was designed. It had to be AMENDED so that those who were not a part of the original design would be included in its protections!! The Constitution does not just protect the citizens of the US…it protects EVERYONE who is in the nation!! Certain laws HAD to be broken so that ALL could participate in this nation….SB 1070 legalized racial profiling…which is illegal! As I asked before…are so into targeting Hispanics that you forget the white illegals?? Have you forgotten that those who performed 9/11 came from CANADA??
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
July 29th, 2010
12:59 pm
Back to reality Cynthia – a CLINTON apointee made the ruling, what would YOU expect?
Urban Republican
July 29th, 2010
1:02 pm
Ms. Tucker,
The facts reported are increases in percentages over a period of time. A 25% increase since 2003 is not an increase of 25% since President Obama took office.
Obviously there is a need for more security at the borders since American citizens residing in Arizona and other places are crying out for more enforcement.
Liberals and Democrats are pushing a racial and ethnic divide amongst citizens for political gain by insisting that Arizona’s intent is racist. Rules are needed for a well functioning society. The racial slant on every issue is trite and has frankly become a bit tiring.
Cannot liberals and Democrats reason without interjecting race. I am for legal immigration but we also need rules.
A lesson for tenthers in the Arizona ruling - Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) : Hr Articles
July 29th, 2010
1:03 pm
[...] A lesson for tenthers in the Arizona ruling – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]
HDB
July 29th, 2010
1:05 pm
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
12:58 pm
I understand that this is about Arizona…but I asked what I did to see that the FOCUS is racist! Why just focus on Hispanics? What about the white illegals!! See…what people are not looking at HONESTLY is that ALL Hispanics will automatically be assumed to be illegal..when many were born here! Many will be detained just because the police have the POWER to do so!! Unchecked police power limits everyone’s freedoms!! Remember Amadou Diallo and Kathryn Johnston!! The police will fabricate ANYTHING to detain Hispanics under the guise of “lawful contact”…and racial profiling will be the SOLE reason!!
There must be better checks and balances before this should be attempted!! That’s my point!!
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:06 pm
HDB -
About racial profiling.
Would you agree that black people are better athletes? Would you agree that you can get the best lawn care and painters and roofers from Latinos? Would you agree that Asians are better math and engineering students? Would you agree that white people look funny with their fake tans? Would you agree that it’s frustrating calling for tech support and an Indian who speaks poor English is on the other end of the call? Fat people eat too much. Fraternity guys wear a lot of khakis and croakies. Black people don’t like to wash their hair. Latinos eat a lot of food purchased from QuikTrip.
Based on your seemingly argumentative nature, you’ll probably disagree, but you cannot deny that stereotypes are not based on fiction. It’s a social science. You can make certain deductions or assumptions based on what is fact.
HDB
July 29th, 2010
1:08 pm
Urban Republican July 29th, 2010
1:02 pm
“Liberals and Democrats are pushing a racial and ethnic divide amongst citizens for political gain by insisting that Arizona’s intent is racist. Rules are needed for a well functioning society. The racial slant on every issue is trite and has frankly become a bit tiring.”
The problem is that the LAW interjects race….rather than not!!
From SB 1070: A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
It SHOULD read so that race is ELIMINATED: A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may NOT consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
THAT’S the point!!
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
July 29th, 2010
1:08 pm
What exactly is wrong with racial profiling? When 80 year old grannys start blowing up things get back with me. Until then stand down.
Tommy Maddox
July 29th, 2010
1:09 pm
Uh-oh: A certain 1/2 white President just referred to a certain African-American race as being a “mongrel people”.
Interesting things happen when the teleprompter takes a vacation…
one thing tucker has right
July 29th, 2010
1:09 pm
Here’s where many conservatives lose credibility and where tucker is right:
“Democrats ought to make it clear that they’ll enforce the borders and crack down on employers who hire illegally, a cheaper and more effective strategy for addressing the problem than building fences. After a few CEOs have done the perp walk for illegal hiring, they’ll stop offering jobs to those without proper documents. And when word gets across the border that U.S. companies have stopped hiring, those laborers will stop coming. They come for jobs, after all, not jihad.”
Why is it that so many of those who insist on using the term “illegal aliens” will NOT use the term “criminals” in regard to those who hire them, but instead refer to them as “employers”?
Go after the CRIMINALS who hire them even a tenth as hard as you go after the illegal aliens and the problem will take its first steps to solving itself.
Richard
July 29th, 2010
1:10 pm
And there you have from HDB- the ugly little secret that Libs hate and don’t trust law enforcement-
mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!
July 29th, 2010
1:10 pm
And excuse the hell out of me – it’s mostly Mexican’s who are crossing illegally, why NOT profile them? Get real, remember interment camps for the Japaneese? And they were here LEAGALLY!