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
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:11 pm
HDB -
To answer your last question. I think that in Arizona, if a Latino person breaks the law and is caught, he or she can be asked for proof of citizenship. Arizona is on the Mexican border. Based on geographical fact, it makes sense that there’s a possibility he or she may not be documented.
When I apply for credit, passports, jobs, etc… I’m asked for proof of citizenship. I’m not mad. I comply. It’s part of the process. Why should EVERYONE else, including Latinos not have to do the same? If I commit a crime, they’re surely going to run a background check to see if I have any outstanding warrants or prior arrests. If I’m Latino and have no records in the system at all, the cop should be allowed to ask me for proof.
Go Jackets
July 29th, 2010
1:12 pm
Cynthia is obviously not a lawyer. The judge entered an order on a preliminary injunction. This is not over in Arizona. Further, the judge is a federal district court judge. There are two higher levels of the federal judiciary that will have their say.
@Barack the LIAR
July 29th, 2010
1:16 pm
By your same logic, you could look at companies that employ many Mexican workers. Why not profile the EMPLOYERS who hire them to see if the EMPLOYERS are acting legally?
TheMunn
July 29th, 2010
1:17 pm
HDB
The great thing about this country is you are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to disagree. And I disagree. When a bill such as health care is passed with only dems vote it is not “togetherness”.
And the cost will not be reduced. It will increase. Ed “the killer” Kennedy was trying to get this done for decades and failed. This moron comes in and forces it down everybody throat. Back room dealing, which he stated would not happen under his watch. Where is the transparency that was promised? The healthcare debate was going to be on CSPAN. It was not. This poor excuse for a leader is an out and out liar. The healthcare debate was going to be on CSPAN. It was not. This poor excuse for a leader is an out and out liar. You can not spend your way out of a recession because of the huge debt it creates. Sorry HDB, Obama is a loser and unfortunately so are all of us because the man LIED and now he acts as more of a celebrity than the leader of the greatest nation on earth. Talk to me after 11/2. The only consistent thing about his term is he is a LIAR, LIAR, and a LIAR. So was Clinton. Bush lied about WMD’s. But Obama is defiantly going to hell.
levity
July 29th, 2010
1:18 pm
Are you so bitter that you have to revert to name calling now because you disagee with the majority of Americans on the Arizona Law? Tenther -really? Are you not above the antics of a 10yr old kid??
HDB
July 29th, 2010
1:18 pm
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:06 pm
“Would you agree that black people are better athletes?”
Not in all cases…..not all black people can swim…..
“Would you agree that you can get the best lawn care and painters and roofers from Latinos?” Not in every case…what about tree surgeons?? Would you agree that Asians are better math and engineering students? No…depends on the foundation! There are black engineers and mathematicians.
“Would you agree that white people look funny with their fake tans?…maybe..but particularly John Boehner!
“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?” If one allows it to happen
“Fat people eat too much.” Not necessarily…in some cases, it’s genetics!
“Fraternity guys wear a lot of khakis and croakies.” Not necessarily…my frat brothers wear a lot of suits!
“Black people don’t like to wash their hair.” BOGUS
“Latinos eat a lot of food purchased from QuikTrip.” So do a lot of white people!!
Stereotypes are based on fictional representations of those who feel adversely affected by change and competition!! It only takes ONE exception to make a statement a fallacy!! Many bomber pilots didn’t want the Tuskegee Airmen to escort them into battle…but the Tuskegee Airmen NEVER lost a bomber!! You can not focus on one grop..without adversely affecting ALL groups!! After you target Hispanics, who’ll be next??
kayaker 71
July 29th, 2010
1:21 pm
It appears that it will go next to the Ninth Circuit which is one of the most liberal organizations on the planet. They will no doubt uphold what this liberal judge had to say, then on to the SCOTUS where it will turn into a battle for who has the right to tell the states what to do. It will change from an immigration issue to one which will question the rights of states to challenge or to trump Federal law. I think that that is what Holder had in mind all along. They knit picked the case to hide the real issue from the start. The original issue was immigration but that will soon change.
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:23 pm
HDB -
You prove my point. There are edge cases for every stereotype. Guess what, you yourself just said that “not all black people can swim.” That is just as much as stereotype as anything I mentioned. It’s not surprise that you’re a racist too.
Based on definitions of racism, we’re all racist to a degree. Maybe that’s why my Armenian neighbor hired an Armenian contractor. He’s doing a slow and terrible job on her house, but at least she chose within preference. It’s her right.
HDB
July 29th, 2010
1:24 pm
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:11 pm
“I think that in Arizona, if a Latino person breaks the law and is caught…..”
Note the condition!! SB 1070 only says “lawful contact”! That means the cops can fabricate anything they desire to make lawful contact plausible!! This is creating an American form of apartheid!! What about the presumption of innocence!! Why must someone PROVE their innocence!! If the cops have no reason to ask me for identification, I have the right not to present it! Don’t forget..there are 4th AND 5th Amendment rights that are being conflicted here!!
DawgDad
July 29th, 2010
1:27 pm
Look, the political establishment in Washington, big business, labor racketeers, the mainstream media, and leftists in general had a judge fire a salvo on their behalf in this ruling. This issue is FAR from resolved; as long as the two major political parties perceive illegal immigrants as a potential voting bloc this issue will not go away and will NOT fade into the background. This legal ruling will likely find its way to the Supreme Court in time, if another legal front doesn’t preempt it.
The underlying issue is the legal citizens of this country are being sold out for the benefit of the elite. You expect to change my mind, or my neighbor’s? Ha. You’re steeling our resolve and ensuring we’ll dump MORE money into the political coffers of candidates willing to fight on our side. You doubt me? Just wait and see.
TheMunn
July 29th, 2010
1:27 pm
HDB Looking at all your posts you disagree with everybody and unfortunately you are uniformed on most. This disease you have is called progressive liberalism, which is a form of socialism. I hope you can be saved. And by the way did I tell you BO is a LIAR!
It appears that other posters agree that BO is a LIAR!
I know it is not right to call my president a liar, but he is not my president
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:28 pm
HDB -
It’s not proof of innocence. It’s proof of legal status.
Richard
July 29th, 2010
1:30 pm
But HDB- cops are racist?
The question conservatives can't answer
July 29th, 2010
1:31 pm
The conservatives go on and on about the “rule of law.” No problem there. But why do they insist on using the term “illegal alien” but for the most part call the people who knowingly hire them employers, instead of “criminals”?
If you went after the criminals who hired them even a tenth as hard as you go after the illegal aliens themselves, wouldn’t the problem begin to solve itself?
HDB
July 29th, 2010
1:32 pm
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:23 pm
HDB -
You prove my point. There are edge cases for every stereotype. Guess what, you yourself just said that “not all black people can swim.” That is just as much as stereotype as anything I mentioned. It’s not surprise that you’re a racist too.
Nope..not a stereotype….many haven’t been TAUGHT or EXPOSED!! You’re focused on the assumption…I’m focused on cause and effect!! Your friend may not have found a contractor that she liked until she found who she has!! It is her preference….but did she say “I want this contractor because he’s Armenian”…or “because I think he can do the job”?? I know many who have gotten past the stereotypes…but the problem is that the preponderance of Americans HAVEN’T!!
Efstration for 2012
July 29th, 2010
1:33 pm
Just thought I should point out that Ms. Tucker made a major constitutional error in the introduction to her article. The decision that the Constitution was to be interpreted by the court as a final arbitor came through Marbury vs. Madison. The role of the court was originally to judge cases through statutes and the Constitution, however its “veto” power- by declaring them unconstitutional- over laws was not established until Marbury.
TheMunn
July 29th, 2010
1:36 pm
HDB.. I’m focused on cause and effect!!
Your right there cause BO is no leader and the effect will be catastrophic!!!!
But what BO says means nothing because he is a LIAR!!!!!!
HDB
July 29th, 2010
1:37 pm
TheMunn July 29th, 2010
1:27 pm
“HDB Looking at all your posts you disagree with everybody and unfortunately you are uniformed on most. This disease you have is called progressive liberalism, which is a form of socialism. I hope you can be saved. And by the way did I tell you BO is a LIAR!
It appears that other posters agree that BO is a LIAR!
I know it is not right to call my president a liar, but he is not my president”
Was your level of vitriol at such volcanic levels when the nation was getting BUSHwhacked?? I may not have voted for Bush…but he was the President…and I had to respect him for the position! Bush lied….but did you call him out on it?? I’m far from a socialist….progressive, maybe…for I saw what conservatism CAN do…..create atmospheres that generate Jim Crow and segregation….create “strange fruit”….
Don’t think so?? Ask a person of color who made it through the 50s and 60s….SB 1070 can lead us right back to the 50s IF we as a nation don’t put things in check!!
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:37 pm
HDB -
You’re a moron. That’s not an assumption. It’s not a stereotype. It’s a fact.
TRUDY
July 29th, 2010
1:39 pm
I LOVE GRANNY GODZILLA!
Kamchak
July 29th, 2010
1:41 pm
Tick…tick…tick….
HDB
July 29th, 2010
1:43 pm
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:28 pm
HDB – It’s not proof of innocence. It’s proof of legal status.
So…if someone is standing at a bus stop doing nothing wrong, it’s legal for the cops to pull up and ask for identification! What’s the probable cause? What’s the infraction?? EVERYONE has the presumption of innocence….and under SB 1070, the cops will have unfettered power!! There has to be some checks and balances in implementation!! Right now, there isn’t any!!
Richard July 29th, 2010
1:30 pm
But HDB- cops are racist? In some instances, YES!!
Question: Have you ever experienced “driving while black”….being pulled over for absolutely no reason….save you’re driving a decent car wearing a suit?? Too many here discount the possibility…but when it has happened to you, you’d understand the lengths of police power and fabrication!! Remember Kathryn Johnston and Amadou Diallo!! SB 1070 allows warrantless searched (violation of 4th Amendment)……
Don’t discount the possibilities!!!
Memphis11Gate
July 29th, 2010
1:44 pm
This war is not over, the people will decide in November and 2012. Obama is not upholding up his constitutional duties and the federal government is not providing the protection due to the states. This is not about civil rights or racism, its about the law and the constitution and disregard for law and rules of society. Bush did the same thing by pushing aside the issue and wanting amnesty.
Any Cynthia Tucker and Jay Bookman support law breakers along with having a column(media outlet) to support illegal activity. Cynthia and Jay are the weathermen of the 21st century. Ignore the law, change the rules for the betterment of people that will enhance their political leftist ideology to enslave the majority.
HDB
July 29th, 2010
1:46 pm
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:37 pm
“HDB – You’re a moron. That’s not an assumption. It’s not a stereotype. It’s a fact.”
Not a fact……stereotypes are based in fear and fiction! Vigilanties are already patrolling the border….
The question conservatives can't answer
July 29th, 2010
1:47 pm
Those who want to attack tucker and bookman on this still refuse to answer one question. Why the insistence on using the term “illegal aliens” for the workers, but not the willingness to use the term “criminals” for the employers who knowingly hire them?
Why isn’t Arizona pushing just as hard for a law to address that?
Tech Man
July 29th, 2010
1:48 pm
HDB
July 29th, 2010
12:52 pm
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) does nothing to reduce medical insurance costs.
JDW
July 29th, 2010
1:48 pm
Not sure I understand all the uproar on this topic, I have lived in four countries other than the US and all of them required me to have on my person at all times my residency papers…just seems like common sense.
But it seems that common sense is in short supply these days.
Clyde Seymour
July 29th, 2010
1:48 pm
I grew up in Texas, it’s the same in all border states. There are now and always has been a large percentage of citizens who have spanish names. Any police force is going to have lots of officers with hispanic heritage.
You all seem to think the Arizona police are just a bunch of white crackers who hate every color but white. In truth, there is just as big a chance that the local or state policeman is going to be named Garcia or Gomez. And the majority off ALL of them will enforce the law fairly.
If an anglo (that means white) cop can’t get along with hispanics….he ain’t gonna last long.
HDB
July 29th, 2010
1:49 pm
“…There are edge cases for every stereotype.”
Those exceptions prove te fallacy of the stereotype/assumption!! Remember logic classes – IF all A is B, and ALL B is C, then ALL A is C! If you find ONE exception, the statement is FALSE!!
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:50 pm
JDW -
Please try explaining that to the rest of these stubborn people. I’ve had to have my papers on me in all other countries as well. I agree with you. It’s like screaming at a wall.
jconservative
July 29th, 2010
1:50 pm
From the “The Constitution of the United States”:
“Article 6….
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
It is called the Supremacy Clause and the Supreme Court has always enforced it.
The question is whether the Arizona law and the police enforcement mandates in that law in any way conflict with Federal law or enforcement activity. If there is a conflict the State must give way to the Federal activity.
Had Arizona simply passed a law with no enforcement mandates there would probably not have been a case brought by the Justice Department.
But Arizona passed the law for political reasons as much as enforcement reasons. And the Justice Department brought suit for political reasons as much as constitutional reasons.
If this reaches the Supreme Court I will predict today that Roberts & Alito will side with Kennedy and the 4 liberal justices to bring in a 7 – 2 opinion siding with the Justice Department. Both Roberts & Alito tend to lean to the side of a big central government. Scalia & Thomas both tend toward the State side. (I am assuming, I believe with good reason, that Kagan will be confirmed by the Senate).
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:51 pm
HDB –
Remember statistics class? You can make certain educated guesses based on a limited set of facts.
HDB
July 29th, 2010
1:53 pm
Tech Man July 29th, 2010
1:48 pm
Found an exception to disprove that….from the Washington Times:
Md. could save $829M under health care reform
By Brian Witte – Associated Press
10:52 a.m., Monday, July 26, 2010
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland could save about $829 million on health care costs between fiscal year 2011 and 2020 because of federal health care reform, according to a model the state released Monday.
The savings, however, last only until the end of the decade, when the federal law shifts a greater share of financial responsibility for Medicaid expansion to the states.
The projections are in an interim report by Maryland’s Health Care Reform Coordinating Council, which Gov. Martin O’Malley created in March to study how the federal health care reform law will affect the state.
It’s a small step…but a good one nonetheless!!
I'm here from the government and I'm here to help
July 29th, 2010
1:54 pm
HDB,
Your out numbered and out of your league. Real Americans Democrats, Independents and Republicans are in favor of keeping illegals out of the country. Why you and your progressive friends do not is moot. Case closed.
Scout
July 29th, 2010
1:58 pm
Someone may have already brought this up but Cynthia …….. here is your next “race” thread:
Headline: “President Obama calls African-Americans a ‘mongrel people’ on The View”
If a white President had said that about blacks the mainstream media would be going ballistic.
mongrel:
“1. a plant or animal, esp a dog, of mixed or unknown breeding; a crossbreed or hybrid
2. taboo a person of mixed race
3. of mixed breeding, origin, character”
……….. but Mongrel Obama gets a pass.
Kamchak
July 29th, 2010
1:58 pm
Real Americans Democrats, Independents and Republicans are in favor of keeping illegals out of the country.
Why is it now, that you got your thong in a bunch over this issue?
HDB
July 29th, 2010
1:58 pm
Cynthia Tucker is a racist.
July 29th, 2010
1:51 pm
HDB –
Remember statistics class? You can make certain educated guesses based on a limited set of facts.
But you can only take those “projections” to plus/minus the standard deviation!! Too much extrapolation to the extreme part of the curve is going on!!
I'm here from the government and I'm here to help
July 29th, 2010
1:59 pm
Rangel is having a bad day. My heart is pumping piss for him.
The question conservatives can't answer
July 29th, 2010
2:01 pm
“Real Americans Democrats, Independents and Republicans are in favor of keeping illegals out of the country.”
Really? Then why aren’t most of these “real” Americans, just as adamant about calling the employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens “criminals” as they are insisting on using the term “illegal” to describe the workers?
I'm here from the government and I'm here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:01 pm
Kamchak,
You must be looking up CT skirt. My wad is well in tack, thank you!
HDB
July 29th, 2010
2:02 pm
I’m here from the government and I’m here to help
July 29th, 2010
1:54 pm
HDB,
Your out numbered and out of your league. Real Americans Democrats, Independents and Republicans are in favor of keeping illegals out of the country. Why you and your progressive friends do not is moot. Case closed.
First, I did NOT say that I favored keeping undocumenteds in the country…but what I DID say was that there needs to be a better system of checks and balances! SB 1070 only promoted racial profilin created a police state in the guise of freedom!!
Second: Why doesn’t the law go after the EMPLOYERS as stringently as the workers??
Third: If you remember Amadou Diallo and Kathryn Johnston, you’d understand why there has to be a more methodical way to do this!! I see SB 1070 as another tool to create another wave of legalized segreation!!
Dick Hertz
July 29th, 2010
2:03 pm
Recent studies have shown that if you demonstrate irrefutably to a wingnut that they are wrong they will simply dig in, get mad and huffy and declare that the world is wrong for not doing what they want.
How many illegal immigrants got amnesty under Reagan?
I'm here from the government and I'm here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:03 pm
The question conservatives can’t answer,
Duh, let me see. Turn in the ILLEGALS or the AMERICAN business OWNER. Which would you pick, dumb-ass!
Have a Cup!
July 29th, 2010
2:06 pm
Hey Dick!
Kamchak
July 29th, 2010
2:06 pm
My wad is well in tack, thank you!
Main Entry: 1tack
Pronunciation: \ˈtak\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English takken, from tak
Date: 14th century
transitive verb 1 : attach; especially : to fasten or affix with tacks
2 : to join in a slight or hasty manner
3 a : to add as a supplement b : to add (a rider) to a parliamentary bill
4 : to change the direction of (a sailing ship) when sailing close-hauled by turning the bow to the wind and shifting the sails so as to fall off on the other side at about the same angle as beforeintransitive verb 1 a : to tack a sailing ship b of a ship : to change to an opposite tack by turning the bow to the wind c : to follow a course against the wind by a series of tacks
2 a : to follow a zigzag course b : to modify one’s policy or attitude abruptly
— tack·er noun
Uh…..okay.
Have a Cup!
July 29th, 2010
2:07 pm
Kamchak,
Thats a moo point
I'm here from the government and I'm here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:07 pm
HDB,
Undocumented? Please change the kook-aid. They are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS period. How can it be racial profiling until it happens. Your using the ASS-U-ME defense.
HDB
July 29th, 2010
2:07 pm
For those who consistently rail against the workers but NOT the employers…
from azcentral.com:
Most Arizona employers aren’t using E-Verify
by Jahna Berry – Jul. 28, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
Despite a state law requiring businesses to verify that all new employees are legal workers, only about half of new hires in Arizona have been vetted by a federal system that checks their status.
About a third of the state’s estimated 100,000 employers have signed up for the E-Verify program.
The state’s employer-sanctions law, which took effect more than two years ago, requires employers to use the free online federal system to check the legal status of all new employees. Those who don’t risk losing their business licenses if they employ an illegal worker.
But federal employment data and figures from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services requested by The Arizona Republic suggest hundreds of thousands of workers have been hired without being checked against federal records.
Any new hire made starting Jan. 1, 2008, that was not checked against E-Verify would be a violation of the law known as the Legal Arizona Workers Act.
During E-Verify’s most recent full fiscal year, which ended in September 2009, Arizona employers made more than 1.3 million new hires but ran just 730,000 E-Verify checks.
Some businesses would prefer not to check the legal status of their workers. Many others probably intend to hire only legal workers and aren’t bothering with the program.
Read more: azcentral. com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/07/28/20100728arizona-employers-ignoring-e-verify.html#ixzz0v60XjdSM
Why don’t y’all get after them???
The question conservatives can't answer
July 29th, 2010
2:08 pm
Thank you for proving my point: You call the illegal alien “illegal” but you call the CRIMINAL who hires knowingly hires them an “AMERICAN business OWNER”.
You don’t WALK THE WALK when it comes to the “rule of law” do you?
I'm here from the government and I'm here to help
July 29th, 2010
2:09 pm
Kamchak,
Smoke one for me!