Arizona’s Jan Brewer...racist?

[AZhitman]

Check it out - The derp figured it out, too!

Nah i didnt figure it out, that was just one of the http://www.republicansforever.com talking points today. I get a daily email ....

Would you SHUT YOUR G... Oh, hi, IBC. Me and the derp were just having a chat about... Ah, screw it.

[AZhitman]

...I was on such a roll, pummelling people with case law and other such trivialities ( ) that I almost forgot to drop this bomb...

Might ask why CA isn't being sued. A quick read of the California Penal Code revealed:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... 833-851.90

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

Note that there's NO verbage in there prohibiting profiling. Maybe AZ is actually doing these people a favor?

[AZhitman]

And, because I can hear the screaming from the rafters, "FINISH HIM", I offer my coup de grace:

SB1070 states that law enforcement officials "may not consider race, color or national origin" while enforcing immigration law. This leaves any aggrieved party a PERFECT opportunity (and mechanism) to file suit if they feel they've been treated unfairly. CA doesn't have this. PICK ON THEM.

Another area of extreme ignorance (I was reminded of this watching CNN last night): Ya know how Obama made some incredibly retarded comment about not being able to take your kids out for ice cream, for fear of being snatched off the street if you don't have your "papers"?

Per SB1070, an LEO can only attempt to determine a person's immigration status during "lawful contact," meaning a lawful stop, detention or arrest. Example: If you're walking down the street in my neighborhood, minding your own business, you can't simply be stopped and questioned. If a citizen makes a call to the local law enforcement agency and says, "There's a creepy guy walking down our street, loitering in front of houses, acting suspicious, NOW you have grounds for a "stop and question".

Are we clear there?

See, "reasonable suspicion" only cn be acheived during the investigation of another violation or crime. People freaking out and thinking that AZ cops can simply walk up to a person and say, "Can I see your papers?" should do their homework and shut up.

<whew> OK, I'm done. SPeaking of doing homework, don't let any of this interfere with your studies, folks. Schoolin' and booklearnin' pay the bills... debating politics, sadly, does not.

[IBCoupe]

Ummmm, no. The initial pleading DOES have to "say much of anything". I'd like to think you'd at least give me the benefit of knowing I do my homework. I read all 25 pages.

While it's good to know that you can read, the requirements for the initial pleading aren't all that high. The DoJ needed to provide a "short and plain" statement that establishes the court's jurisdiction and a (as of recently: "plausible") claim for which relief can be granted, as well as a statement of what relief is sought, as per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Government can politicize whatever so long as it meets those requirements. That it was 25 pages makes me skeptical that it was the initial pleading outlining the claim.

I think you've stated, quite clearly and repeatedly, that your opposition is that the AZ law is somehow "in conflict with" Federal law.

I must not have been clear enough. My opposition to the AZ law isn't just that it violates the Constitution by conflicting with Federal Law. My opposition to the AZ law is that it violates the Constitution by interfering with Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, which states that Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, stands for the purpose you purport to use it for - it's an arrow that flies straight and true. The problem is that it's your aim, not the arrow, that's off. A State statute can be unconstitutional by directly conflicting with a Federal Statute under the Supremacy clause, but that's not the only way. A statute can be unconstitutional by exceeding legislative authority, which is the argument I've been making. Arizona doesn't have the Constitutionally-granted power to make the law it made.

I think you'll find it hard to convincingly state that SB1070 represents a conflict with the enforcement of federal immigration law, considering it supplements (some would even say, mirrors) federal law.

My point is that, if nothing else, by mandating full enforcement, the State has dictated how the law is to be enforced in Arizona, hindering the ability of Congress to establish uniformity. If ICE intends to maintain some discretion, even if it's as little as what WDRacing wants, that's got to be a call that ICE makes uniformly.

p.s. Where's the uproar about Rode Island, South Carolina, and Minnesota? All three have pending bills that are identical to SB1070. Why isn't the DOJ suing them? Oh, that's right. They don't have a massive influx of Hispanic illegal immigrants.

Don't you think you're counting your chickens before they hatch on that one? Do the words "pending bills" mean nothing?

If you're not starting to see the absurdity of this, then it's clear you're operating from a staunch partisan position and not considering the environment in which this bill garnered 70%+ approval.

Once again, 70% approval means literally nothing to me, given the present legal questions. A popular unconstitutional law isn't any less unconstitutional than an unpopular one.

[IBCoupe]

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

I can stop reading the statute after that sentence. The Arizona law is distinguishable in that it mandates full enforcement of the federal limits of the law, and provides that the police or other government officials can be sued for failing to do so.

SB1070 states that law enforcement officials "may not consider race, color or national origin" while enforcing immigration law. This leaves any aggrieved party a PERFECT opportunity (and mechanism) to file suit if they feel they've been treated unfairly. CA doesn't have this. PICK ON THEM.

That's not the criticism here, though. It's certainly something to consider and potentially a subject for debate, but it doesn't address the criticisms that I and the DoJ are putting forth. You're arguing with people who aren't here.

The rest of your post was more of the same.

[stebo0728]

What does uniformly mean, is it one hard and fast mandate that must apply to every locale in the nation, or does uniformity have any sort of play to deal with differing circumstances in differing locales?

[IBCoupe]

Not sure that's a necessary determination to make. The question is: is Arizona impeding on Congress' ability to establish one?

[AZhitman]

That it was 25 pages makes me skeptical that it was the initial pleading outlining the claim.

Good point. Considering the length of the healthcare bill, I should have known better.

My opposition to the AZ law is that it violates the Constitution by interfering with Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, which states that Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

OK. And Congress did that. AZ's not preventing the Feds from having their happy little rules. But, you go on to say:

...if nothing else, by mandating full enforcement, the State has dictated how the law is to be enforced in Arizona, hindering the ability of Congress to establish uniformity.

God forbid anyone should then hold the Feds to fully enforcing a law they established.

A statute can be unconstitutional by exceeding legislative authority, which is the argument I've been making. Arizona doesn't have the Constitutionally-granted power to make the law it made.

Again, my counter to that statement: The Supreme Court held that a state MAY enact laws affecting illegal immigration AS LONG AS they are not in actual conflict with any valid federal statutes.

Don't you think you're counting your chickens before they hatch on that one? Do the words "pending bills" mean nothing?

It's not law in AZ either. So, again, where's the uproar?

[IBCoupe]

OK. And Congress did that. AZ's not preventing the Feds from having their happy little rules. But, you go on to say:

...if nothing else, by mandating full enforcement, the State has dictated how the law is to be enforced in Arizona, hindering the ability of Congress to establish uniformity.

God forbid anyone should then hold the Feds to fully enforcing a law they established.

Certainly we should hold the Federal government to fully-enforcing the law. We, the American people have a duty to do so. The Arizona State government, on the other hand, doesn't have the authority to do so.

A thought occurred to me as I was driving from CT to NY this evening, that sort of fits in here. If your argument is that Congress can still have a uniform rule by applying Arizona's standards across the board, then it plainly looks like Congress isn't the one establishing the rule - Arizona is.

Again, my counter to that statement: The Supreme Court held that a state MAY enact laws affecting illegal immigration AS LONG AS they are not in actual conflict with any valid federal statutes.

Not in that case you cited to, they didn't. That was about business take-overs. Not once was the word "immigration" or any of its variants used. I know; I CTRL+F'd it.

Again, I'm not telling you that holding is wrong; I am telling you that holding doesn't really affect my argument because I'm not saying it's invalid for merely conflicting with federal law. I'm arguing it's invalid for going beyond Arizona's authority as a State government in our Federalist system of governance.

I get the feeling you're trying to argue a point that isn't originally yours. if that's the case, it might help me to better address your concerns if you point me to your source, so that I might better get a sense of what it is you're getting at.

It's not law in AZ either. So, again, where's the uproar?

It is a signed law, by Arizona's governor. Is there another step to legislating in Arizona which I'm not aware of? The other States you point to haven't even passed it through their respective legislatures, let alone had their executives sign it into law.

[BusyBadger]

Here's some more gasoline for the fire...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcwIy_fQuU[/youtube]

[AZhitman]

Not in that case you cited to, they didn't. That was about business take-overs. Not once was the word "immigration" or any of its variants used. I know; I CTRL+F'd it.

"A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute."

There's no need for it to be a case about immigration. Hell, the DOJ's case isn't about immigration either.

Again, I'm still not seeing this broad jump you keep referring to. AZ has done nothing to go BEYOND Federal law - as the old saying goes, there's nothing new under the sun.

[IBCoupe]

"A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute."

Greg, it's as if you're taking this to be the Supreme Court's belief that this is the only circumstance under which a state statute is void.

Arizona doesn't necessarily have to go beyond the Federal Statute in order to violate the Constitution - mandating that State employees follow Federal law to its fullest extent and providing that they can be sued civilly if they fail to do so could create a circumstance under which Arizona is impermissibly crafting Federal policy (as distinguishable from Federal statutes).

[AZhitman]

Side note (or I should say, sideshow) before I go on with that (too tired to effectively engage... )

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3SeLUgc ... r_embedded[/youtube]

Watch around 6:20 - “If I knew what was meant by secure the border that would be one thing”.

I'm glad AZ deported her. Pathetic.

Pretty bad when Greta van Susterererererererenenenenenen (or as my lovely wife likes to call her, "Gloria Van Dammit"), staunch liberal, cracks out the "fat chance" at the end. I LOL'ed.

[AZhitman]

Another side note - Here's a bunch of RACISTS for ya:

http://boycott-em-back.blogspot.com/201 ... s-doj.html

[heliochrome85]

Failed attempt at humor notwithstanding, I wish I'd known you were here. I'd have loved to treat you to dinner and show you more of the Valley. Invitation is ALWAYS open.

alas, it was a family get away. i will say this though, that area is one of the most serene places ive ever been, and would have no hesitation living there, just as long as brewer is gone. i dont think i could see her picture regularly and not lose my lunch on a daily basis.

on a side note, every time i come across a plate of dolmas, i think of you.

[AZhitman]

Failed attempt at humor notwithstanding, I wish I'd known you were here. I'd have loved to treat you to dinner and show you more of the Valley. Invitation is ALWAYS open.

alas, it was a family get away. i will say this though, that area is one of the most serene places ive ever been, and would have no hesitation living there, just as long as brewer is gone. i dont think i could see her picture regularly and not lose my lunch on a daily basis.

on a side note, every time i come across a plate of dolmas, i think of you.

That reminds me, I need to make some soon.

Brewer's not a bad leader - She's had her ups and downs, and actually displayed a few "rookie mistakes" soon after she was appointed. This bill, regardless of how it's portrayed in the media, isn't an accurate reflection on her. Remember, when 70% of your constituents want something, you give it to them. You know this to be true.

[heliochrome85]

whether or not she is effective isnt what im getting at. i just think she makes for a good crypt keeper.

[AZhitman]

whether or not she is effective isnt what im getting at. i just think she makes for a good crypt keeper.

Believe it or not, when I moved to AZ in the mid-80's she was actually fairly attractive. I met her when she was Secretary of State and she was quite hot.

[heliochrome85]

yeah... i wasnt born yet. im only 25.