ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy

SENATORS PROPOSE LEGISLATION TO BAR ARIZONA LAWSUIT

Rate this Entry
The main logic seems to be that since public opinion polls show majority support for the measure, that outweighs the constitutional problems. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and David VItter (R-LA) usually are the ones harping most loudly against "activist" judges and for 2nd Amendment gun rights. So much for consistency.

Submit "SENATORS PROPOSE LEGISLATION TO BAR ARIZONA LAWSUIT" to Facebook Submit "SENATORS PROPOSE LEGISLATION TO BAR ARIZONA LAWSUIT" to Twitter Submit "SENATORS PROPOSE LEGISLATION TO BAR ARIZONA LAWSUIT" to Google Submit "SENATORS PROPOSE LEGISLATION TO BAR ARIZONA LAWSUIT" to StumbleUpon Submit "SENATORS PROPOSE LEGISLATION TO BAR ARIZONA LAWSUIT" to Reddit Submit "SENATORS PROPOSE LEGISLATION TO BAR ARIZONA LAWSUIT" to Digg Submit "SENATORS PROPOSE LEGISLATION TO BAR ARIZONA LAWSUIT" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. George Chell's Avatar
    Demented DeMint and Diaper David..nothing new there!
  2. Adi's Avatar
    I wish they would work on fixing problems.
  3. Jack's Avatar
    CAVUTO: So what does your amendment do? What would it prevent?

    DEMINT: It would disallow any funding to be used to -- to carry out this lawsuit. And that's one way Congress can restrict the action of the executive branch is just by stopping the funding. So this is just one way to force a vote so America will know where all the senators are on this issue.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,596783,00.html


    While such a defunding could obviously be taken as a sign that Congress does not approve of the Dept. Of Justice claiming pre-emption on its behalf over immigration matters, Congress could instead clarify the role of the states in the enforcement of federal immigration law. They should do it rather than leave it to the courts to fill in the currently considerable blanks. Let them sue--but their pre-emption case may be so weak after Congress speaks that they withdraw it.

    They could also come down clearly on, e.g., housing licenses, as a tool that the states can or cannot use in the context of immigration. Given the popularity of the Arizona law, you would think a lot of congressmen would want to show their approval for it in a clearer way than what Vitter and DeMint propose. Force the anti-state enforcement people to take that stand in a vote which will be interpreted by the public as a general anti-enforcement stance. Whatever the legal force, the political force of Vitter and DeMint's way might be diminished by being spun as an attack on the discretion of a supposedly independent DOJ.

    Any presumption that the Executive Branch would always welcome assistance in enforcing immigration has been turned on its head by the recent lawsuit. Thus, the legislature might address the Justice Department's claim that attrition through enforcement is not the policy of the U.S. and clarify what the legislature's goal of presence law is--broad enforcement or narrow (primarily against "dangerous aliens"). This is important because the lawsuit accuses the state of Arizona of enforcing "indiscriminately" but that's how the law is written and thus presumably more how the legislature intended than primarily against "dangerous aliens" (Congress made no such distinction). Congress might prefer that even if the federal government has a narrow or lax enforcement policy that the states be allowed to enforce the law to the degree they see fit, especially if that is more in line with how Congress intended it be enforced.

    Does the Congress intend for the Executive to speak for them in claiming pre-emption against the states and, if so, how far can they go? All the way to claiming a total non-enforcement policy in order to shut state enforcement down completely? The decision of the Department of Justice to sue carries weight with the courts over the pre-emption issue but only if the Congress does nothing. If the Obama administration is engaging in an an inappropriate power grab, the Congress has to say something or else the courts could take their inaction as implied consent to what Tarranto calls an imperial presidency.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703636404575353033882060278.html
  4. George Chell's Avatar
    More legal mumbo-jumbo from Jack!
  5. SG's Avatar
    Awesome. First we had a stupid legislation, then a lawsuit against that legislation, and NOW a legislation against the lawsuit. Not sure sure to cry or laugh on this. We should start a poll instead - asking people when they thin Immigration reform may happen?
    A. 2020
    B. 2030
    C. 2040
    D. 2050
    E. Never.
  6. Legal and no longer waiting's Avatar
    SG, my answer is Never because this country is hell bent to continue with stupid laws (not just immigration), and as a result fewer and fewer people will want to immigrate here. I am not going to bet that the US will try to regulate emigration (kind of like the USSR), but that's where the things are going. It will be a truly sad day when people will stop moving to live in the US.
  7. Another Voice's Avatar
    I bet you that if you make the same argument for gun sales or gun regulations or say abortion rights.... Jack's friends would not be too happy about and would say that we need a Federal Standard based on the second amendment.... as usual these people are trying to have it both ways. For guns is one way and immigration another, it all depends on the convenience of the republican ideology. Any common sense on Immigration equals amnesty and open border agenda, but is it is all enforcement then is the sensible thing to do!!! The federal government has the legal right to ask the courts to clarify the supremacy clause when states rights and federal rights come into conflict as simple as that....
  8. Another Voice's Avatar
    I think it is more conformable to the politicians to keep the status quo than actually work on fixing the system... The AZ law and the lawsuit will accomplish this and all sides will be happy. And as for Immigrants more waiting and frustration, they really want see how patient immigrants are and how bad they want the american dream...
  9. USC's Avatar
    DoS estimated time to acquire a GC, EB3 India increases to 35 years.

    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/special-report-immigration-opening-borders-mexico-let-them-in_2.html

    (Half way down the page ook at chart under How Long Must I Wait?)
  10. George Chell's Avatar
    "DoS estimated time to acquire a GC, EB3 India increases to 35 years."

    And the moron readers think that giving the bartender $35K and benefits will solve the problem. Is he willing to pay $10 for a glass of beer..can he afford it?

  11. Jack's Avatar
    "a Federal Standard based on the second amendment"


    The Second Amendment, First Amendment, etc. are up to the courts to define. Lawsuits against 1070 on, e.g., Fourth Amendment grounds can proceed no matter what Congress says. Pre-emption argument is different because even the DOJ's case is entirely dependent on what Congress has to say about state enforcement of federal immigration law. Apparently they have not said enough because the case law in that area is a muddle. Would you prefer that the body from which immigration law originated clear things up once and for all or keep going indefinitely like it is in the courts? Even a Supreme Court ruling will probably be too narrow to fill in all the gaps and their ruling will also probably be so vague that it will just start a whole new slew of lower court cases. On an individual right, that's just our system. On pre-emption, it's just stupid when it's so easy for Congress clarify their intention.
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: