Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Jonathan Emord - Judge Bolton Invalidates Part of Arizona Law

Jonathan Emord - Judge Bolton Invalidates Part of Arizona Law

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4|Likes:
Published by Juan del Sur
The central premise of Judge Bolton’s decision enjoining four parts of Arizona’s immigration law rests on the faulty premise that the state law violates the doctrine of federal pre-emption. The law, however, is in aid of federal immigration law and neither obstructs nor increases penalties for immigration law violations. Moreover, it does not attempt to alter the standards used by the federal government in determining who is legally resident in this country. Indeed, the Arizona law is in aid of domestic law affected by illegals in Arizona who are contributing to drug and human trafficking and other serious crimes within the state.
The central premise of Judge Bolton’s decision enjoining four parts of Arizona’s immigration law rests on the faulty premise that the state law violates the doctrine of federal pre-emption. The law, however, is in aid of federal immigration law and neither obstructs nor increases penalties for immigration law violations. Moreover, it does not attempt to alter the standards used by the federal government in determining who is legally resident in this country. Indeed, the Arizona law is in aid of domestic law affected by illegals in Arizona who are contributing to drug and human trafficking and other serious crimes within the state.

More info:

Published by: Juan del Sur on Jul 29, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/25/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Jonathan Emord – Judge Bolton Invalidates Part of AZ Immigration Law 
1
 
JUDGE BOLTON INVALIDATES PART OF ARIZONA'S IMMIGRATION LAW 
 
 Author: Attorney Jonathan Emord Author of "The Rise of Tyranny "date: July 29, 2010http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan145.htm 
Judge Bolton’s Decision Invalidating Parts of New Arizona Immigration Law Should Be Overturned
 
The central premise of Judge Bolton’s decision enjoining four parts of Arizona’s immigrationlaw rests on the faulty premise that the state law violates the doctrine of federal pre-emption.The law, however, is in aid of federal immigration law and neither obstructs nor increasespenalties for immigration law violations. Moreover, it does not attempt to alter the standardsused by the federal government in determining who is legally resident in this country. Indeed,the Arizona law is in aid of domestic law affected by illegals in Arizona who are contributingto drug and human trafficking and other serious crimes within the state.
 
The Judge held the following four parts of the statute unlawful encroachments on federalimmigration law, based on the doctrine of pre-emption:
 
(1) the requirement that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigrationstatus of a person stopped, detained, or arrested on other grounds if there is a reasonablesuspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the U.S. and that a person arrested berequired to show proof of lawful immigration status prior to being released (Part of Section 2of SB 1070);
 
(2) the creation of a new state crime in support of federal law that requires application for andcarriage of alien registration papers (Section 3 of SB 1070);
 
(3) the creation of a new state crime in support of federal law that prohibits an unauthorizedalien from soliciting, applying for, or performing work (Part of Section 5 of SB 1070); and
 
(4) the authorization of warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believethe person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the UnitedStates under federal immigration law (Section 6 of SB 1070).
 
The Judge operates on two assumptions, that the Arizona law (1) will impose substantial burdens on lawful immigrants, exposing them to inquisitorial practices and policesurveillance and (2) will impose a significant increase in costs on federal authorities contactedconcerning suspected illegals detained, thus distracting the federal government frompursuing other immigration law enforcement priorities. She had no specific proof in therecord to support either of these hypothetical propositions and yet throughout the decisionpresumes them to be true.
 
 
Jonathan Emord – Judge Bolton Invalidates Part of AZ Immigration Law 
2
 
The suit brought by the Obama Administration against the law is a pre-enforcement or facialchallenge. Because the challenge occurs before the law is implemented, the Supreme Courthas required that “the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”
United States v. Salerno
, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). Inparticular, the Court is not to base its decision on hypothetical or presumed cases. We certainly can conceive of instances in which each of the four provisions would be validly enforced and, so, the pre-enforcement challenge standard has not been satisfied. It iscounterintuitive to assume that a person detained on probable cause of the commission of acrime, like, for example, murder, who is found not to be in this country lawfully wouldthrough his arrest either unduly burden lawful immigrants or impose undue burdens onfederal authorities, particularly because just such a person is removable from this country under federal law. Rather, legal immigrants, like all Americans, are best protected when suchindividuals are prosecuted.It is counterintuitive to assume that a law focused on enforcing the federal requirement thatalien residents file applications for, and carry proof of, alien registration is somehow  burdensome to lawful immigrants or to federal law enforcers who are supposed to beimplementing that very legal requirement. Indeed, we have to stretch our imaginations in amighty way to presume that such a law would be wrongly applied to a legal immigrant or would generate such an enormous quantity of referrals to the feds that they would beoverwhelmed by them (particularly because the feds now routinely ignore state referrals onall manner of illegal immigration issues; there is nothing requiring them to take the new referrals any more seriously).
 
It is counterintuitive to assume that a state law that supports federal law prohibitingemployment of illegal aliens would harm lawful immigrants or burden federal law enforcers.The state law on its face aims at illegal aliens, thus only a wrongful application of it wouldreach a lawful immigrant. Moreover, the feds are burdened only if they choose to implementfederal law (but that is their pre-existing duty and should not be considered cognizable as anew or added burden).
 
It is counterintuitive also to assume that a law that makes it a crime to commit an offense thatmakes a person removable from the United States under federal immigration law either burdens lawful immigrants or federal law enforcers. It is in aid of federal law enforcement,and the feds have the final say so under this state law concerning whether the person isremovable. It is entirely within federal discretion to deem a person not removable, or toignore the state request for a determination.
 
The decision tacitly presumes that states do not presently aid federal law enforcementthrough referrals of suspected illegal immigrants and in support of federal governmentactions against illegal aliens involved in drug trafficking, human trafficking, or smuggling of illegal goods. They do, every day. In this environment, the Arizona law is neither new norexceptionally burdensome. It certainly does not obstruct federal immigration law.
 
Finally, nothing in the law authorizes or condones racial profiling or discrimination againstlegal immigrants. This new law is comparable to many others that aid federal law enforcement, only now due to political pressure from President Obama has the Department of Justice chosen to single out the Arizona law for strained arguments that it obstructs or

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->