The Cellar - What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=22610)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 667309)

Supreme Court case, Chy Lung v. Freeman.

The Supreme Court ruled the state law was unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress had exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce and immigration. It also held that the state law violated 14th amendment rights of non-residents (that it did not apply only to citizens).

Sorry I edited my post so many times. Trying to make sense of it.

I don't see "unconstitutional" anywhere really. CA demanding payment for accepting prostitutes is what "invades the right of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and is therefore void." not enforcing existing immigration law by state/local agencies.
In the context of, "If you don't pay us $500 per hooker on board, the ship may not dock."

Quote:

1. The statute of California which is the subject of consideration in this case does not require a bond for every passenger, or commutation in money, as the statutes of New York and Louisiana do, but only for certain enumerated classes, among which are "lewd and debauched women."
2. But the features of the statute are such as to show very clearly that the purpose is to extort money from a large class of passengers, or to prevent their immigration to California altogether.
3. The statute also operates directly on the passenger, for unless the master or owner of the vessel gives an onerous bond for tine future protection of the state against the support of the passenger, or pays such sum as the Commissioner of Immigration chooses to exact, he is not permitted to land from the vessel.
4. The powers which the commissioner is authorized to exercise under this statute are such as to bring the United States into conflict with foreign nations, and they can only belong to the federal government.
5. If the right of the states to pass statutes to protect themselves in regard to the criminal, the pauper, and the diseased foreigner landing within their
borders exists at all, it is limited to such laws as are absolutely necessary for that purpose, and this mere police regulation cannot extend so far as to prevent or obstruct other classes of persons from the right to hold personal and commercial intercourse with the people of the United States.
6. The statute of California in this respect extends far beyond the necessity in which the right, if it exists, is founded, and invades the right of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and is therefore void.

If this case is precedent, and I dont know that it is, the Supreme Court said that Congress had exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce and immigration.

That is not to say the states cant help enforce...but they simply do not have the power to regulate immigration.

Regulate, not enforce. AZ wants to enforce the regulations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 667322)

Regulate, not enforce.

AZ wants to regulate by making illegal immigration a state crime.

The state already has the power to enforce the federal law.

Beyond the legal issues:

A delegation of feds met with AZ officials yesterday to review the federal commitment to border enforcement.

Among the highlights of those enforcement efforts:

Quote:

The President’s Strategic and Integrated Southwest Border Strategy: During the past year, since the Southwest Border Initiative was launched, the Administration has:

* Doubled the personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces by deploying additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) special agents;
* Tripled the number of ICE intelligence analysts along the Southwest border in April 2009;
* Begun screening, for the first time, 100 percent of southbound rail shipments for illegal weapons, drugs, and cash;
* Deployed 13 additional cross-trained canine teams, which identify firearms and currency, to the Southwest border to augment the five teams already in place;
* Deployed 326 additional Border Patrol agents between ports of entry and 58 Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers at the ports of entry;
* Deployed five additional Z-Backscatter Units, which help CBP to identify anomalies in passenger vehicles, to the Southwest border to augment the six already there;
* Seized, through the combined efforts of CBP and ICE, $85 million in illicit cash along the Southwest border - a 22 percent increase over the same period during the previous year;
* Seized 1,404 firearms and 1.62 million kilograms of drugs along the Southwest border - according to CBP and ICE, this reflects increases of 22 and 14 percent respectively from the same period during the previous year;
* Seized $29.5 million in illicit southbound cash along the Southwest border - according to CBP, a 39 percent increase over the same period during the previous year;
* Deployed two new DEA SWB enforcement groups in El Paso and Phoenix, and added 25 new DEA intelligence analysts;
* Deployed two new FBI Border Corruption Task Forces in Del Rio and Houston.
* Added 200 new U.S. Marshal service positions including Deputy U.S. Marshals and Asset Forfeiture Criminal Investigators at the Southwest Border to increase fugitive apprehension and cross border violent crime response; to identify and seize the financial assets of the cartels; to increase court security and prisoner operations; and to investigate and mitigate security threats and improve security awareness for judiciary and other court personnel;
* Surged ATF agents to Arizona to target gun trafficking to Mexico.
* Hired nearly 50 additional Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys to prosecute drug and arms trafficking and bulk cash smuggling by the Mexican cartels, and added five DOJ attorneys to focus exclusively on extradition requests from Mexico. There were 107 extraditions from Mexico to the United States in 2009, a record, compared to 12 in 2000;
* Increased cooperation with U.S. and Mexican law enforcement to target money laundering and bulk-cash smuggling, including $50 million in DOJ grants to federal, state, and local law enforcement, a 120-day multifaceted ICE operation, and the hiring of a DOJ prosecutor dedicated exclusively to targeting money laundering cases in and to Mexico;
* Resumed DOJ asset-sharing of forfeited proceeds with the Mexican government as a result of successful bi-lateral criminal investigations;
* Trained 5,462 Mexican prosecutors and investigators at the state and federal level and in the executive and judicial branches, on target to reach 9,261 trained by the end of 2010;
* Planned the expansion of El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) to include additional staffing to collect, analyze and disseminate intelligence and support law enforcement operations against a broad array of transnational threats;
* During the past year and a half, DOJ-led multi-agency law enforcement investigations (which may include DEA, FBI, ATF, ICE, CBP, and others) have yielded important results: “Project Deliverance” resulted in more than 2,200 arrests, seizure of approximately 74 tons of drugs and $154 million in U.S. currency; “Project Coronado” resulted in the arrest of 303 individuals in 19 states and seizure of $3.4 million in U.S. currency, 729 pounds of methamphetamine, 62 kilograms of cocaine, 967 pounds of marijuana, 144 weapons and 109 vehicles; “Operation Xcellerator” resulted in the arrest of more than 750 individuals on narcotics-related charges and the seizure of more than 23 tons of narcotics and more than $59 million in cash;
* Arizona received more than $223 million in FY2009 through DOJ programs including OJP, COPS, and formula based grants – an increase from $38 million in FY2008;
* Arizona has also received almost $20 million over the last two years for Operation Stonegarden, which enhances cooperation and coordination between and among federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies; and
* As part of his comprehensive plan to secure the Southwest border, President Obama requested $600 million in supplemental funds last week for enhanced border protection and law enforcement activities, partially offset by cancelling $100 million from the SBInet program within DHS. The President will also authorize the deployment of up to an additional, requirements-based 1,200 National Guard troops to the border.

http://www.imperialvalleynews.com/in...=7548&Itemid=2

Seems like alot to me for 1+ year, along with authorizing an additional 1,200 National Guard troops to the border.

But evidently not enough for the governor.

If the right of the states to pass statutes to protect themselves in regard to the criminal, the pauper, and the diseased foreigner landing within their
borders exists at all, it is limited to such laws as are absolutely necessary for that purposeand, this mere police regulation cannot extend so far as to prevent or obstruct other classes of persons (legal aliens?) from the right to hold personal and commercial intercourse with the people of the United States.

Sounds reasonable to me. I still think the Feds are trying to make a problem out of something and they are having a really hard time becoming creative about it. But given the ability of lawyers to twist laws and facts around I am sure they will come up with some thing.

Henderson V. Mayor of NYC

Quote:

1. The case of the City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 103, decided no more than that the requirement from the master of a vessel of a catalogue of his passengers landed in the city, rendered to the mayor on oath, with a correct description of their names, ages, occupations, places of birth, and of last legal settlement, was a police regulation within the power of the state to enact, and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.

Quote:

In February, 1824, the Legislature of New York passed "an act concerning passengers in vessels arriving in the port of New York." By one of the provisions of the law, the master of every vessel arriving in New York from any foreign port or from a port of any of the states of the United States other than New York is required, under certain penalties prescribed in the law, within twenty-four hours after his arrival, to make a report in writing containing the names, ages, and last legal settlement of every person who shall have been on board the vessel commanded by him during the voyage, and if any of the passengers shall have gone on board any other vessel or shall, during the voyage, have been landed at any place with a view to proceed to New fork, the same shall be stated in the report. The Corporation of the City of New York instituted an action of debt under this law against the master of the ship Emily for the recovery of certain penalties imposed by this act, and the declaration alleged that the Emily, of which William Thompson was the master, arrived in New Fork in August, 1829, from a country out of the United States, and that one hundred passengers were brought in the ship in the voyage, and that the master did not make the report required by the statute referred to. The defendant demurred to the declaration, and the judges of the circuit court being divided in opinion on the following point, it was certified to the Supreme Court.
...
The Supreme Court directed it to be certified to the Circuit Court of New York that so much of the section of the act of the Legislature of New York as applies to the breaches assigned in the declaration does not assume to regulate commerce between the port of New York and foreign ports, and that so much of the said act is constitutional.
The act of the Legislature of New York is not a regulation of commerce, but of police, and, being so, it was passed in the exercise of a power which rightfully belonged to the state. The State of New York possessed the power to pass this law before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The law was "intended to prevent the state's being burdened with an influx of foreigners and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such." The end and means here used are within the competency of the states, since a portion of their powers were surrendered to the federal government.

I dont see any of the cases you cited as precedent for various reasons, the most clear of which is that they were adjudicated BEFORE Congress acted to regulate immigration, starting in the late 19th century.

What the Court has said since then is that Congress alone has the power to regulate immigration.

Enacting a state law criminalizing illegal immigration is regulating....beyond enforcing the federal law.

But whatever the case, IMO, the federal courts should make the determination.

Link(s)?

And any chance you could note the edits/changes in arguments you make to your posts after the fact?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 667334)

Link(s)?

And any chance you could note the edits/changes in arguments you make to your posts after the fact?

No time to search right now, I'll search around later.

But as I said, IMO, the constitutionality should be determined by the federal courts. Hey, if the courts say it is constitutional, I will have no complaints.

And my edits were grammatical or typos, no change in the substance of my post.

The reason I went off on the USSC precedence tangent was because you said, unlike the drug laws, immigration law has only ever been entirely a Fed issue (paraphrased, I'd quote it if it was still there). Now it doesn't make sense...
And now you're saying courts made it a Fed issue later.

With all due respect, neither one is trained to interpret the law or previous Court decisions.

There are experts on both sides of the issue.

From my layman's perspective, I think there is a supremacy clause issue or a conflict pre-emption issue, as described here

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/con...reemption.html

You can find other opinions.

Because of the controversy, IMO, it needs to be resolved through a legal process. That is one reason we have a federal judiciary....to resolve issues of state v federal powers.