Do You Support The States That Filed "A Friend Of The Court" Brief For Arizona SB 1070D?

[larry]

Last Wednesday, the attorneys general of eight states and one U.S. territory filed a “friend of the court” brief in the federal lawsuit (U.S.A. v. Arizona) to support Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law, SB 1070. (Cox Press Release, July 14, 2010). Led by Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox, other signatories included the attorneys general from Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Because the federal court has limited the length of such amicus briefs, the states’ argument goes straight to the heart of the federal complaint: preemption.

In their brief, the states forcefully refute the Department of Justice’s argument that SB 1070 is preempted under the United States Constitution. First, they reject DOJ’s argument that SB 1070 constitutes an impermissible “regulation of immigration.” Case law, they argue, has defined a “regulation of immigration” as defining who should or should not be admitted into the country and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain. SB 1070 does not do either. Moreover, the states point out that federal courts have long held that state law enforcement officers have inherent authority to arrest for violations of federal law as long as the arrest is authorized by state law. (Amicus Brief)

Second, the states reject DOJ’s argument that SB 1070 conflicts with federal laws such that it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” SB 1070, the states argue, is fully consistent with Congress’s intent of apprehending illegal aliens even if it does not facilitate the Executive’s wish to selectively abandon the enforcement of immigration laws. Moreover, the states argue, SB 1070 does not interfere with the Executive’s discretion in how it treats aliens as DOJ claims because the federal government still retains that discretion once Arizona law enforcement officers turn over an illegal alien to federal authorities. (Id.)

In a statement released with the brief, Michigan Attorney Michael Cox said, "Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders.” (Cox Press Release, July 14, 2010). Others who joined the brief sounded a similar note. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cucinelli remarked, “Federal law expressly allows states to arrest people who are not legally present in the United States. Arizona’s law doesn’t change any of this. That’s why we are stunned that the government has sued Arizona.” (Cucinelli Press Release, July 14, 2010). South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said South Dakota joined the amicus brief because federal authorities aren't doing enough to enforce current immigration laws. "We felt it was right for the state of South Dakota because this is really a public safety issue," said Jackley. (KSFY.com, July 15, 2010)

[bardoul]

The government is basically saying that it has a right to selectively enforce or not enforce laws. The government argues that it wishes to concentrate its resources on "dangerous" illegal aliens and that states like Arizona will interfere in this. But does that make sense?

If an immigrant is dangerous than the police are already responsible for arresting them. It is no longer in the hands of the Department of Immigration if an immigrant is committing dangerous crimes. Is the government arguing that the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement now has jurisdiction over local robberies, muggings, rape, and murder? If that is true than are regular police only allowed to investigate crimes committed by legal citizens? How are they supposed to tell the difference? Obviously it is not true so why is the government claiming that it can only enforce immigration laws on dangerous criminals?

The government argues that if any state is allowed to create its own immigration laws than we will have no coherent policy. But, Arizona has crafted its law as a word for word imitation of our national immigration policies and laws. Arizona has not assumed the power to deport but only to turn illegal immigrants over to ICE. So this is no incoherent policy but simply additional enforcement of our existing policy. The argument that this will create wildly chaotic policies is whats called a slippery slope argument.

So we get back to the crux of the argument. Does the government have a right to selectively enforce the law? Can the government say Sahid is a criminal for crossing the border illegally but Pedro is not for doing the same thing. Can it say Mexicans may enter our country at will but Chinese and Syrians may not. Which is the more incoherent policy. And since slippery slopes are good enough for our government than how about this one. Is it ok for a major campaign contributor to commit a crime but a member of the wrong party will be held accountable to justice? If we have the right to selectively enforce our laws than does it end at immigration?

While I didn't fully support the Arizona law before (I chose to wait and see) I do so now because it is revealing some uncomfortable policies of our government. I am glad Arizona made their law because I would hate to be surprised by this double standard later on when the government decides to selectively choose not to protect me from some criminal.

[symington]

hell yea

[bothan]

Absolutely

[elkanah1]

Yes, GO ARIZONA!

[elkan80]

Absolutely! I hope more states join!

[darrick34]

100 % YES

[sonny]

it should have been all 49 of the other states