By
Posted In
The Federal Appeals
indianofs.blogspot.com
The federal appeals court rejection of portions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law didn’t shock anyone.
Opponents called it a validation of their position. Backers, including state Sen. Russell Pearce, called it predictable given the “liberal makeup” of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The effect of the ruling is to retain the legal delay of some portions of the SB1070 law, including provisions requiring the carrying of alien registration papers. The Monday ruling affirmed an earlier ruling by a federal district court judge.
The ruling also sets the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to look at the case, which is loaded with emotion on all sides.
It is interesting two levels of federal court have focused on the conflict between state and federal law in the case. They each have given the nod to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which declares federal law trumps state law. It’s been upheld numerous times by the high court.
A recurring theme of the appeals court explanations is the necessity for the federal government, not the individual states, to make foreign policy. If only the issue were that simple.
In truth, SB1070 doesn’t change immigration law. It doesn’t say who gets to come into the country or set the qualifications for remaining. In that sense, Arizona isn’t creating immigration law. It is only enforcing it, albeit at an intensified level.
There is likely no conflict between federal and Arizona law on the subject of immigration as a result of SB1070. So the Supremacy Clause isn’t really an issue.
There is, however, a very real conflict between the laissez-faire enforcement of immigration law by the federal government and the vigorous enforcement of those laws required by SB1070.
Thankfully it’s the laws, not attitudes, that will be the examined by the Supreme Court. Assuming side issues with racial profiling and unreasonable search prohibitions are not the core of the federal government’s case, SB1070 will in all likelihood be affirmed more or less in its entirety.
The federal appeals court rejection of portions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law didn’t shock anyone.
Opponents called it a validation of their position. Backers, including state Sen. Russell Pearce, called it predictable given the “liberal makeup” of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The effect of the ruling is to retain the legal delay of some portions of the SB1070 law, including provisions requiring the carrying of alien registration papers. The Monday ruling affirmed an earlier ruling by a federal district court judge.
The ruling also sets the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to look at the case, which is loaded with emotion on all sides.
It is interesting two levels of federal court have focused on the conflict between state and federal law in the case. They each have given the nod to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which declares federal law trumps state law. It’s been upheld numerous times by the high court.
A recurring theme of the appeals court explanations is the necessity for the federal government, not the individual states, to make foreign policy. If only the issue were that simple.
In truth, SB1070 doesn’t change immigration law. It doesn’t say who gets to come into the country or set the qualifications for remaining. In that sense, Arizona isn’t creating immigration law. It is only enforcing it, albeit at an intensified level.
There is likely no conflict between federal and Arizona law on the subject of immigration as a result of SB1070. So the Supremacy Clause isn’t really an issue.
There is, however, a very real conflict between the laissez-faire enforcement of immigration law by the federal government and the vigorous enforcement of those laws required by SB1070.
Thankfully it’s the laws, not attitudes, that will be the examined by the Supreme Court. Assuming side issues with racial profiling and unreasonable search prohibitions are not the core of the federal government’s case, SB1070 will in all likelihood be affirmed more or less in its entirety.
0 comments:
Post a Comment