Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
The Supreme Court just handed down a decision in Arizona v. US. First the good news: the majority opinion, written by Kennedy upholds the controversial section 2(B), which requires police officers to verify the immigration status of people whom they stop or arrest if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person might be in the U.S. illegally.
But the bad news is that, in all other respects, it appears that the 9th Circus, I mean, Circuit was upheld, meaning that the following sections are struck down on the grounds that they are "pre-empted" by federal law:
- Section 6, which allows a police officer to arrest someone without a warrant if the officer believes that the person committed a crime that could get him deported;
- Section 3, which makes it a crime to be in Arizona without proper immigration papers; and
- Section 5, which makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek or accept employment in Arizona.
It's very unclear to me how the majority reconciles this result - I've yet to read the opinion. Justice Scalia has a strongly worded dissent (that he is now reading from the bench). Scalia would have upheld the entire Ariz. law and so I suspect that he also finds the majority's "split the baby" decision to be incoherent. I'll be back with more as soon as I've had a chance to review the decision.
PS - No decision on ObamaCare today
- Comment (66)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
An interesting aside: Even though Kagen recused herself, I bet the clerks kept her clued into how things were developing.
So I wonder whether Kagen might have given Obama the heads-up that the Court was going to slap down AZ, and that the Court's decision would give Obama both political and legal cover (in advance) for his Dream Act order.
I haven't read the majority decision yet, but I wonder how much of it turns on the idea that state enforcement of state laws that ostensibly buttress federal law, even if not theoretically contrary to the federal scheme, nevertheless can interfere with federal discretion (i.e., prosecutorial discretion) about what is the best (e.g., most efficient) way to enforce the federal scheme.
(One unexpected pro-federalism effect might be to further free states from federal mandates to enforce federal laws a state might have no particular interest to enforce.)
A lot of the media is spinning this as a victory for AZ, but I think Freedman is right to suggest that the actual effect guts the AZ law.
Edited on June 25, 2012 at 8:11pmOct '10
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
"We have a generous immigration policy".
How in the world do you know what the right amount of immigration is at any given time, or in any given place? That is something I would argue no single person or group of people knows the answer to.
When I read arguments like that, all I can see is an impulse to want to centrally plan our economy and society in the same way that the left wants to control the health care system, the energy industry, and so on. It reflects a distrust in individuals, a lack of appreciation of local knowledge, and places way too much faith the in politicians and bureaucrats who create and enforce these laws.
Edited on June 25, 2012 at 8:21pmFeb '12
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
wmartin
The whole point is to make life so unpleasant for them that they go home. · 2 hours ago
As someone who lives in a primarily illegal immigrant neighborhood, the Obama economy has done this quite well without any changes to the immigration laws. There are two abandoned houses on my block alone that used to have Mexican families.
Edited on June 25, 2012 at 8:10pmOct '10
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
If an immigrant is here, working, perhaps the employer would prefer them to stay. What about his or her rights...rights to engage in commerce with whom they please?
Personally, with the exception of national security and public health concerns, I reject the Federal government's right to ban immigration all together.
In other words, the liberty that Low Country Joe may be referring to is the liberty of US citizens who wish to transact with whomever they see fit, regardless of where someone is born, without having to get a permission slip from our lords in Washington.
Edited on June 25, 2012 at 8:50pmJun '12
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Todd If an immigrant is here, working, perhaps the employer would prefer them to stay. What about his or her rights...rights to engage in commerce with whom they please?
· 1 minute ago
Does that include the right to engage in commerce with burglars for their stolen articles?
Mar '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Todd
In other words, the liberty that Low Country Joe may be referring to is the liberty of US citizens who wish to transact with whomever they see fit, regardless of where someone is born, without having to get a permission slip from our lords in Washington. · 3 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
Except that you DON'T have the right to transact with whomever you see fit, if those people you wish to transact with are here illegally. You complain of lost liberty while you bemoan the rule of law. But without the rule of law, liberty can't exist. Freedom isn't anarchy.
Mar '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Todd
"We have a generous immigration policy".
How in the world do you know what the right amount of immigration is at any given time, or in any given place? That is something I would argue no single person or group of people knows the answer to.
When I read arguments like that, all I can see is an impulse to want to centrally plan our economy and society in the same way that the left wants to control the health care system, the energy industry, and so on. It reflects a distrust in individuals, a lack of appreciation of local knowledge, and places way too much faith the in politicians and bureaucrats who create and enforce these laws. · 21 minutes ago
Edited 8 minutes ago
I'll ask you the same thing I asked Joe: you don't think over a million legal immigrants a year is generous? Are you advocating unlimited immigration? And when did reasonable numbers of visas become "central planning"?
Apr '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
LowcountryJoe
Is that really the way conservatives should want it?
Did Reagan have it wrong? And the inscription below the Statue of Liberty is also wrong? · 2 hours ago
Yes, Reagan had it wrong. And yes, the Statue of Liberty inscription is sentimental tripe with no standing in law.
Every year, Edge.org has a symposium where they ask about ahundred scientists to name their "dangerous idea," an issue they have been exploring that may be seen as extremely taboo or heretical. Should Ricochet ever have a version of that contest, my dangerous idea would be this : In fifty years time, conservatives will see Reagan's domestic legacy as defined by amnesty without enforcement, and a near-majority of Americans paying no income tax. Those twin policies will mean he is seen as a nation-wrecker rather than a great hero. Reagan is still in my own Top Ten Presidents, but those two aspects of his record are looming larger and larger. And stranger things have happened to seemingly set-in-stone reputations.
On immigration, conservatives should take their cues from Enoch Powell, not Ronald Reagan.
Edited on June 25, 2012 at 8:39pmOct '10
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Douglas
I'll ask you the same thing I asked Joe: you don't think over a million legal immigrants a year is generous? Are you advocating unlimited immigration? And when did reasonable numbers of visas become "central planning"? · 6 minutes ago
I don't know what the right number is. Just like I don't know what the right wage is for a job at Subway in Atlanta, or what the right price is for an MRI is Boise should be.
So yes, when you have immigration quotas, that is central planning.
Am I advocating for unlimited immigration? I am for allowing the marketplace to determine the right amount of immigration. (Again, national security and public health concerns notwithstanding).
Oct '10
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Douglas
Except that you DON'T have the right to transact with whomever you see fit, if those people you wish to transact with are here illegally. You complain of lost liberty while you bemoan the rule of law. But without the rule of law, liberty can't exist. Freedom isn'tanarchy. · 13 minutes ago
So when the politicians declare something illegal, with no regard to natural rights and individual liberty, that is the final say? I am pretty sure we fought a revolution arguing the opposite.
I am not sure where I argued for anarchy.
Mar '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Todd
I don't know what the right number is. Just like I don't know what the right wage is for a job at Subway in Atlanta, or what the right price is for an MRI is Boise should be.
So yes, when you have immigration quotas, that is central planning.
Am I advocating for unlimited immigration? I am for allowing the marketplace to determine the right amount of immigration. (Again, national security and public health concerns notwithstanding). · 1 minute ago
If setting a limit on visas is central planning, then so is pretty much anything a central government does. You're essentially making an argument for open borders and unlimited immigration. Sovereignty and nationhood mean nothing here. It's almost a market theory based take on Marx's nation-less world, and would make citizenship meaningless.
Oct '10
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Douglas
If setting a limit on visas is central planning, then so is pretty much anything a central government does.
Really? How is that?
Mar '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Todd
Douglas
Except that you DON'T have the right to transact with whomever you see fit, if those people you wish to transact with are here illegally. You complain of lost liberty while you bemoan the rule of law. But without the rule of law, liberty can't exist. Freedom isn'tanarchy. · 13 minutes ago
So when the politicians declare something illegal, with no regard to natural rights and individual liberty, that is the final say? I am pretty sure we fought a revolution arguing the opposite.
I am not sure where I argued for anarchy. · 3 minutes ago
Again, you're making the argument that contracts with people that have no legal right to even be here is a violation of your rights. How? YOU don't have the right to void the law on your own, unless you believe in the whole sovereign citizen stuff. If you don't like the law, work to change it. Where in the history of natural law does it free you from the responsibility of abiding by your country's duly enacted laws? Disagreeing with those laws is one thing. Unilaterally declaring them invalid is quite another.
Mar '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Todd
Douglas
If setting a limit on visas is central planning, then so is pretty much anything a central government does.
Really? How is that? · 4 minutes ago
Government sets reasonable limits on all manner of things when doing its duty. They'll set limits on fishing because overfishing would harm the waters. They'll set speed limits because some speeds over a certain amount is inherently dangerous for a given road. It's right and proper that we argue what these limits should be. It's anarchy to argue that there should be no limits at all, consequences be damned. The aim is small, well-run, limited government. Not no government at all.
Jan '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
ConservativeWanderer
Todd If an immigrant is here, working, perhaps the employer would prefer them to stay. What about his or her rights...rights to engage in commerce with whom they please?
· 1 minute ago
Does that include the right to engage in commerce with burglars for their stolen articles? · 42 minutes ago
Dang! Just skipped the straw man and went straight to a scarecrow.
Jun '12
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
LowcountryJoe
ConservativeWanderer
Todd If an immigrant is here, working, perhaps the employer would prefer them to stay. What about his or her rights...rights to engage in commerce with whom they please?
· 1 minute ago
Does that include the right to engage in commerce with burglars for their stolen articles? · 42 minutes ago
Dang! Just skipped the straw man and went straight to a scarecrow. · 3 minutes ago
Actually, no, I didn't.
What I am pointing out is that there are already restrictions on the right to do commerce with whom you wish. Specifically, you cannot do business with someone if that business will further a crime.
Hiring an illegal immigrant furthers a crime, by permitting them to continue to commit the crime for a longer time than if they were not employed.
Therefore, it should be -- and is -- illegal to hire an illegal immigrant.
Jan '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Douglas
Todd
In other words, the liberty that Low Country Joe may be referring to is the liberty of US citizens who wish to transact with whomever they see fit, regardless of where someone is born, without having to get a permission slip from our lords in Washington. · 3 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
Except that you DON'T have the right to transact with whomever you see fit, if those people you wish to transact with are here illegally. You complain of lost liberty while you bemoan the rule of law. But without the rule of law, liberty can't exist. Freedom isn'tanarchy. · 49 minutes ago
It may come as a surprise but even the Affordable Healthcare Act is the "rule of law" as of this moment. Isn't it a good thing it was being challenged? And what of hardened positions that, while they seem right to hold so as to preserve culture [or some such thing that sounds nonsensical to me], run counter to human liberty? Freedom is the absence of legislation that seeks its [freedom's] very undermining.
Jun '12
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
LowcountryJoe
It may come as a surprise but even the Affordable Healthcare Act is the "rule of law" as of this moment. Isn't it a good thing it was being challenged? And what of hardened positions that, while they seem right to hold so as to preserve culture [or some such thing that sounds nonsensical to me], run counter to human liberty? Freedom is the absence of legislation that seeks its [freedom's] very undermining. · 1 minute ago
But it's still being enforced while it's being challenged, and being followed by insurance companies across the country.
In other words, they're not ignoring the law, as you are advocating that we do with immigration laws.
Jan '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
Todd
Douglas
If setting a limit on visas is central planning, then so is pretty much anything a central government does.
Really? How is that? · 32 minutes ago
The supposed ideal level of immigration is being set by a bureaucrat rather than a market-driven process that sends appropriate signals to participants of these arrangements. That's how!
Jan '11
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Decision on Arizona Immigration Law
ConservativeWanderer
LowcountryJoe
It may come as a surprise but even the Affordable Healthcare Act is the "rule of law" as of this moment. Isn't it a good thing it was being challenged? And what of hardened positions that, while they seem right to hold so as to preserve culture [or some such thing that sounds nonsensical to me], run counter to human liberty? Freedom is the absence of legislation that seeks its [freedom's] very undermining. · 1 minute ago
In other words, they're not ignoring the law, as you are advocating that we do with immigration laws. · 1 minute ago
You're wrong about what I'm advocating. I do not want people to come here illegally. No! What I want is for it to be far easier to legally come here.