Judge Blocks Key Parts of Arizona "Papers Please" Law

[Anonymous]

How am I engaging in a strawman? You are discussing the popularity of a measure, ignoring what the law actually says. Every constitutional lawyer I've read said there are issues with pre-emption. As such, it is not only appropriate but necessary that the administration seek such an injunction. I suppose you are right that they can wait until after the harm is done, but given that the harm done risks violating the rights of individual, why wait until that is done when we can prevent that ahead of time?

[jsteele]

In almost every conversation about immigration and Arizona's law, someone makes the statement that the Obama administration is not enforcing immigration laws. As with so many other right-wing talking points, that is false. See this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38270682/ns/us_news

"Federal prosecutions of immigrants soared to new levels this spring, as the Obama administration continued an aggressive enforcement strategy began under President George W. Bush, according to a new study released Thursday.

"The 4,145 cases referred to federal prosecutors in March and April was the largest number for any two-month stretch since the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created five years ago, the Syracuse University-based Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found.

"The government's heavy focus on immigration investigations already is creating a heavy burden for the swamped courts along the U.S.-Mexico border, whose judges handle hundreds more cases than most of their counterparts in the rest of the country."

[ snip ]

"At the same time, deportations have been increasing, climbing from 185,944 in 2007 to 387,790 last year."

So, under Obama, prosecutions are up to the point that the courts can't handle more and deportations have doubled. Similarly, we constantly hear about immigrant crime waves, but crime statistics simply don't support such claims. It doesn't look as if much of the anti-immigrant ferver is based on reality.

I'd also like to point out that in the Republican presidential primary, most of the candidates sought to one-up each other in their anti-immigrant credentials. Once candidate, Tom Tancredo, actually made it the center-piece of this candidacy. But, guess who was elected? The one candidate that had co-authored an immigration reform bill that included a pathway for citizenship for illegals. In other words, while the immigration issue generates a lot of noise and heat, it hasn't shown much impact at the polls. There can always be a first time, but I'm not holding my breath that this year will be it.

[Anonymous]

To elaborate, I want my elected officials to do what is right, not what is popular. Sometimes those things are one in the one same, but often they are not. When they are not, our leaders are charged with upholding the rule of law. Popular sentiment may demand otherwise and, if that is the case, there are channels through which the public can demand change of the law. But we cannot circumvent the laws of our country because of popular whim, especially when we are talking about the highest laws of the law.

[Anonymous]

You're not getting what I am saying -- you talk about how the Arizona statute is "ignoring what the law actually says." My point is that there is no clear "law" that "actually says" something specific on this point, and that reasonable lawyers could well disagree on how the law applies here.

It's not a black and white question that makes it "necessary" for the executive branch to do anything in particular; there is room for the exercise of policy judgment here, and the Obama Administration has chosen to exercise that judgment in a particular way. That's a political decision with political consequences.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:In almost every conversation about immigration and Arizona's law, someone makes the statement that the Obama administration is not enforcing immigration laws. As with so many other right-wing talking points, that is false. See this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38270682/ns/us_news

"Federal prosecutions of immigrants soared to new levels this spring, as the Obama administration continued an aggressive enforcement strategy began under President George W. Bush, according to a new study released Thursday.

"The 4,145 cases referred to federal prosecutors in March and April was the largest number for any two-month stretch since the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created five years ago, the Syracuse University-based Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found.

"The government's heavy focus on immigration investigations already is creating a heavy burden for the swamped courts along the U.S.-Mexico border, whose judges handle hundreds more cases than most of their counterparts in the rest of the country."

[ snip ]

"At the same time, deportations have been increasing, climbing from 185,944 in 2007 to 387,790 last year."

So, under Obama, prosecutions are up to the point that the courts can't handle more and deportations have doubled. Similarly, we constantly hear about immigrant crime waves, but crime statistics simply don't support such claims. It doesn't look as if much of the anti-immigrant ferver is based on reality.

I'd also like to point out that in the Republican presidential primary, most of the candidates sought to one-up each other in their anti-immigrant credentials. Once candidate, Tom Tancredo, actually made it the center-piece of this candidacy. But, guess who was elected? The one candidate that had co-authored an immigration reform bill that included a pathway for citizenship for illegals. In other words, while the immigration issue generates a lot of noise and heat, it hasn't shown much impact at the polls. There can always be a first time, but I'm not holding my breath that this year will be it.

But why let facts get in the way of a carefully constructed, fear-mongering narrative? Why deal with reality and facts when we can deal with trumped-up falsehoods and appeals to emotion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're not getting what I am saying -- you talk about how the Arizona statute is "ignoring what the law actually says." My point is that there is no clear "law" that "actually says" something specific on this point, and that reasonable lawyers could well disagree on how the law applies here.

It's not a black and white question that makes it "necessary" for the executive branch to do anything in particular; there is room for the exercise of policy judgment here, and the Obama Administration has chosen to exercise that judgment in a particular way. That's a political decision with political consequences.

It's not necessarily a political decision. If, as you claim, reasonable lawyers could well disagree, then isn't it entirely possible that Obama's lawyers, reasonable lawyers, looked at it and reasonably came to the conclusion that it did violate the law and, as such, he felt duty bound to take action? Your argument assumes that he simply didn't like the law and looked for a way to block it. That is certainly within the realm of possibility, but it is a strong accusation to make absent evidence. I think it's far more likely he and his lawyers (remember, Obama was a constitutional lawyer himself) looked at it and immediately felt that it violated the Constitution and, as such, took action.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

I'd also like to point out that in the Republican presidential primary, most of the candidates sought to one-up each other in their anti-immigrant credentials. Once candidate, Tom Tancredo, actually made it the center-piece of this candidacy. But, guess who was elected? The one candidate that had co-authored an immigration reform bill that included a pathway for citizenship for illegals. In other words, while the immigration issue generates a lot of noise and heat, it hasn't shown much impact at the polls. There can always be a first time, but I'm not holding my breath that this year will be it.

I don't disagree with this analysis, exactly -- immigration is a major fault line within the Republican party. It is an interesting issue, where there is a large subset of people who are very concerned about immigration, but the leadership of both parties has a different view. I personally think that this issue is going to become a much larger political driver, but that is uncertain.

Also, you're probably correct that my statement about the lack of immigration enforcement was misleading as written. That was an exaggeration for rhetorical effect, but it was not clear that was my intent. There is, of course, some immigration enforcement action being taken by the federal government. My view is that the Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it, isn't really interested in doing anything decisive about the problem. I also think it is reasonable to state that federal policy has been to tolerate the presence of millions of illegal immigrants, and that the current administration is more interested in taking the position that enforcement cannot solve the problem, and that "comprehensive" immigration reform is the only solution, when a substantial fraction of the public would like to see far more aggressive enforcement than is currently on the table. Obviously, I know many here disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's not necessarily a political decision. If, as you claim, reasonable lawyers could well disagree, then isn't it entirely possible that Obama's lawyers, reasonable lawyers, looked at it and reasonably came to the conclusion that it did violate the law and, as such, he felt duty bound to take action? Your argument assumes that he simply didn't like the law and looked for a way to block it. That is certainly within the realm of possibility, but it is a strong accusation to make absent evidence. I think it's far more likely he and his lawyers (remember, Obama was a constitutional lawyer himself) looked at it and immediately felt that it violated the Constitution and, as such, took action.

No, I don't think a reasonable lawyer could look at the question and say there is only one answer and that the government is "duty-bound" to do anything. I think any reasonable lawyer would look at the question, see that there are decent arguments on both sides, and conclude that the executive has some discretion in the matter. Now I may be wrong about that -- as I said, I haven't studied the specific cases on the point -- but my general knowledge of preemption law suggests that this is a pretty close question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not necessarily a political decision. If, as you claim, reasonable lawyers could well disagree, then isn't it entirely possible that Obama's lawyers, reasonable lawyers, looked at it and reasonably came to the conclusion that it did violate the law and, as such, he felt duty bound to take action? Your argument assumes that he simply didn't like the law and looked for a way to block it. That is certainly within the realm of possibility, but it is a strong accusation to make absent evidence. I think it's far more likely he and his lawyers (remember, Obama was a constitutional lawyer himself) looked at it and immediately felt that it violated the Constitution and, as such, took action.

No, I don't think a reasonable lawyer could look at the question and say there is only one answer and that the government is "duty-bound" to do anything. I think any reasonable lawyer would look at the question, see that there are decent arguments on both sides, and conclude that the executive has some discretion in the matter. Now I may be wrong about that -- as I said, I haven't studied the specific cases on the point -- but my general knowledge of preemption law suggests that this is a pretty close question.

You're still positing an unfair dilemma for Obama. Even if it is as you say, if he decides NOT to proceed, he is using discretion. If he chooses to proceed, he is making a political decision. How fair is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

I'd also like to point out that in the Republican presidential primary, most of the candidates sought to one-up each other in their anti-immigrant credentials. Once candidate, Tom Tancredo, actually made it the center-piece of this candidacy. But, guess who was elected? The one candidate that had co-authored an immigration reform bill that included a pathway for citizenship for illegals. In other words, while the immigration issue generates a lot of noise and heat, it hasn't shown much impact at the polls. There can always be a first time, but I'm not holding my breath that this year will be it.

I don't disagree with this analysis, exactly -- immigration is a major fault line within the Republican party. It is an interesting issue, where there is a large subset of people who are very concerned about immigration, but the leadership of both parties has a different view. I personally think that this issue is going to become a much larger political driver, but that is uncertain.

Also, you're probably correct that my statement about the lack of immigration enforcement was misleading as written. That was an exaggeration for rhetorical effect, but it was not clear that was my intent. There is, of course, some immigration enforcement action being taken by the federal government. My view is that the Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it, isn't really interested in doing anything decisive about the problem. I also think it is reasonable to state that federal policy has been to tolerate the presence of millions of illegal immigrants, and that the current administration is more interested in taking the position that enforcement cannot solve the problem, and that "comprehensive" immigration reform is the only solution, when a substantial fraction of the public would like to see far more aggressive enforcement than is currently on the table. Obviously, I know many here disagree.

Neither party truly wants to do anything about illegal immigration. Republicans tacitly support it because they benefit from the labor. Democrats tacitly support it because they don't want to lose their Hispanic base. Leaders may talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, neither side really wants to crack down because it doesn't make practical sense for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not necessarily a political decision. If, as you claim, reasonable lawyers could well disagree, then isn't it entirely possible that Obama's lawyers, reasonable lawyers, looked at it and reasonably came to the conclusion that it did violate the law and, as such, he felt duty bound to take action? Your argument assumes that he simply didn't like the law and looked for a way to block it. That is certainly within the realm of possibility, but it is a strong accusation to make absent evidence. I think it's far more likely he and his lawyers (remember, Obama was a constitutional lawyer himself) looked at it and immediately felt that it violated the Constitution and, as such, took action.

No, I don't think a reasonable lawyer could look at the question and say there is only one answer and that the government is "duty-bound" to do anything. I think any reasonable lawyer would look at the question, see that there are decent arguments on both sides, and conclude that the executive has some discretion in the matter. Now I may be wrong about that -- as I said, I haven't studied the specific cases on the point -- but my general knowledge of preemption law suggests that this is a pretty close question.

You're still positing an unfair dilemma for Obama. Even if it is as you say, if he decides NOT to proceed, he is using discretion. If he chooses to proceed, he is making a political decision. How fair is that?

This I don't follow. It's not "unfair" that when Obama confronts a policy decision and makes it (as is his right), that political consequences follow from that. That's just how politics works. How else could it be? The buck stops there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not necessarily a political decision. If, as you claim, reasonable lawyers could well disagree, then isn't it entirely possible that Obama's lawyers, reasonable lawyers, looked at it and reasonably came to the conclusion that it did violate the law and, as such, he felt duty bound to take action? Your argument assumes that he simply didn't like the law and looked for a way to block it. That is certainly within the realm of possibility, but it is a strong accusation to make absent evidence. I think it's far more likely he and his lawyers (remember, Obama was a constitutional lawyer himself) looked at it and immediately felt that it violated the Constitution and, as such, took action.

No, I don't think a reasonable lawyer could look at the question and say there is only one answer and that the government is "duty-bound" to do anything. I think any reasonable lawyer would look at the question, see that there are decent arguments on both sides, and conclude that the executive has some discretion in the matter. Now I may be wrong about that -- as I said, I haven't studied the specific cases on the point -- but my general knowledge of preemption law suggests that this is a pretty close question.

You're still positing an unfair dilemma for Obama. Even if it is as you say, if he decides NOT to proceed, he is using discretion. If he chooses to proceed, he is making a political decision. How fair is that?

This I don't follow. It's not "unfair" that when Obama confronts a policy decision and makes it (as is his right), that political consequences follow from that. That's just how politics works. How else could it be? The buck stops there.

But just because there are political consequences doesn't mean it is a "political decision". If he decided NOT to pursue a case, to use "discretion" as you call it, would that also have been a political decision? Or is it only a political decision when he does something you don't agree with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But just because there are political consequences doesn't mean it is a "political decision". If he decided NOT to pursue a case, to use "discretion" as you call it, would that also have been a political decision? Or is it only a political decision when he does something you don't agree with?

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I said it is a policy decision, and yes, it is one either way. That's what Presidents do: they make policy. I'm not using "political" as a way of name-calling, so we're probably misunderstanding each other a bit.

Basically I just think that the Obama Administration had a lot of potential choices available to it in terms of how to respond to the Arizona law, and it chose one that I think (1) was the most aggressive of the available choices and (2) was not compelled by the law, although it likely rests on a defensible interpretation of the law. (Indeed, they have convinced one judge that their interpretation of the law is correct.) Additionally, I think that choice illustrates that the Administration's policy priorities are quite different from what the majority of Americans want done about immigration -- yes, this is a disputed issue and I may be wrong about that -- and that, as a result, the Dems are likely to pay a political price.

[Anonymous]

I agree with some pps who say that both parties are not willing to take a stance on this issue. I am disappointed that the lawmakers and politicians are unwilling to enforce the laws.
I think that many illegal immigrants are a bit unrealistic. They should always understand that AT ANY TIME, they could be deported. No entitlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But just because there are political consequences doesn't mean it is a "political decision". If he decided NOT to pursue a case, to use "discretion" as you call it, would that also have been a political decision? Or is it only a political decision when he does something you don't agree with?

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I said it is a policy decision, and yes, it is one either way. That's what Presidents do: they make policy. I'm not using "political" as a way of name-calling, so we're probably misunderstanding each other a bit.

Basically I just think that the Obama Administration had a lot of potential choices available to it in terms of how to respond to the Arizona law, and it chose one that I think (1) was the most aggressive of the available choices and (2) was not compelled by the law, although it likely rests on a defensible interpretation of the law. (Indeed, they have convinced one judge that their interpretation of the law is correct.) Additionally, I think that choice illustrates that the Administration's policy priorities are quite different from what the majority of Americans want done about immigration -- yes, this is a disputed issue and I may be wrong about that -- and that, as a result, the Dems are likely to pay a political price.

It seemed as if you were using the term "political" in a disparaging way, as it often is (and sometimes rightfully so). Some decisions are politicized that ought not be. Right now, it is hard to know exactly what motivated Obama's decision. I would agree that it was the most aggressive, but I don't know that we can concur decisively that it was not compelled by the law. If Obama and his advisers read the law and genuinely felt that it violated the Constitution, they were in fact duty bound to challenge it. If, as you contend, they recognized the tenuousness of the situation and opted to pursue this case as a result of policy, that is a different matter.

To analogize, suppose we had a "pro-gun" President. If a state made an attempt to ban all gun sales, he would rightfully pursue that case as well. And he might receive flak for making a policy decision and pursuing a case in promotion of his own beliefs but, in reality, regardless of his beliefs on guns, it would be his charge to challenge that law. That would be neither a political or policy decision. If Obama and his people genuinely believe that this law is in direct violation of the Constitution, there is nothing political or policy-driven by their decision to pursue, even if in doing so they ultimately promote their policies.

And there is certainly the possibility of him losing public support over doing so. Personally, I applaud any leader who is willing to do what he thinks is right at the expense of votes. Far too often our leaders are more interested in their jobs than actually, ya know, leading.