United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island?

[Sarajmt]

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island?   [Andy McCarthy]

Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegals to the feds for deportation. Besides the usual profiling blather, critics have trotted out the now familiar saw that such procedures hamstring police because they make immigrants afraid to cooperate. But it turns out that it’s the Rhode Island police who insist on enforcing the law. As Cornell law prof William Jacobson details at Legal Insurrection, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the state police commander, “refuses to hide from the issue,” explaining, ”I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.”

If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.

Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?

Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?

So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjkzMmNjMjIxMjIxYWNmODA0OGI3ZTU5MmIyZGUyMjg

[Sarajmt]

I think it would be best if you were to read the following links  They can explain this much better than I.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126529117&ps=rs
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126741982
http://www.azgovernor.gov/AZBorderSecurity.asp

The articles from NPR are rather short and to the point.  The Arizona link has a vast array of information.  They explain the need much better than I can.

[teko]

The lawsuit against Arizona if I remember right is not about what is in the law but the fact that these decisions, per the consitution are under the control of the federal government. Not the states.

Now, as we all know for years and years no politician has wanted to get involved with this because it benefited them not to. Including your favorite past presidents. Obama has made a call to tackle this situation NOW, but guess what? The party of no doesnt want to mess up the election or the possibility of getting their power back. Claiming Obama needs to take amnesty off the table, but guess what? Obama wants them to pay as well? Gee! How about that, and with that said has anyone listened to hear what HE actually thinks or is it all third party info from the entertainment world.

[teko]

Then why a new law? Explain that one to me. Why didnt they just enforce the laws to begin with instead of all this drama?

[Sarajmt]

If you've read the entire text of the Arizona law, it does not differ in the enforcement laws from federal law.  Arizona just repeated it.  Rhode Island is simply doing the same thing but didn't pass a law.  Arizona is under siege.  They need something on the books that clarifies and affirms federal law.  Just my opinion.

[teko]

And as far as the black panthers? They are the same as the KKK, only different color. Everyone knows that and has known that forever. No one is taking up for the black panthers, but in the situation at hand, it seems to have something to do with Obama not having them persecuted? However, one interesting point that no one is making is that not one voter complained of intimidation? Isnt that curious? And is that supposed to mean Obama had something to do with the incident personally or because he is partially black let it slide? We have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous here.

[teko]

Could it be that RI, didnt pass another law? Just enforcing what is already on the books?

[Dazon50]

Thanks for the post...keep them coming.