DESPITE THE FACT THAT CA ATTORNEY
GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS HAS DECLARED THAT NEARLY HALF THE MURDERS IN MEXIFORNIA
ARE BY MEXICAN GANGS, AND THAT THE STATE of CA PUTS OUT $20 BILLION PER YEAR IN
WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, SHE IS PUSHING THE LA RAZA SUPREMACY AGENDA WITH THE
SUPREME COURT!
DEMS - THE PARTY FOR LA RAZA
ILLEGALS - THE LEGALS STILL GET THE BILLS FOR THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE AND
CRIME TIDAL WAVE!
California Sides with Illegal Aliens
before the Supreme Court
Last week, the
State of California and several other states, filed a brief with the United
States Supreme Court urging the Court to strike down Arizona's immigration
enforcement law, SB 1070. (California Amicus Brief) The Supreme Court is
scheduled to hear oral arguments on the Obama Administration's challenge to SB
1070 April 25th and in anticipation, dozens of interested parties,
organizations, and even foreign governments have filed briefs both in support
and opposition to the law. The other states joining California in the amicus
brief are New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The core of
California's objection to SB 1070 rests on the notion that through SB 1070,
Arizona has impermissibly adopted its own removal policy — a power CA argues is
"exclusively [a] federal function." (CA Brief at 3) While states have
no authority to remove (deport) illegal aliens (nor is the state of Arizona
claiming such authority), California argues that the enforcement activities
Arizona is encouraging through SB 1070 – the identification, apprehension, and
detention of illegal aliens – are by definition part of the removal process.
Thus, Arizona has adopted its own "removal policy."
California then
argues that Arizona's removal policy, as embodied by SB 1070, is impermissible
because it conflicts with the federal removal "scheme." (Id.)
Federal law, California asserts, has long recognized that immigration
enforcement has "uniquely devastating effects" on "people who
are otherwise law abiding and productive members of society." (Id.)
Describing SB 1070 an "overzealous and indiscriminate attempt" to
enforce the law, California argues that Arizona's law conflicts with
"federal removal policy" in two ways. (CA Brief at 3, 9). First,
California claims that SB 1070 requires state and local officers to engage in
the arrest and detention of illegal aliens without any federal oversight.
Second, California argues that SB 1070 supplants the Executive Branch's
discretion over the administration of the removal process and thus
"interferes with the achievement of the federal priorities Congress has
set." (CA Brief at 3-4) California then concludes that because SB 1070
conflicts with this federal removal scheme, it is preempted by federal law.
Through this
argument, however, California ignores the simple fact that nothing in SB 1070
supplants the authority of the federal government to decide whether to remove
an illegal alien. To the contrary, SB 1070 merely requires Arizona officers to
verify immigration status in certain circumstances and report it to the federal
government. The law also creates state offenses that mirror already existing
federal laws.
California's
argument also ignores that numerous federal statutes actually authorize and
encourage local officers to identify, apprehend, and detain illegal aliens. For
example, Section 1373(c) of the United States Code requires that the federal
government respond to all local inquiries about immigration status. Section
1373(a)-(b) prohibits laws that interfere with the sharing of immigration data
between local governments and the federal government. And, Section 1357(g)(10)
provides that local law enforcement does not need to enter into an agreement
with the federal government to cooperate in the enforcement of immigration
laws. (See also INA § 287(g)(10))
In addition,
California ignores that the Administration itself will soon require all
jurisdictions – through the implementation of Secure Communities – to identify
illegal aliens booked at jails (before conviction). And, through regulations,
the Administration also requires that local jurisdictions detain illegal aliens
if federal immigration officers place a hold on them (called a detainer). (See
8 C.F.R. 287.7(d))
Finally,
California's argument ignores a plethora of case law that confirms that state
and local authorities have the inherent or general enforcement authority to assist
in the enforcement of immigration laws. See e.g. United States v.
Salinas-Calderon (10th Cir. 1982); United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez
(10th Cir. 1999).
SB 1070 therefore does
nothing more than further Congressional intent that local jurisdictions participate
in the identification, apprehension, and detention of illegal aliens. Moreover,
because Congress has encouraged, and in some cases required, local
jurisdictions to engage in these activities, California cannot reasonably argue
that they are equal to the removal of illegal aliens — a power Congress has
reserved for the federal government.
No comments:
Post a Comment