Arizona isn't racist, but it isn't right
And that's the truth
Arizona isn't racist, but it isn't right
On Wednesday, the court will take up the most controversial topic since women decided to nurse in public: immigration. There are a lot of people who are offended by seeing a child munching on Mommy in public, but an infinitely greater group who are angry at illegal aliens sucking at Aunt Samantha’s teat.
So, the justices on the High Court will have to decide whether to invalidate a system of laws that make this country inhospitable to what some call interlopers and others call integral parts of the economy, or whether to uphold its fundamental tenets on the grounds that the federal government abdicated responsibility and so the 10th Amendment allows the states to take over.
I’m watching closely, not only because this butters my own personal bread (I’m an immigration lawyer, as regular readers know) but also because I think it says a very great deal about who we are as a nation.
No one more than me is aware of the chaos that occurs at the border on a regular basis. Border patrol agents are dying, as are immigrants who decide to risk that Rio Grande crossing in the hopes of a better life. And to those who are turning up their noses at the ‘better life’ comment, you have probably never lived in a country where 99% of the people would risk their lives to have what the whiny 99% here already have.
But that’s no excuse for letting people violate our immigration laws, which stink, by the way. We have to both revamp the system which makes it virtually impossible for skilled workers and close family members to immigrate, and which also allows dangerous criminals to prey on citizens.
But, and this is important, states can’t just start enforcing their own version of justice willy nilly because the federal government hasn’t done enough. It hasn’t, that’s the tragic and infuriating truth. But unless we want to rewrite the Supremacy Clause and ignore federal pre-emption, the court has to invalidate Arizona.
And then, our cowardly and ineffective Congress needs to do something about this mess. Because Aunt Samantha’s breasts are drying up.
Comments (57)
Christine, you're making me blush!!
Problems that can be solved should be solved. Immigration process is one of them. I'm not a lawyer, but through a past personal relationship I witnessed the complexities of an expires student visa first-hand.
So many other problems become less so when people who want to become citizens can become citizens. There would be more taxpayers, more insured motorists on the roads, and more people covered by health care, more taxes collected at all levels of government, and most importantly,more participants in our political process....which will result in fewer ER vists, fewer criminals, and lower costs in law enforcement, education and health care.— Lancer248- Lancer, lovely thoughts. Now tell me about Hope and Change. I need a few laughs before I turn on the nightly news. "Problems that can be solved should be solved." And just what does that mean. It is not "should" that matters, it is "how." I really would not want to ride across a bridge that you built.
Christine is an immigration lawyer. So I know where she is coming from. Hers is a front line view. I kid her here and she knows it.
But let's get real folks. It takes more than Hope and Change. It takes arduous dedication by talented people. Don't forget to include that in the mix.
OK, Christine, no wager. But you can be sure I will be back in a few weeks with an "I told you so."
Central really fell apart when it went coed. And Lancerr, I am just seeing if you can take it. I am sure you can. Almost anyone from Dear Old High, can take it. Even me.— PlumberJoe - Lancer, you have demonstrated wisdom and common sense, based on both experience and...common sense. Bravo, my friend. And I know about student visas, there are a lot of traps to fall into there. Hope you were able to navigate it without too much angst.— Christine
Here is an easy shot on goal for you, Christine.
Since 8 justices are hearing the AZ case, should we not expect respect from them by their not settling for a 4 - 4 tie? That would be a great big cop out and a disgrace.— PlumberJoe- Christine,
Unfortunately I broke up with the girl for reasons other than her associations with foreign citizens who no longer had permission to live in the US. I wish I could tell you things worked out - but I don't know. They were in the process of righting the ship with an immigration lawyer when I last saw them, so I hope all is well with them.
I do know that two otherwise reasonable, college-educated persons were relegated to meager cash-based per diem employment without health insurance beacuse of their willfull choice to let their visas expire after graduation in 2002 because of a fear that their application for permanent residency might be denied since they were from a North African nation, Arabic, and Muslim. (Ah! good times)
For them it was a risk worth taking because it seemed such an easy route to follow. Really though, they were just young & naive and they did not fully understand the consequences of their choice until they had children - and discovered their education was useless and their future bleak without proper documents. A hard lesson to learn.
On a different note, the plumber is making assumptions about my convictions without having asked me of them. He must have slept through civics class at Central. I know they taught me better.— Lancer248 - The justices need to simply apply the law correctly. The states are usurping a privilege (and obligation) of the federal government. The Tenth Amendment gives them no legitimate authority to do so. If the Arizona law were directed at curing police power and security problems without being directed at immigration, there might be a conceivable loophole there. However, it is clear that the law was aimed at curbing immigration, which a state simply cannot do. I would think that Scalia and Thomas, who in the past have been loathe to enlarge the powers of the federal government, would be equally loathe to allow the states to exceed their own jurisdictions. If the Arizona law is upheld, it would be a decision on par with Roe v. Wade in its quality (and you know how I feel about that)— Christine
- Politics have high-jacked a responsible federal response to illegal immigration. Jan Brewer is my hero. Her constituency has spoken loud and clear. The best part about AZ's law is that almost every other sentence begins with "persuant to federal...." which pretty much negates the argument that AZ's law is racist or unfair. The way it reads, it makes it's own case that the federal government has abdicated its responsibilities. AZ and its US citizens pay a much heftier price for that, given their geography, than other states.
Lancer, you suggest penalties. What greater penalty could there be than deportation? I can't imagine the pain it would bring to my father if he brought me here as an infant and I got bounced back to a place I have no memory of whatsoever. It's not that the penalty isn't steep - we don't enforce it.— sadim - Sadim, just saying you are doing something 'pursuant to federal law' does not mean you can do it if you are not a federal agent. That is why the feds have delegated state actors specifically under certain programs to execute police powers. There is no genius in this law, it is simply a political response to a federal political failure. I'm pissed off (legal term) at the feds, disgusted with Congress and their lackeys, and think that President Obama AND the GOP are equally responsible for the logjam (although to be fair, the GOP has been much more intransigent on these issues.) Sadim, I understand your point. But my point is that we need to do triage, deal with the border first as well as criminal aliens but not destroy families that yes, broke the law but do not deserve the extremely cruel penalty of separation for 10 or more years. Anyone who knows me knows I am not a bleeding heart. The silence of the liberals who usually come on this board, including the crazed lady we all know and love, is telling. They are angry that they can't attack my argument, so they lie low in their damp little trenches until they can come back on a topic like gay marriage or abortion or...um...nursing mothers. But the truth is this, and it is not a political one: if we ignore the mandate of the Constitution because it's a politically popular move, we lose the right to have this magnificent document in the first place.— Christine
- Christine I am truly surprised that you do not understand the Arizona issue. How much clearer can it be. The executive office of the federal government refuses to enforce the immigration laws. Arizona is not creating laws in lieu of the Congress. Arizona is implementing the laws already passed by the Congress. Neither the Supremacy Clause nor the 10th Amendment conflict with that.
Every person has a right to self defense. Every state has a right to self defense.
Arizona is defending itself against those who are breaking federal law. It is technically the same as a citizens arrest. The 10th Amendment grants to the states the powers not granted to the Congress. If the executive refuses to enforce the law, then it is a defacto default of such federal law and the states then have the right to enact a duplicate of the law via the 10th Amendment.
How is that for a Roe v Wade decision. Even Sodameyor will agree.— PlumberJoe - Granted that the laws are whacky and need fixing. Granted that immigrants with legitimate gripes need the benefits of the law.
But We The People need recourse when the executive falls down on the job. There is impeachment, there is reelection and now there will be the AZ approach, too.— PlumberJoe - I am not an expert on illegal immigration. In general, I support amnesty for those who are already in the United States and a revamped immigration system to make it easier for those who wish to immigrate. This may be simple minded, but starting with a clean slate and new rules seems the most beneficial to everyone.
The immigration system is horrible. We just completed an 8 month headache to secure an immigration visa for my wife. I thought spouse visas were supposed to be the easy kind. I can't imagine simply trying to immigrate without any family ties. The good news is she is now legal and I'll be posting at more reasonable times in a couple weeks!— weir99 - Lancer who are you to rewrite the immigration laws. You say, "If you're here because you smuggled yourself in, but have no criminal record, you pay a fine, and do some jail time (say 30 days + 7 days for each year you were here),.." And you offered other suggestions as well.
I say if you are here because you smuggled yourself in, you do hard labor for 150 years. My way is harsh, Your way is the bleeding heart. What makes you right, except that you are more merciful. Might does not make right, nor does mercy.
BTW I did not sleep through civics class, but my notebook did fall on the floor, all the pinup pictures fell out, face side up, and the teacher walked over, looked at each and noted that if I did as well in my class work, I was going to receive an A. Speaking of Aunt Samantha's breasts, there was a boatload on the floor that day.— PlumberJoe - Weir, great news. Congratulations. Bring your family to the U.S. and we will all party.
You and I differ on this immigration issue. Who is to say who is right.
The U.S. started over with new immigration rules more than once. And each time they got fouled up. How many times would you suggest we go down that road. And more importantly, how do we finally get it right?— PlumberJoe - I heard the same Solicitor General who had a horrible time defending O-Care had a tough time today.— Thoughtful&concernedvoter
- Well, what an instructive series of comments and such a relief to be about issues and not personalities.
I side with Christine because her argument makes sense especially coming from someone in the field. We have a really messy immigration situation with too many indocumented workers (although the news channels say the number is declining, am I right?)
But a messy situation is not improved by an even messier state law that assumes powers that are not truly part of our consitution.
I diagree with Lancer only on the birth issue, since we still have a 14th amendment and we cannot usurp that with a state law.
I hope the SCOTUS overturns the AZ law as it should.
— Magistra
Popular Posts
About this blog
See Christine Flowers on Channel 6's "Inside Story" Sunday at 11:30 a.m.
Christine M. Flowers
Daily News Columnist
Email Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com Reach Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com.
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: