Here is Law Professor Ann Althouse's headline at her post:
[T]he Arizona law would place a undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities.She is quoting a Tuesday WashPost article.♠ Comments are at 169 as I put together this post.
Here is the Department of Justice webpage, with relevant links. The key link is to the petition.♥
Ms Althouse asks:
The courts are supposed to buy the paradox: Because the federal government can't do very much about a problem — or chooses not to do much — an individual state can't act either, no matter how bad things get within that state."No matter how bad things get with that state." We need to think about that for a moment. We need to think about the implications of democracy failing in Mexico and the drug lords taking over. It may sound far fetched, but it is not out of the question. What is the plan? Some background follows.
Here is the new four star commander of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM), Admiral James A Winnefeld, Jr, talking about the issue of drug violence along the Mexican border:
On Mexican drug violence, Adm. Winnefeld said he has increased the priority for dealing with drug cartels, which continue to operate in the United States. "I'm ramping up the priority on our very close partnership with Mexico, a very interesting nation with some very courageous political leadership right now," he said.The drug war is turning worse and inching closer. In June we had this news item on 39 killed in two separate incidents. Then there is this about drug gangs trying to influence upcoming elections.
Adm. Winnefeld said the "struggle" over Mexican drug trafficking and violence is taking place in several different areas, or "theaters," including inside the United States, in Mexico, along the U.S. border with Mexico and near Mexico's southern borders, as well as in the seas near the U.S. and Mexican coasts.
"So as you examine those theaters, where are the decisive theaters? The two real decisive theaters are the U.S. and Mexico," he said. "Inside the U.S., [it's] reducing demand for drugs, for example, with reducing the movement of weapons and cash to the south into Mexico, and also going after the tentacles of the cartel's networks that have found their way into the U.S., to include gangs and the like."
Drug hitmen have forced a string of candidates out of municipal races in two states on the U.S. border and killed at least one mayoral hopeful, using terror to try to dictate who will run cities and towns along key smuggling routes into the United States.So, we have one analyst with this tentative assessment of the situation:
The point of this study is that the United States and other states in the Western Hemisphere face extensively networked, agile criminal insurgencies that are challenging directly political institutions, security and even democratic culture. And we are losing. Unless the course of the conflict is reversed, our institutions and those of our neighbors may eventually be suborned by the corrosive effects of corruption, intimidation and decay."And we are losing." This paragraph says that things are bad and getting worse and we need to pay attention. This paragraph says "we are losing". But, that is more policy than law and is more about November than about the DOJ bringing suit.
Thinking about the possible futures we face, one is a future where the number of illegal immigrants in the United States is not 12 million, plus or minus, but something like 20 million or 30 million, as Mexicans flee the violence in their own nation and the collapse of their democratic institutions (Mexico is a nation of a bit over 111 million).
In Texas or New York illegal immigrants are useful, hard working, members of the community. But, if the drug war moves North they will not just be more victims, but will become pawns in that war, since their status will make them vulnerable to intimidation.
Then there is this item about Rhode Island already employing the rules that Arizona is still waiting to employ.
And, the author cites some case known as Muehler v. Mena. (I have got to go to law school, just to be moderately informed as a US Citizen.) The author points out that Muehler v. Mena gives the police the authority to ask detained individuals about their immigration status—SCOTUS ruling unanimously.
And, will we see discussion of Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3?
Finally for those who have made it this far, I have put forward my approach to illegal immigration. It is a three part plan and includes a path to citizenship. It is from two months ago, but is, I think, still sound.
Regards — Cliff
♠ This is the updated Wednesday article in The WashPost.
♥ I loved the bringing in of the Interstate Commerce Clause. "67. Section 5 of S.B. 1070 (adding Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-2929) restricts the interstate movement of aliens in a manner that is prohibited by Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution." Like that is a bad thing.