EckerNet.Com

At the 11th hour of Arizona\’s SB1070 taking effect, the Obama Administration brought the state of Arizona to court to block it\’s enforcement.  Judge Susan Bolton subsequently issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of certain provisions of the law.  Open borders activists have hailed this as a great victory while border enforcement activists have criticized the injunction.  So let\’s take a look at what exactly all happened today.

First of all those hoping to see the entire SB1070 tossed out, not only did that not happen today but it\’s not going to happen as SB1070 includes a severability clause, which means that if an invalid portion can be separated from the rest, it shall be toss out while the rest of the bill remains in place.  So let\’s set that aside right now.

The claim of the Obama Administration was that \”the power to regulate immigration is vested exclusively in the federal government, and that the provisions of S.B. 1070 are therefore preempted by federal law\” and they sought a preliminary injunction to block it\’s enforcement.  So what standard do we need to meet for that?

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.

So how did that work out for them??  Well for most of the bill the Judge decided that the Obama Administration was not likely to succeed on the merits of the challenge.  But there were four provisions that she did rule were likely to succeed on the merits in showing that those sections are preempted by federal law.

• Portion of Section 2 – requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person
• Section 3 – creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers
• Portion of Section 5 – creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work
• Section 6 – authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

So why were these blocked? Well essentially it comes down to the interpretation of the specific wording of some of the sentences in these sections.  Which if you follow strictly to the letter of each sentence in isolation, suggests that law enforcement would have to verify the immigration status of every person they had even the most basic contact with, even if they knew they were a US citizen.  Obviously this would quickly overwhelm the Federal Government with requests and therefore would impede upon the Federal Government\’s ability to perform it\’s immigration enforcement duties.

So what\’s the direct impact of this injunction?  Well let\’s take a look at those provisions that were blocked.

Well the blocked portion of Section 2 pretty much has no impact, because even though it was the heart of SB 1070, it was actually MORE restrictive than federal law.  According to the SCOTUS ruling in Muehler vs Mena (2005), officers don\’t even need reasonable suspicion to question a person regarding their immigration status.  So actually this preliminary injunction increases the ability of local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.

As far as Section 3 goes, it doesn\’t matter as this was already a federal crime (8 USCS 1304(a) and 1306(e)), so nothing changes by blocking this portion.

Portion of Section 5, well this is already covered by a variety of state and federal laws, including the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

And finally Section 6, this is already covered by Arizona law.  In fact the training materials for law enforcement states that this provision does not appear to change Arizona law.  Therefore repealing it basically does nothing.

So for those ranting and raving about this preliminary injunction, please understand that this has virtually no impact on the ability of Arizona law enforcement to do their job.  And this is just the start of the case, as Arizona can still argument for the merit of one or more of these provisions.  Moreover when you consider the political implications, as I will tomorrow, this is a win-win situation for border enforcement no matter how this turns out.

I\’ve participated in the illegal immigration debate for a long time, and the talking points from the open borders crowd tends to be the same.  In between cries of \”racism\” and \”bigotry\” comes the usual strawman argument of \”well you can\’t deport them all!\”  It\’s always seemed an odd talking point, seeming to gleefully accept the problem is just as bad as border enforcement activists suggest.  And it seems a bit disingenuous to claim that two extremes are only way to conduct things, either let everyone in or kick everyone out.

Of course, border enforcement activists like myself have insisted for years that there is lots of middle ground on this.  For example, if you force employers to check their new employees for legal status, illegal aliens will self-deport when there are no opportunities for employment.  Between that and the attrition of basic law enforcement, the problem pretty much takes care of itself over a few years.

Well as it turns out, that viewpoint was both correct and far too pessimistic on it\’s timeline.

The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.

The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.

In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.

On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighborhoods in central and west Phoenix

\”They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded even before the law even comes into effect,\” said Aguilar, 28, a mother of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.

As it turns out it hasn\’t taken a single arrest or even a single status inquiry to accomplish a good portion of the job.  All it took is a government willing to stand up and enforce it\’s own laws.  These illegal aliens have stayed until now because they recognize the open secret that the Federal Government is a joke.  It\’s more likely to pander to what it considers future voters than actually enforce it\’s own laws.

Instead a state government with far less resources but with far more testicular fortitude, just has to threaten to enforce the law and illegal aliens scatter.  Nobody is under any illusions that all those illegal aliens are returning to their homes.  There are still plenty of other states which haven\’t yet supplanted the Federal Government spinal absenteeism.  But don\’t think that the lesson of Arizona is lost on all those states or their citizens, especially in these times of economic hardships and budget deficits, it appears as if La Bush\’s Law may have reached it\’s conclusion.

In honor of Obama\’s immigration speech today I figured this was an awfully fitting video to offer.

Recently some of the media was trying to push the meme that the border wasn\’t really that violent, we\’re just fine.  Turns out a lot of people on the border disagree.  And for those of you unfamiliar with the border issue, this is a good video to get a sense of what things are like for those on the border.

Takeaway phrase from the video clip is that the government has abandoned them…..which is completely true.  And it\’s not even a partisan thing, or at least it shouldn\’t be.  Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty, but seems like only the Democrats and a few token RINOs are against fixing that.

Reportedly President Obama was recently heard to utter \”Plug the damn hole!\”. I heard the comment out of context so I was momentarily confused regarding which hole he was referring to. Several possible options immediately came to mind…

Was it Biden\’s mouth?? From which so much comedy gold easily flows…much to the embarrassment, if they\’re smart enough to be, of the Obama Administration.

Was it the holes in the border? The holes through which millions of illegal aliens, including violent criminals, constantly flows. So much so that Arizona finally gave up on the federal government doing it\’s job and adopted Federal (and California) law, as it\’s own.

Was it the holes in public opinion? Obviously there must be one somewhere because Obama\’s approval ratings have been sinking across all demographics.

Was it Nashville, TN? The city which was under several feet of water for a days and days without warning….not that you\’d know it from the federal governments non-response.

What it TARP and the bailouts?? Through which we\’ve pissed away billions of dollars to no apparent benefit, except to nationalize the auto and student loan industries?

Was it Obamacare? Through which we\’re about to piss away billions of dollars more, to no apparent benefit, and quite possibly catastropic results???

Was it the upcoming The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010?? A bill which pisses away even more billions by increasing spending by $174 billion, through $40 billion in tax increases and $134 billion in deficit spending…again to no apparent benefit.

Was it the SEIU?? Through which, while most Americans 401K plans are sinking, we\’re about to bailout underfunded and over generous union pension plans to the tune of $165 billion….because union bosses mismanaged the funds during good times, such as spending $85 million on getting Obama elected.

Is it the spot where the federal budget should be?? Because while they have an 18-seat majority in the Senate, more than a 70-seat majority in the House, and they control the White House, they still can\’t manage to even propose a budget….which leaves two possibilities, incompetence or apathy.

What hole was it that Obama angerly interrupted an aide and demanded that they \”plug the damn hole!\”

Turns out it was just that oil leak in the Gulf…the one the Federal government dithered about upon for over a week and still haven\’t gotten their act in gear. Turns out they are considering taking over from BP to address the issue….even though, by their own admission, they couldn\’t do any better job than BP has done.

At least BP is trying, which is more than can be said for the Federal government, as the state of Louisana can tell you.

At least BP is accountable to stockholders, who is the federal government accountable to….the voters?? The Obama administration has long since shown they don\’t give a damn what the voters think, as adequately evidenced by Obamacare, the AZ immigration bill, terrorist trials, bailouts and their rampant deficit spending.

No Obama, the only hole I wish was filled is the gaping chasm which appears to exist between your ears.

[Crossposted at True North]

In a move only he could be proud of, President Obama has announced he\’s deploying 1,200 National Guard troops on our southern border.  If this sounds familiar it\’s because President Bush tried it to shore up his non-existant pro-enforcement credentials in advance of his attempt to pass another amnesty for illegal aliens.  President Obama\’s move is just as transparent.

President Obama almost certainly realizes the immigration issue has gotten away from him and he\’s on the wrong side of a losing issue.  He need to give his Democrats something (ANYTHING!) to hang their hat on, and this is it.  He\’ll attempt to show what a pro-enforcement group Democrats can be by putting a paltry 1200 troops on the southern border.

The southern border is roughly 2000 miles long…so even if they are all standing their 24/7 that still amounts to less than one Guard member per mile.  Think you (or anyone) can actually monitor, much less enforce, a mile of (often difficult) terrain?  Especially when your orders don\’t allow you to do much, essentially leaving you to be overrun by heavily armed drug runners.

At best, putting troops on the border is a stop-gap measure…but there has to be something in the future to close that \”gap\”, something has to change.  Unlike the claims of those seeking a comprehensive immigration reform (AKA amnesty), we could make great strides towards closing that gap by just enforcing existing laws, which is all Arizona is attempting to do. But that\’s not going to happen when you have the head of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) declaring they won\’t process illegal aliens referred by Arizona.  And you have ICE modifying their policies such that they no longer will attempt to detain and deport illegal aliens at all.

This desperate move is transparent scrambling to regain control of an issue they are quickly losing in the realm of public opinion.  Problem is the that public wasn\’t real receptive to endless demagoguery of the Arizona bill by the media, the White House and the Democrats, it seems unlikely they\’ll be impressed with this either.

[Crossposted at True North]

…but not in the way the Democrats have hoped.

The issue the Democrats were hoping to use as a wedge issue is now looking to become a political pitfall for them.  And the shovel that dug that pit, is the Arizona Immigration law.  Democrats heavily sold into the idea that by opposing the new legislation.  Obama called the bill \”misguided\”.  Obama\’s Attorney General is considering challenging the bill, in what would be a rare move by the federal government itself, challenging a state law.  Democratic safehavens such as LA and San Fransisco have boycotted Arizona over the the law.  The mega-union SEIU has also pledged to boycott Arizona.  Sharpton has pledged to defeat the bill.  Congressional Democrats called for the elimination of the bill.  Senate Democrats also attacked the bill.

But from the very start there were warning signs.  Initials polls showed the public, especially in border states, supported the legislation.  Initial glances at the bill showed little basis to oppose the bill on legal grounds.  In fact, most arguments against the bill merely highlighted the complete failure the Federal government has been on the issue.  Yet Democrats moved forward opposing the bill, hoping that they could still make a wedge issue out of this.  Now it appears things have taken a turn for the worse for Democrats.

Basically as people learn more about the bill, public approval has grown.  The problem, for Democrats, gets worse when you dig into the particulars of the polls.  The opinion of Democrats has heavily shifted in favor of the bill.  And while Democrats are now evenly split for/against the bill, a large majority of Democrats are supportive of the concept beyond the Arizona bill, which suggests that Democrats are no longer believing their own press.  Independents support has grown.  And even youth, where support is the lowest, is in favor of the Arizona immigration bill.  It\’s become such a problem that opponents are now dropping their attempts to kill the bill through a referendum, since it\’s likely to make the bill even stronger due to overwhelming public support.

So sure, the public supports the Arizona bill, but it\’s a minor issue right?  Well, actually the public is increasingly viewing immigration as one of the nation\’s most important issues.  In fact, a full 10% call it the nation\’s most important issue, above the economy, jobs, health care, etc.

Democrats have doubled down on the issue in which the public, including independents, has heavily turned against them and the importance of the issue is growing.  Immigration will certainly become a wedge issue in 2010….but it\’ll be a wedge issue for Democrats.