http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf
my thoughts are the Supreme Court struck down ability of local states to enforce federal law with local officers. The issue I will show is the idea that states can't enforce Federal laws is like saying that all other laws that are enforced by local are now also inabled to be enforced, bank robbery, taxes, financial crimes, criminals across boarders, state to state crime, international crimals. etc. This is the area I believe that the Supreme court did not sufficient logically battle on. As one could make the case if the FBI which was made to be a intergral single operation to stop bank robbery is the only one that can stop bank robbery enforce it or make laws about it. Then all local state and country bank robbery laws are also invalid as per this cases striking of ability of local enforcement laws.
Why can't the whole world just come and go as they please and take jobs without any legal process to allow us to use them as proper citizens.
"the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,
see §1227" pg 1
'Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland
Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing
illegal aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center,
which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and
local officials around the clock. P"
Areas they seem to use for bright lines for their logic.
1. Congress has exclusive governance over immigration. As per logic behind cites on pg 2. The then go to use a test word to show when congress leaves no room for others to regulate "pervasive" "no room to supplement" "confliction with federal law" "obstacle to execution of purpose and objectives to Congress" "“single integrated and all-embracing system" "“enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.” "“curtail or complement" these two seem to be the battle ground swords they will use if the first test logics are not passed. As logically through 10th Amendment rights to enforce federal laws we are not looking here at an issue of federal saying you can't enforce locally federal laws. But it seems that way. So lets unwind it and see if they do try and say that or if they prove that the local law went above and beyond changed or made addition.
Then the idea is if it is so the case that Arizona made additions to or auxilary to the idea of civil rights laws cases that will be fought on how one finds out if one is illegal as per local enforcement. I would say that immigration law states that if you immigrate here you have to speak english. That would give probable cause if you do not speak english you are probable an illegal.
so we move to the federal law difference of employer is a criminal and illegal immigrant gets civil penalites. lets see if they speak on how illegal immigration itself is a misdeamonor and any laws abiding to acting as a co conspiraty to the felonious employer law makes the issue not any more a misdeamnor but if rewritten would make the illegal immigrant a felon as per co conspirators to a crime being committed by the employer. being thus part of that crime knowingly. To amend this part of the logical battle so it is not to amend or auxillary but just to use plain law. The statute should say, if you are an illegal immigrant and you are a co conspirator in the felonious act of employing an illegal immigrant you are thus tryable in a felonous conspiracy. around there. For example if I rob a bank and my buddy drives he is also part of that crime. not auxillary not complement just criminal law.
"Congress decided it would
be inappropriate to impose criminal penalties on unauthorized employees." However did it decide that conspiracy laws or even. The law of helping a criminal ".....word logic is"
ya they go bonkers this makes no sense "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a
removable alien to remain in the United States" That is not true, illegal immigration is a felony, helping a felony is a crime, employing a immigrant is a crime, immigranting illegal is a crime. And therefore we have many criminal charges for them just being in the USA. Where the only way they can be here legally is if they are born as per the constitution. Which means things like learning english and fitting in so as not to break the law not committing offense like loitering, drug's, trash throwing. etc. That would be like saying I have robbed a bank. But because I robbed the bank that is not a general rule as me being a criminal. And if the FBI every puts to and two together I am not a criminal. The act of committing the crime makes one a criminal not not being caught. Federal codex then goes on to say if you wish to naturalize you must learn english. Then you would not have probable cause to have an officer warrantlessly arrest you.
Section 6 gives local more authority to arrest than Federal as they are not instructed to arrest. Which goes back to the falcious idea linking into a fallacy that it is not generaly a crime to be in the us illegally. That what this premise resides on. Again if a local police officer catches a bank robber with a ton of money in his car days after he committed the crime of bank robbery. Can the officer then show probable cause, as would an officer who found out a person in the US is not following Federal codex to naturalize by learning english. Let's say I go out in public in a well known criminal area. I wear dark clothes and a old man's mask. Plus I have a bag with a legion arrow on it. Then would local police knowing my description have probable cause years later to stop me. Thus symbols of a criminal should be defined in the law, I think language is the way we see bright line in immigration. Historically it was.
Then they move to no instruction by federal government. However, is federal law enough to be an instruction. Cause if not then the police could say that a lot of federal laws if not instructed by federal officers not my business.
"Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform an immigration officer’s functions" Which basically is any matter as per the law which this justice is writing very discriminatively towards liberal views. As he says that hte Federal government limits. Then pretty much gives the law that "federal law permits state officers to “cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension,
detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United
States,” §1357(g)(10)(B)," In criminal law that is everything that one does in crime prevention. There is no limitation in Federal law. As id, apprehend, detain or remove not lawfully here means no limitation this is ridiculous. Basically the judge says Fedearl government limits local officials. But then says Federal allow as before I read this then asked is federal law enough of a direction. Then he answeres with yes I am a dumb arse and very discriminative. By logic makes no sense and I lie by saying it is limited then sight the law that gives unlimited power to local in immigraiton powers. Do we have to go through political upheavil to follow federal law. If a DOJ Attorney Justice is racist has shown prejudice with regards to prosecuting racist hate criminals that threaten white children. Then shows prejudice by fighting for a gangster who was shot after many numerous obvious gang symbols, pictures, under age tattoos, the area was robbed a week before twice, nobody in the gated community knew the teenage gangster, and then he was disresepctfull to the land owner and community elder by beating on the head. I do not think so I think that it is enough that it is federal law as a direction. The Federal government does not get to pick out what states it wishes to destory by not allowing federal law to be upheld.
Then the justice who made a fallacious premise of being in the states unlawfully as defined in Federal law. Which he sites the term but does not give the definition to disprove his basese fallacious premise he rests his conclusion on. Says "fact conflicts with federal immigration law" The premise that the whole case I now seem to see being strucred around is that being in the US is not generally illegal. DOes not properly deal with the Federal legal definition of unlawful and lawful immigrant.
On top of creating a stick man premise for a very powerful case. We now have a blatant lie. That says Federal law limits local law on immigration. Then he cites a law that says local may assist in all parts of immigration enforcement. The consent is the law being written. The Attorney General does not get to say who can enforce laws and who can't. As that would allow nominalized destruction of states. Let's say federal drug laws. A Republican Attorney General comes in and says Chicago can't enforce federal drug laws. All local drug laws that are above or beyond are illegal and as I say you can't enforce federal it all rests on less than 20 officers for the whole state. That is the same thing as the majority of drugs come from illegal immigration underground railroads.
The logic I am now guessing he is going to go with his stick man premise and his lie. Is that becuase the attorney general did not send a friendly memo saying please work with us on immigration. That Arizona may not follow federal directed law.
The limitations that are civil rights limitations on all crimes are used which are general across teh board limitations. Which is not a limitation it is just a rule. Valid ID given, race, color, national origin
Found status checks does not intefer with federal law's.
Speaks on importance of local and federal law working together on immigration.
Now to go to the Opinion. I like how he says The USA filed the suit. No it did not half of the US voted against President Obama. President Obama's administration filed this case.
Goes over provisions at hand.
Requirements to federal law that implies requirements to apply for alien registration is a misdeamnor. Should have wrote it as a conspiracy to commit the felonious act of working for a felony committing a felony by employing the illegal. or it could state that social security fraud of tax fraud is a major feloniious activity and such the illegal immigrant plays a big part in those the aciton of the fraudulent activity is such and such conspiracy crime as per federal law. The funny part is that this case is really just constritionist issues. The law that was constructed was horribel constructed. After reading this I would make a law making it a state law to violate all the federal laws that are violated when an illegal makes its way through America. Which is illegal. Employing an illegal is committing fraud tax and id, along with ading and abiding a felony the employer, lving in the community without knowing english violates immigration laws, while also violates state laws of id. Which is a misdeamnor in every state.
Immigrants aid and abide white collar employment criminal law. That is how it should be written. For the employment part of the statute. the difference here is basic. I can look for cocain, and I can partake in it. The aciton that is legal is the buying and selling. The idea that the emoployee who knows of the criminal white coloar crime is not committing a crime. Is like saying the person faciliting the area to hold the cocain is not committing a crime.
next then "Two
other provisions give specific arrest authority and inves-
tigative duties with respect to certain aliens to state and
local law enforcement officers." Which are granted by the statute the lire wrote after he said immigration law was limited. Then stated local officers may investigate as per federal law. unless of course Attorney general did not send them the happy note.
Then they go into the investigation privileges granted by Federal immigration laws to local officers to assist in investigations. “the officer has
probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public
offense that makes the person removable from the United
States.” §13–3883(A)(5)
"provides that officers who conduct a stop, detention, or arrest must in some
circumstances make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government" This should be basic id law. That is already in place. If they have a state id and it ties back to the data base the rest is obvious.
Then they say the typical Federal Supremacy Clause Federal has broad power.
They speak on Uniformed naturalization that gives probable cause based on language and identification laws.
Then it speaks on foreign governments nationals. treatment.
"Unlawful entry and unlawful
reentry into the country are federal offenses. §§1325,
1326. Once here, aliens are required to register with the
Federal Government and to carry proof of status on their
person. See §§1301–1306. Failure to do so is a federal
misdemeanor. §§1304(e), 1306(a). Federal law also au
thorizes States to deny noncitizens a range of public bene
fits, §1622; and it imposes sanctions on employers who
hire unauthorized workers, §1324a."
here is my point again. If it is a federal misdemeanor not to carry id. Then basically if you do not have immigration papers. Which today is not papers it is a green card that is not even green anymore. Then the law just needs to be rewritten as per federal law. Unless of course they strike it down because federal law does not allow enforcement by local law. Which then I will say the lie which was then cited states they may assist. And the logic of every federal law from bank to tax, to local market laws is rests on local.
They then state that Congress had made laws on removal of aliens. inadmissible at the
time of entry, Which again destroys the whole cases premise as per the syllabus that generally being in the us unlawfully is not a crime.
"Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter." However showing his major lieing or discrimination in writings "Once here, aliens are required to register with the
Federal Government and to carry proof of status on their
person. See §§1301–1306. Failure to do so is a federal
misdemeanor. §§1304(e), 1306(a)." Removal is a criminal matter. As they are removed because they have no id no legal papers.
The process of removal stats with the misdeamnor charge of no id. So removal is a misdeamnor charge.
then they get into employment felony sympathiziation. Along with discreation based on something that should have been done whtn they entered which is "asylum and other discretionary relief allowing
them to remain in the country or at least to leave without
formal removal." Which is like stating that driving without a license is ok. Because I can do it after words. No that is a crime. And license are thought to be a major stopper to death and accidents.
Then they talk about families and jobs. No offense man but I can't get a job cause these employers would rahter not pay the taxes and proper federal taxes on employees. So I do not care. What about my family and the 30 million families in the US that are daily losing ability to pay for their babies. I can't go to Mexico and get a job or own a fancy ranch and leave my teenage kids there to tend to animals. They can. It is one thing I understand political asylum. As some latin countries are still at war. But not mexico better schools, better economy. Every country in the world has very strict immigration laws. I can't immigrate to any other country and get a job that makes $20 an hour or $15 an hour like most illegal's make. Cause of the felony crime of not having to pay the other fifty percent of the wages to taxes.
Mexico's immigration laws are so strict they have less than 1% of their economy is working immigrants. President Calderon complains about Mexican rights in the US. However, his immigration laws basically just throw them over the boarder or throw them away. They do not even get most of the time back to their original country. Just like Mexico's well know to escort criminal immigrants to US boarders and throw em across.
Then they speak on the idea of how returning some immigrants to their country of orign based on their records of crime is not allowed.
Then logic gets into why only federal should be allowed to do it. Which logically can in one sentence say you already spoke on the issue of working together. So this logical part for preempting a conclusive remark is not necessary. This whole logic of foreign countries is easily destroyed with the basic law of working together
Then they weight out basic presumption of costs and policing fed's and local. Where the court heavily just cites Federal agency exact numbers and shows discrimination with regards to state numbers. Which financially as per my research cost more than the Fed pays.
The show the red zones that are already being taken over by Mexican citizens that warn US citizens to stay off the land. As it is not their anymore.
Then we get into the issue of the case:
"The issue is whether, under preemption principles, federal law permits Arizona to imple
ment the state-law provisions in dispute."
The issue is differnet from the premise. The Premise of course is what is laying down the conclusion. Which is that generally immigrant aliens living in the US is not a crime. That is false, 100% false premise. However, this premise is then linked to the sword which is the issue. That will provide already a conclusion for the premise.
It goes Supremacy Clause I am the fed. I did not send you the happy note so I can destroy your ability to enforce laws.
First one is
"“willful failure to complete or carry an
alien registration document . . . in violation of 8 United
States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).” Ariz. Rev. Stat.
Ann. §11–1509(A) (West Supp. 2011). In effect, §3 adds a
state-law penalty for conduct proscribed by federal law"
In reality it does not add that at all. As per earlier case building citations "Once here, aliens are required to register with the
Federal Government and to carry proof of status on their
person. See §§1301–1306. Failure to do so is a federal
misdemeanor. §§1304(e), 1306(a)." therefore, this old man is lieing or again showing discrimination or not editing his documents. They added nothing. The Federal law makes it a misdeamenor.
So already this paragraphs premise. Is that as per built up per indicators of anything that is added is not proper. Is again false and a lie. As per the first premise of major consequence to this paper.
So my premise now based on this next paragraph. Is that any law created in mirror to a federal law by local may not be enforced. As the Arizona law of id, is a federal law in mirror and was stricken down not able to be enforced by local.
Issue of paragraph "The United States contends that this state enforcement mechanism intrudes on the field of alien registration" Intrusion being defined as stopping or hendering somehow. Which again this is going to be my exact premise. Which is that congress has made many federal laws that federal law enforces. However, thousands of federal laws construed just for federal are at local state levels and are paying billions to enforce themselves. This paragraph here destroy's all local and federal enforcement on federal laws. As per Eric Holders I did not send the happy note to you. So you can't enforce federal law in mirror.
The real issue here is this a mirrored law. As per syllabus stated federal laws. That local can enforce mirrored federal law. However, they will turn this into a false premise lie. That it is first not mirrored, which it is as per my situations of the justices own citation. Then they will state that local can't enforce it without consent from federal. Which is also not true law written is law enough.
they get to a specific element of why it is a single all embracing elemtn. Which is because it deals with foreign relations. As a commerce clause power. But so do drugs, narcotics and major international cartels. Then again we get to additional where it states they can enforce mirrored laws.
Then the courts use a totally different issue of enforcing alien registation based on this issue of a simple id check. A whole agency compared to a mirrored law shows possible trusion. A simple law checking id's is not comparable. Intrusive has its own federal bright lines. Then get into the mirrored federal laws of forced following federal carry id and properly applying for id. The law of program creation and agency creation is a complete different law all together and the justice does not speak on that matter at all. He just grabs something that benefits his idea. But does not meet the requirements of analogical legal analysts. The creation of an agency takes major issues in law. The mirroring of a federal law to enforce id. Is a total different ball game with way less laws on the books and less constitutional intrusion. As a matter of fact. There is no intrusion if a local police officer asks for an id. As they do that anyway.
This whole paragraph is boobling itself. The idea that it states the local can enforce federal law so long as not added too. Then says yes its mirrored. Then strikes it down is very boobling here.
Here is what I have to say real application of federally mirrored laws is reality. Arizona already spends billions on enforcing illegal immigration. It has since birth.
Where Congress occupies an entire field. What congress state or local. Even then congress occupies a lot of entire fields, port security, local police, international cartel crimes also local police, gang federal crime intervention local police, bank robberies federal local police.
Here is the real issue. Can a federally mirrored law be enforced. Not an agency, just a simple law. The law says yes local can assist.
Another issue is can federal stop specific states from enforcing federal laws. cause Texas already Florida and California already arrest folks based on non id laws. They take you down and id you.
As a state can I enforce federal law.
According to this case you can. As long as there is nothing added or complementing. they can assist. Cause every single law that is local except for a few are also federal and where born like the immigration department for federal law enforcement offices. That is another issue, born of federal agencies and their enforcement that local enforce also with analogy to immigration.
"Field preemption reflects a congressional decision to foreclose any
state regulation in the area, even if it is parallel to fed-
eral standards. See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464
U. S. 238, 249 (1984)."
Now this is bad law. As When Republicans get in they saw the Democratic Fed attack their rights to properly deal with crime. They will respond and it will be just as devastating to political supremacy votes. This is what I thought was going to happen give Eric Holder the happy note power to destroy states by not allowing them to enforce their laws. As illegal immigration is illegal and conservatives are most of the time against illegalities.
Then it moves further
"Federal law makes a single sovereign responsible for
maintaining a comprehensive and unified system to keep
track of aliens within the Nation’s borders. "
They have also done that with criminals too. Which are all based on mirroed or parrell laws of the state.
"Even if a State may make violation of federal
law a crime in some instances, it cannot do so in a field
(like the field of alien registration) that has been occupied
by federal law. See California v. Zook, 336 U. S. 725, 730–
731, 733 (1949); see also In re Loney, 134 U. S. 372, 375–
376 (1890) (States may not impose their own punishment
for perjury in federal courts)."
Occupied by federal law is the bright line.
"field preemption—that States may not enter, in any respect, an area the Federal Government has reserved for itself."
thus reservation for self as per assistant and the area of how one knows when a local may assist in federal law.
so we narrow down the mirrored law to show color of difference. Where the ability to gain probation and eliminates pardons as the difference in paralleled laws. So we have cut down based on parellegramation of difference.
So then go and make the huge stride that says because someone can't gain probation or pardon. like other epidermic crimes. That it underscores field presumption. that is a huge jump. Today the majority of crime comes and goes over that boarder. 87% of all crimes are based on drugs that come from Mexico.
"Congress intended to
preclude States from “complement[ing] the federal law, or
enforc[ing] additional or auxiliary regulations.” however, it does not say they can't parrell or replicate it. It would be easier to say that. The Supreme Court strikes down the inconsistant part of the statute of with regards to probation and pardon. However, it states congress intended to preclude making laws that futher or make whole or auxilary. But do not preclude parelling or replication as per distinguished case law definitions.
Which is good as with a force in the Federal that does three times less in expenditures than local does with regards to enforcing immigration. That is obvious.
Next
We have an admission the previous statute replicates not complements. Different not interchangeable words in law.
This whole area is true as per from my readings. So I would rewrite and use ading and abiding laws felonies. As per tax fraud, id fraud, and felonious employment of illegal immigrants.
Next
obstacle argument here.
ok this is different. Not really set up well in the intrologue.
This is easy. Already the Local US law enforcement arrests folks for not having id and jails them based on Federal misdeamnor law. So this practices is very old and goes on all the time. As a matter of fact it helps the removal process by being able to find illegal immigrants. So what obstacle. And again the majority of states already do this.
Obstacle is something that stops a law or enforcement or encroaches. I do not see how arresting illegal immigrants creates an obstacle. Unless that obstacle is to violate US boarder laws and allow illegal immigrants in. It may create a Democratic political supremacy obstacle but not a legal obstacle.
my thoughts are the Supreme Court struck down ability of local states to enforce federal law with local officers. The issue I will show is the idea that states can't enforce Federal laws is like saying that all other laws that are enforced by local are now also inabled to be enforced, bank robbery, taxes, financial crimes, criminals across boarders, state to state crime, international crimals. etc. This is the area I believe that the Supreme court did not sufficient logically battle on. As one could make the case if the FBI which was made to be a intergral single operation to stop bank robbery is the only one that can stop bank robbery enforce it or make laws about it. Then all local state and country bank robbery laws are also invalid as per this cases striking of ability of local enforcement laws.
Why can't the whole world just come and go as they please and take jobs without any legal process to allow us to use them as proper citizens.
"the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so,
see §1227" pg 1
'Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland
Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing
illegal aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center,
which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and
local officials around the clock. P"
Areas they seem to use for bright lines for their logic.
1. Congress has exclusive governance over immigration. As per logic behind cites on pg 2. The then go to use a test word to show when congress leaves no room for others to regulate "pervasive" "no room to supplement" "confliction with federal law" "obstacle to execution of purpose and objectives to Congress" "“single integrated and all-embracing system" "“enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.” "“curtail or complement" these two seem to be the battle ground swords they will use if the first test logics are not passed. As logically through 10th Amendment rights to enforce federal laws we are not looking here at an issue of federal saying you can't enforce locally federal laws. But it seems that way. So lets unwind it and see if they do try and say that or if they prove that the local law went above and beyond changed or made addition.
Then the idea is if it is so the case that Arizona made additions to or auxilary to the idea of civil rights laws cases that will be fought on how one finds out if one is illegal as per local enforcement. I would say that immigration law states that if you immigrate here you have to speak english. That would give probable cause if you do not speak english you are probable an illegal.
so we move to the federal law difference of employer is a criminal and illegal immigrant gets civil penalites. lets see if they speak on how illegal immigration itself is a misdeamonor and any laws abiding to acting as a co conspiraty to the felonious employer law makes the issue not any more a misdeamnor but if rewritten would make the illegal immigrant a felon as per co conspirators to a crime being committed by the employer. being thus part of that crime knowingly. To amend this part of the logical battle so it is not to amend or auxillary but just to use plain law. The statute should say, if you are an illegal immigrant and you are a co conspirator in the felonious act of employing an illegal immigrant you are thus tryable in a felonous conspiracy. around there. For example if I rob a bank and my buddy drives he is also part of that crime. not auxillary not complement just criminal law.
"Congress decided it would
be inappropriate to impose criminal penalties on unauthorized employees." However did it decide that conspiracy laws or even. The law of helping a criminal ".....word logic is"
ya they go bonkers this makes no sense "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a
removable alien to remain in the United States" That is not true, illegal immigration is a felony, helping a felony is a crime, employing a immigrant is a crime, immigranting illegal is a crime. And therefore we have many criminal charges for them just being in the USA. Where the only way they can be here legally is if they are born as per the constitution. Which means things like learning english and fitting in so as not to break the law not committing offense like loitering, drug's, trash throwing. etc. That would be like saying I have robbed a bank. But because I robbed the bank that is not a general rule as me being a criminal. And if the FBI every puts to and two together I am not a criminal. The act of committing the crime makes one a criminal not not being caught. Federal codex then goes on to say if you wish to naturalize you must learn english. Then you would not have probable cause to have an officer warrantlessly arrest you.
Section 6 gives local more authority to arrest than Federal as they are not instructed to arrest. Which goes back to the falcious idea linking into a fallacy that it is not generaly a crime to be in the us illegally. That what this premise resides on. Again if a local police officer catches a bank robber with a ton of money in his car days after he committed the crime of bank robbery. Can the officer then show probable cause, as would an officer who found out a person in the US is not following Federal codex to naturalize by learning english. Let's say I go out in public in a well known criminal area. I wear dark clothes and a old man's mask. Plus I have a bag with a legion arrow on it. Then would local police knowing my description have probable cause years later to stop me. Thus symbols of a criminal should be defined in the law, I think language is the way we see bright line in immigration. Historically it was.
Then they move to no instruction by federal government. However, is federal law enough to be an instruction. Cause if not then the police could say that a lot of federal laws if not instructed by federal officers not my business.
"Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform an immigration officer’s functions" Which basically is any matter as per the law which this justice is writing very discriminatively towards liberal views. As he says that hte Federal government limits. Then pretty much gives the law that "federal law permits state officers to “cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension,
detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United
States,” §1357(g)(10)(B)," In criminal law that is everything that one does in crime prevention. There is no limitation in Federal law. As id, apprehend, detain or remove not lawfully here means no limitation this is ridiculous. Basically the judge says Fedearl government limits local officials. But then says Federal allow as before I read this then asked is federal law enough of a direction. Then he answeres with yes I am a dumb arse and very discriminative. By logic makes no sense and I lie by saying it is limited then sight the law that gives unlimited power to local in immigraiton powers. Do we have to go through political upheavil to follow federal law. If a DOJ Attorney Justice is racist has shown prejudice with regards to prosecuting racist hate criminals that threaten white children. Then shows prejudice by fighting for a gangster who was shot after many numerous obvious gang symbols, pictures, under age tattoos, the area was robbed a week before twice, nobody in the gated community knew the teenage gangster, and then he was disresepctfull to the land owner and community elder by beating on the head. I do not think so I think that it is enough that it is federal law as a direction. The Federal government does not get to pick out what states it wishes to destory by not allowing federal law to be upheld.
Then the justice who made a fallacious premise of being in the states unlawfully as defined in Federal law. Which he sites the term but does not give the definition to disprove his basese fallacious premise he rests his conclusion on. Says "fact conflicts with federal immigration law" The premise that the whole case I now seem to see being strucred around is that being in the US is not generally illegal. DOes not properly deal with the Federal legal definition of unlawful and lawful immigrant.
On top of creating a stick man premise for a very powerful case. We now have a blatant lie. That says Federal law limits local law on immigration. Then he cites a law that says local may assist in all parts of immigration enforcement. The consent is the law being written. The Attorney General does not get to say who can enforce laws and who can't. As that would allow nominalized destruction of states. Let's say federal drug laws. A Republican Attorney General comes in and says Chicago can't enforce federal drug laws. All local drug laws that are above or beyond are illegal and as I say you can't enforce federal it all rests on less than 20 officers for the whole state. That is the same thing as the majority of drugs come from illegal immigration underground railroads.
The logic I am now guessing he is going to go with his stick man premise and his lie. Is that becuase the attorney general did not send a friendly memo saying please work with us on immigration. That Arizona may not follow federal directed law.
The limitations that are civil rights limitations on all crimes are used which are general across teh board limitations. Which is not a limitation it is just a rule. Valid ID given, race, color, national origin
Found status checks does not intefer with federal law's.
Speaks on importance of local and federal law working together on immigration.
Now to go to the Opinion. I like how he says The USA filed the suit. No it did not half of the US voted against President Obama. President Obama's administration filed this case.
Goes over provisions at hand.
Requirements to federal law that implies requirements to apply for alien registration is a misdeamnor. Should have wrote it as a conspiracy to commit the felonious act of working for a felony committing a felony by employing the illegal. or it could state that social security fraud of tax fraud is a major feloniious activity and such the illegal immigrant plays a big part in those the aciton of the fraudulent activity is such and such conspiracy crime as per federal law. The funny part is that this case is really just constritionist issues. The law that was constructed was horribel constructed. After reading this I would make a law making it a state law to violate all the federal laws that are violated when an illegal makes its way through America. Which is illegal. Employing an illegal is committing fraud tax and id, along with ading and abiding a felony the employer, lving in the community without knowing english violates immigration laws, while also violates state laws of id. Which is a misdeamnor in every state.
Immigrants aid and abide white collar employment criminal law. That is how it should be written. For the employment part of the statute. the difference here is basic. I can look for cocain, and I can partake in it. The aciton that is legal is the buying and selling. The idea that the emoployee who knows of the criminal white coloar crime is not committing a crime. Is like saying the person faciliting the area to hold the cocain is not committing a crime.
next then "Two
other provisions give specific arrest authority and inves-
tigative duties with respect to certain aliens to state and
local law enforcement officers." Which are granted by the statute the lire wrote after he said immigration law was limited. Then stated local officers may investigate as per federal law. unless of course Attorney general did not send them the happy note.
Then they go into the investigation privileges granted by Federal immigration laws to local officers to assist in investigations. “the officer has
probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public
offense that makes the person removable from the United
States.” §13–3883(A)(5)
"provides that officers who conduct a stop, detention, or arrest must in some
circumstances make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government" This should be basic id law. That is already in place. If they have a state id and it ties back to the data base the rest is obvious.
Then they say the typical Federal Supremacy Clause Federal has broad power.
They speak on Uniformed naturalization that gives probable cause based on language and identification laws.
Then it speaks on foreign governments nationals. treatment.
"Unlawful entry and unlawful
reentry into the country are federal offenses. §§1325,
1326. Once here, aliens are required to register with the
Federal Government and to carry proof of status on their
person. See §§1301–1306. Failure to do so is a federal
misdemeanor. §§1304(e), 1306(a). Federal law also au
thorizes States to deny noncitizens a range of public bene
fits, §1622; and it imposes sanctions on employers who
hire unauthorized workers, §1324a."
here is my point again. If it is a federal misdemeanor not to carry id. Then basically if you do not have immigration papers. Which today is not papers it is a green card that is not even green anymore. Then the law just needs to be rewritten as per federal law. Unless of course they strike it down because federal law does not allow enforcement by local law. Which then I will say the lie which was then cited states they may assist. And the logic of every federal law from bank to tax, to local market laws is rests on local.
They then state that Congress had made laws on removal of aliens. inadmissible at the
time of entry, Which again destroys the whole cases premise as per the syllabus that generally being in the us unlawfully is not a crime.
"Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter." However showing his major lieing or discrimination in writings "Once here, aliens are required to register with the
Federal Government and to carry proof of status on their
person. See §§1301–1306. Failure to do so is a federal
misdemeanor. §§1304(e), 1306(a)." Removal is a criminal matter. As they are removed because they have no id no legal papers.
The process of removal stats with the misdeamnor charge of no id. So removal is a misdeamnor charge.
then they get into employment felony sympathiziation. Along with discreation based on something that should have been done whtn they entered which is "asylum and other discretionary relief allowing
them to remain in the country or at least to leave without
formal removal." Which is like stating that driving without a license is ok. Because I can do it after words. No that is a crime. And license are thought to be a major stopper to death and accidents.
Then they talk about families and jobs. No offense man but I can't get a job cause these employers would rahter not pay the taxes and proper federal taxes on employees. So I do not care. What about my family and the 30 million families in the US that are daily losing ability to pay for their babies. I can't go to Mexico and get a job or own a fancy ranch and leave my teenage kids there to tend to animals. They can. It is one thing I understand political asylum. As some latin countries are still at war. But not mexico better schools, better economy. Every country in the world has very strict immigration laws. I can't immigrate to any other country and get a job that makes $20 an hour or $15 an hour like most illegal's make. Cause of the felony crime of not having to pay the other fifty percent of the wages to taxes.
Mexico's immigration laws are so strict they have less than 1% of their economy is working immigrants. President Calderon complains about Mexican rights in the US. However, his immigration laws basically just throw them over the boarder or throw them away. They do not even get most of the time back to their original country. Just like Mexico's well know to escort criminal immigrants to US boarders and throw em across.
Then they speak on the idea of how returning some immigrants to their country of orign based on their records of crime is not allowed.
Then logic gets into why only federal should be allowed to do it. Which logically can in one sentence say you already spoke on the issue of working together. So this logical part for preempting a conclusive remark is not necessary. This whole logic of foreign countries is easily destroyed with the basic law of working together
Then they weight out basic presumption of costs and policing fed's and local. Where the court heavily just cites Federal agency exact numbers and shows discrimination with regards to state numbers. Which financially as per my research cost more than the Fed pays.
The show the red zones that are already being taken over by Mexican citizens that warn US citizens to stay off the land. As it is not their anymore.
Then we get into the issue of the case:
"The issue is whether, under preemption principles, federal law permits Arizona to imple
ment the state-law provisions in dispute."
The issue is differnet from the premise. The Premise of course is what is laying down the conclusion. Which is that generally immigrant aliens living in the US is not a crime. That is false, 100% false premise. However, this premise is then linked to the sword which is the issue. That will provide already a conclusion for the premise.
It goes Supremacy Clause I am the fed. I did not send you the happy note so I can destroy your ability to enforce laws.
First one is
"“willful failure to complete or carry an
alien registration document . . . in violation of 8 United
States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).” Ariz. Rev. Stat.
Ann. §11–1509(A) (West Supp. 2011). In effect, §3 adds a
state-law penalty for conduct proscribed by federal law"
In reality it does not add that at all. As per earlier case building citations "Once here, aliens are required to register with the
Federal Government and to carry proof of status on their
person. See §§1301–1306. Failure to do so is a federal
misdemeanor. §§1304(e), 1306(a)." therefore, this old man is lieing or again showing discrimination or not editing his documents. They added nothing. The Federal law makes it a misdeamenor.
So already this paragraphs premise. Is that as per built up per indicators of anything that is added is not proper. Is again false and a lie. As per the first premise of major consequence to this paper.
So my premise now based on this next paragraph. Is that any law created in mirror to a federal law by local may not be enforced. As the Arizona law of id, is a federal law in mirror and was stricken down not able to be enforced by local.
Issue of paragraph "The United States contends that this state enforcement mechanism intrudes on the field of alien registration" Intrusion being defined as stopping or hendering somehow. Which again this is going to be my exact premise. Which is that congress has made many federal laws that federal law enforces. However, thousands of federal laws construed just for federal are at local state levels and are paying billions to enforce themselves. This paragraph here destroy's all local and federal enforcement on federal laws. As per Eric Holders I did not send the happy note to you. So you can't enforce federal law in mirror.
The real issue here is this a mirrored law. As per syllabus stated federal laws. That local can enforce mirrored federal law. However, they will turn this into a false premise lie. That it is first not mirrored, which it is as per my situations of the justices own citation. Then they will state that local can't enforce it without consent from federal. Which is also not true law written is law enough.
they get to a specific element of why it is a single all embracing elemtn. Which is because it deals with foreign relations. As a commerce clause power. But so do drugs, narcotics and major international cartels. Then again we get to additional where it states they can enforce mirrored laws.
Then the courts use a totally different issue of enforcing alien registation based on this issue of a simple id check. A whole agency compared to a mirrored law shows possible trusion. A simple law checking id's is not comparable. Intrusive has its own federal bright lines. Then get into the mirrored federal laws of forced following federal carry id and properly applying for id. The law of program creation and agency creation is a complete different law all together and the justice does not speak on that matter at all. He just grabs something that benefits his idea. But does not meet the requirements of analogical legal analysts. The creation of an agency takes major issues in law. The mirroring of a federal law to enforce id. Is a total different ball game with way less laws on the books and less constitutional intrusion. As a matter of fact. There is no intrusion if a local police officer asks for an id. As they do that anyway.
This whole paragraph is boobling itself. The idea that it states the local can enforce federal law so long as not added too. Then says yes its mirrored. Then strikes it down is very boobling here.
Here is what I have to say real application of federally mirrored laws is reality. Arizona already spends billions on enforcing illegal immigration. It has since birth.
Where Congress occupies an entire field. What congress state or local. Even then congress occupies a lot of entire fields, port security, local police, international cartel crimes also local police, gang federal crime intervention local police, bank robberies federal local police.
Here is the real issue. Can a federally mirrored law be enforced. Not an agency, just a simple law. The law says yes local can assist.
Another issue is can federal stop specific states from enforcing federal laws. cause Texas already Florida and California already arrest folks based on non id laws. They take you down and id you.
As a state can I enforce federal law.
According to this case you can. As long as there is nothing added or complementing. they can assist. Cause every single law that is local except for a few are also federal and where born like the immigration department for federal law enforcement offices. That is another issue, born of federal agencies and their enforcement that local enforce also with analogy to immigration.
"Field preemption reflects a congressional decision to foreclose any
state regulation in the area, even if it is parallel to fed-
eral standards. See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464
U. S. 238, 249 (1984)."
Now this is bad law. As When Republicans get in they saw the Democratic Fed attack their rights to properly deal with crime. They will respond and it will be just as devastating to political supremacy votes. This is what I thought was going to happen give Eric Holder the happy note power to destroy states by not allowing them to enforce their laws. As illegal immigration is illegal and conservatives are most of the time against illegalities.
Then it moves further
"Federal law makes a single sovereign responsible for
maintaining a comprehensive and unified system to keep
track of aliens within the Nation’s borders. "
They have also done that with criminals too. Which are all based on mirroed or parrell laws of the state.
"Even if a State may make violation of federal
law a crime in some instances, it cannot do so in a field
(like the field of alien registration) that has been occupied
by federal law. See California v. Zook, 336 U. S. 725, 730–
731, 733 (1949); see also In re Loney, 134 U. S. 372, 375–
376 (1890) (States may not impose their own punishment
for perjury in federal courts)."
Occupied by federal law is the bright line.
"field preemption—that States may not enter, in any respect, an area the Federal Government has reserved for itself."
thus reservation for self as per assistant and the area of how one knows when a local may assist in federal law.
so we narrow down the mirrored law to show color of difference. Where the ability to gain probation and eliminates pardons as the difference in paralleled laws. So we have cut down based on parellegramation of difference.
So then go and make the huge stride that says because someone can't gain probation or pardon. like other epidermic crimes. That it underscores field presumption. that is a huge jump. Today the majority of crime comes and goes over that boarder. 87% of all crimes are based on drugs that come from Mexico.
"Congress intended to
preclude States from “complement[ing] the federal law, or
enforc[ing] additional or auxiliary regulations.” however, it does not say they can't parrell or replicate it. It would be easier to say that. The Supreme Court strikes down the inconsistant part of the statute of with regards to probation and pardon. However, it states congress intended to preclude making laws that futher or make whole or auxilary. But do not preclude parelling or replication as per distinguished case law definitions.
Which is good as with a force in the Federal that does three times less in expenditures than local does with regards to enforcing immigration. That is obvious.
As per Hines "inconsistently with the purpose of Congress" is the actual test to see if they can strike this down. And it is not inconsistent with the purpose of congress. A small illegal populace who lives here may think it is. However, it is not. Parelle and complement are legally to different tests words as per cases set out to distinguish the two. So the community reads it as stopping the law or stricking it. However, the legal read as per legal definition of complement, additional or auxilary would show distinghushement from parell or replication.
We can also use that paragraph to create state laws on voter identification. As Federal laws have voter identification laws too.
We can also use that paragraph to create state laws on voter identification. As Federal laws have voter identification laws too.
Next
We have an admission the previous statute replicates not complements. Different not interchangeable words in law.
This whole area is true as per from my readings. So I would rewrite and use ading and abiding laws felonies. As per tax fraud, id fraud, and felonious employment of illegal immigrants.
Next
obstacle argument here.
ok this is different. Not really set up well in the intrologue.
This is easy. Already the Local US law enforcement arrests folks for not having id and jails them based on Federal misdeamnor law. So this practices is very old and goes on all the time. As a matter of fact it helps the removal process by being able to find illegal immigrants. So what obstacle. And again the majority of states already do this.
Obstacle is something that stops a law or enforcement or encroaches. I do not see how arresting illegal immigrants creates an obstacle. Unless that obstacle is to violate US boarder laws and allow illegal immigrants in. It may create a Democratic political supremacy obstacle but not a legal obstacle.
No comments:
Post a Comment