First Arizona Immigration Law, Now "Secure Communities"

Coming soon - the NY Times will urge Eric Holder to sue the Department of Homeland Security for its controversial "Secure Communities" program.

The Times has a story today on the possible expansion of "Secure Communities" in Colorado:

A task force recommended that Colorado institute a federal background check program called Secure Communities, which helps the authorities check an arrested person’s immigration history through a government database, for possible deportation.

Now, as Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. weighs whether to use Secure Communities, already in effect in 480 jurisdictions in 27 states, immigrant rights groups have been privately pushing him to reject the program. Critics say it promotes racial profiling by the local police and would undermine trust between immigrants and law enforcement, in a state that has particularly strict immigration laws.

“Secure Communities is an overbroad dragnet that will end up destroying communities and families while driving victims and witnesses underground,” said Hans Meyer, policy coordinator for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition.

But officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, the federal agency that runs Secure Communities, says the program is shoring up a system that has allowed illegal immigrants with criminal records to escape notice.

“It allows ICE and local law enforcement agencies to know as much as possible about people in local custody without any additional costs or procedural changes by local officers,” said Richard Rocha, deputy press secretary for the agency.

Doesn't that sound like the same sort of things Arizona was doing?  Disorienting, isn't it?

The Times bashed "Secure Communities" as recently as July 28:

With demonstrators converging on the state this week, Arizona threatens to become a national fracturing point on immigration. The Obama administration can do more than just watch. It can reassert the importance of sensible national immigration policies.

The administration can start by rethinking two troubling programs — Secure Communities, which requires immigration checks for everyone booked into a jail, and 287(g), in which local law-enforcement officials are deputized as immigration agents in task forces and in jails.

The Obama administration has resisted calls to abolish the programs, despite warnings of racial profiling, arrests on pretexts and other abuses. But there is no excuse for not pulling the plug on Arizona’s 287(g) programs, the largest in the nation.

Here is a Secure Communities fact sheet, some fire from the left flank, more fire from the left, and earlier Times coverage.

The next step - The Times should demand that Eric Holder sue Janet Napolitano.  The basis will be something about the primacy of singing 'Kumbaya' over enforcing the law.

Comments

[peter]

Let's face it, even in a recession, the lawsuit industry is going strong.

[gmax]

George Orwell was right. With this administration its "words mean exactly what we want them to mean, nothing more and nothing less."

[MarkO]

I'm for lawlessness. I'll do just fine.

[Danube of Thought]

Wasn't it Lewis Carroll?

[Dave (in MA)]

How about we start by suing "Sanctuary cities" for subverting Federal law?

[Danube of Thought]

Somebody help me out here. Here is Article III, Section 2 of the constitution:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction...

Arizona is a party. Why didn't this action have to be filed in the Supreme Court?

[Clarice]

Who do you have to bribe to get a secure community?
And I suppose you cannot be a border state where the problem is most extreme--because we do NOT, repeat, NOT want the feds to have to work too hard.

[Porchlight]

Good question DoT.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

The administration can start by rethinking two troubling programs — Secure Communities, which requires immigration checks for everyone booked into a jail, and 287(g), in which local law-enforcement officials are deputized as immigration agents in task forces and in jails.

The Bolton decision spends a lot of time differentiating between state law enforcement being "required" to inquire into the immigration status of all who are arrested (which she strikes down) as opposed to having discretion to do that (which she implicitly dies not find unlawful). But the program Tom cites seems to require law enforcement to make just such an inquiry for all who are jailed in secure cities. ISTM that Arizona law merely makes the whole state like a secured city; hardly contrary to federal law.

Also somehow kept quiet in all the hype was the portion of SB 1070 that was left alone which did away with covert or overt sanctuary cities in Arizona.

[MarkO]

Dot, I thought that was the case, but I'm hazy. Or was that lazy?

In some ways that oversight follows my view of how Arizona handled the case.

[Clarice]

Copied from elsewhere..but I think this is the answer. I think after the establishment of the federal courts and the Congressional description of their jurisdiction, the SCOTUS retained jurisdiction--but not exclusive jurisdiction--to hear suits by the federal govt against a state:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag40_user.html#fnb846

Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1345, by virtue of the fact that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extends only to those cases enumerated in the Constitution, jurisdiction over suits brought by the United States against persons or corporation is vested in the lower federal courts.

But suits by the United States against a State may be brought in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 (b)(2), but may as well be brought in the district court [see Case v. Bowles, 327 U.S. 92, 97 (1946)].

[A. Sullivan]

I think Mr. Napolitano should be left alone!

[Ignatz]

DOT,
I asked just that question on the last thread, having first seen Old Timer pose it on the Razing Arizona thread, but only clarice has seemed to see it and her short answer appeared to be off the top of her head. I'd like to know a definitive answer myself.

[Cecil Turner]

I was interested to see Prof Jacobson's reaction about the injunction's forbidding a status check on people already under arrest. Seems to me such a seemingly senseless reading of the law invites reversal (but IANAL).

[Ignatz]

Thanks clarice. That looks pretty definitive.

[MarkO]

Can Arizona simply remove the case to the SC today?

[A. Sullivan]

Wait a minute. The head of the Department of Homeland Security is a woman??

[Danube of Thought]

Nice work, Clarice. I'll have to take a look at Case v. Bowles.

[matt]

95% of all terrorists agree that Secure Communities is bad law.

[centralcal]

oh, jeez, the punishment recommendation from the ethics subcommittee for Rangel - a mere finger wag. naughty, naughty, boy!

Both The Hill and Politico are reporting this.

That is sure to elevate the 11% approval rating enjoyed by this congress.

[Pofarmer]

What was Rangel accused of doing, anyway?

[Jane]

CC - that's the same penalty they gave to Joe Wilson for saying "You lied" during the SOTU.

[Danube of Thought]

Thanks, Ignatz--I missed your item and Old Timer's on the earlier threads, and am obviously running a bit behind on this one. Here's the money quote from Case v. Bowles:

Another procedural point urged by the State is that, since this is in effect a controversy between the United States and the Washington, the United States Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and the District Court lacked power to try the case. But it is well settled that, despite Article 3, Congress can give the district courts jurisdiction to try controversies between a state and the United States.

[Danube of Thought]

In the complaint, the US alleges jurisdiction under 28 US Code Section 1331:

§1331. Federal question

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

[Danube of Thought]

What the hell...in light of the intense and universal interest in this burning question of jurisdiction, let me offer this from the 1884 Supreme Court case of Ames v. Kansas:

"The Judiciary Act was passed on the 24th of September, 1789, and at the April term, 1793, of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, an indictment was found against Ravara, a consul from Genoa, for a misdemeanor in sending anonymous and threatening letters to the British minister and others with a view to extort money. Objection was made to the jurisdiction for the reason that the exclusive cognizance of the case belonged to the Supreme Court on account of the official character of the defendant. The Court was held by Wilson and Iredell, Justices of the Supreme Court, and Peters, the district judge. Mr. Justice Wilson, who had been a member of the convention that framed the Constitution, was of opinion 'that although the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court an original jurisdiction, in cases like the present, it does not preclude the legislature from exercising the power of vesting a concurrent jurisdiction in such inferior courts as might by law be established.'"

And 28 U.S. Code Sections 1331 and 1345 do the rest.

[I oink, but admire, not devour.]

Nice freshwater pearl, there.
===============

[Clarice unclasped one, too.]

Well, you can see I wade upstream.
==================

[Gmax]

I confused Through the looking glass with Animal Farm? It must have been the Jabberwocky that got to me...

Mea culpa. and thanks for noticing.

[Captain Hate]

oh, jeez, the punishment recommendation from the ethics subcommittee for Rangel - a mere finger wag. naughty, naughty, boy!

Raise your hand if you're at all surprised by this.

*tap* *tap*

Anybody?

[Danube of Thought]

And what will happen to Maxine Waters? Lemme guess...

[Stephanie]

Tis the same punishment that was meted out for "You Lie!"

Let that sink into the muddle's consciousness for a while - via some well placed TV ads, of course. Entertainment Tonight's time slot, College and Pro Football, Baseball Playoffs, Jersey Shore, Project Runway...

[Ignatz]

--'that although the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court an original jurisdiction, in cases like the present, it does not preclude the legislature from exercising the power of vesting a concurrent jurisdiction in such inferior courts as might by law be established.'--

Guess the plain text of the Constitution hasn't meant much for a long time.
I know the legislature has the explicit power to remove areas of the law totally from the court's jurisdiction, but not sure how that explicit power transmutes into a right to withdraw and extend jurisdictions willy nilly.

[MarkO]

More congressmen should shout, "You lie."

[narciso the harpoon]

There's not even an illusion that they intend to abide by the rules, is there anymore, which
is a recipe for real social upheaval

[Clarice]

More should cheat on their taxes and lie to housing authorities--the punishment is so minor compared to the benefits.

[Stephanie]

Don't forget that seven of the eunichs in the republican minority went along with the slap on the wrist for "You Lie" and at least one (in committee) has apparently agreed on the slap for thievery, too.

Cao
Flake
Inglis
Emerson
Rohrabacher
Jones
Petri

((Inglis joined six other Republicans in voting for the disciplinary measure. He had personally met with Wilson on Monday and again Tuesday in an unsuccessful effort to persuade him to apologize to his colleagues for his yell.

Inglis, who represents the conservative Upstate, said Wilson’s apology to Obama immediately after his speech wasn’t enough.

“Joe also broke House rules,” Inglis said. “That problem could easily be fixed by an apology to the House. In the absence of an apology, the House could choose to police itself through a resolution of disapproval.”

The resolution of disapproval said Wilson had violated House rules governing conduct of the chamber’s 435 members.

At a conference Tuesday of all Republican members, Boehner directed other GOP lawmakers to vote against the resolution of disapproval, Inglis said.

“I have to go home to five kids who are always told to do the right thing,” Inglis told McClatchy. “It’s a matter of redeeming the rule of law. There are rules of the House. They must be followed, and when they’re broken, there are consequences.”))

Explain again Cong Inglis about that rule of law...

LUN to the reporting about Wilson.

[Stephanie]

President Barack Obama has kept mum on the fate of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) for days -- but he tells CBS News that it's time for the embattled 80-year-old former Ways and Means Chairman to end his career "with dignity."

"And he'll-- he's somebody who's at the end of his career. Eighty years old. I'm sure that-- what he wants is to be able to-- end his career with dignity. And my hope is that-- it happens. "

I wonder if Rangel will start screaming about Obama's Death Panel rhetoric now? He's obviously outlived his usefulness to society democrats.

LUN

[narciso the harpoon]

Meanwhile seppuku seems an intriguing electoral strategy for some

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/30/report-romney-nudging-graham-to-strike-immigration-deal-before-election/

[Dan]

People in Michigan have a chance to send President Obama a message August 3rd! http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/07/30/we-need-pete-hoekstra-as-michigans-next-governor-vote-august-3rd/

President Obama is trying to knock down Michigan’s best chance at finally having a conservative governor, but we can’t let Obama win! The stakes of this election are simply too high!

August 3rd is the most important day in Michigan politics in years! We need to do what we can to help make sure Michigan sends President Obama a message.

[Ann Mongrel]

Malkin tweet:

9th Circuit just denied AZ request for *expedited* hearing on SB1070

[Stephanie]

Eleventy!11!11

[Ann Mongrel]

Legalinsurrection:

Arizona Appeal To Be Argued Election Week

[narciso the harpoon]

They left it to the clerk, they wouldn't take any responsibility for denying the fast track

[Danube of Thought]

So it will be front-page news on election day, as a result of a deliberate decision by Obama's justice department. "How can this be?", you may well inquire.

Just remember: this is an administration that, in selecting three unemployed people out of ten million for a photo op, manages to select one who was fired for prescription fraud.

We can only pray that the 3:00 a.m. phone call never comes.

[MarkO]

How can this be?
You may say to yourself, "This is not my beauthiful White House," and you may say to yourself, "This is not my fat wife," and you may say to yourself, "My God, what have I done."

Love the Heads.

[Danube of Thought]

Doom. Doom, I tell you: doom.

Buy gold, fuel and ammunition. And tents, and pemmican and beef jerky. Coleman stoves and lanterns, and canteens of fresh water. Refresh yourself on skinning ant cooking rabbits and squirrels.

Lay in plenty of Stolichnaya and The Glenlivet.

[glasater]

Joe Wilson didn't say "you lie"--he said "lie" after an obvious lie uttered by Zero in the SOTU or was it some sort of joint session address.

It was a spontaneous outburst and one I sympathized with--so much so that I sent money to his re-election campaign.

[Chubby]

Cap: ((Raise your hand if you're at all surprised by this.

*tap* *tap*

Anybody?))

I posted a couple of days ago that I thought he would resign (I betcha that was part of the deal) now lookee here:

Democrats say Rangel should resign
By LAURIE KELLMAN (AP) – 11 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Calls for Rep. Charlie Rangel's resignation rained down on Capitol Hill late Friday from House Democrats who said more than a dozen ethics charges against the 20-term lawmaker showed a disregard for the rules and undermined the public's confidence in Congress.
.................
OBAMA: TIME FOR RANGEL TO END CAREER 'WITH DIGNITY'...

[Chubby]

Stephanie: ((Don't forget that seven of the eunichs in the republican minority went along with the slap on the wrist for "You Lie"))

and the 5 Republicans voting for Kagan are worse than eunuchs

[Pops]

I am tired of hearing about all the immigrant rights and immigrant rights groups. It's a complete lie to say this has anything to do with LEGAL Immigrants.

It has everything to do with law breaking illegal aliens.

It would be like saying taxpayer rights groups include those that intentionally defraud the government through fraud and deceit.

Does the press ask for comment from free-love hedonism groups everytime a rape occurs???

[Pagar]

"There are rules of the House. "

I'm really curious as to what those rules say about people who stand before the house and lie.

Agreed, at this point voting for Kagan is by far the worse. While House actions can be reversed, putting a far, far. far leftist on the Supreme Ct can/will never be undone.

[Pagar]

Inglis will be out after this coming election,
the damage he has done to his country by siding with the Democrats will never be undone.