Powered by TypePad

« Don't Minimize The Escalation | Main | The Record-Breaking Heat Wave Open Thread »

July 05, 2010


JM Hanes

Not sure whether this has been posted already, but here is Brewer's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

JM Hanes

Oops. Sorry, per Rich Lowry, the Motion to Dismiss above was "Arizona's response to the preemption issue as raised in the ACLU suit."


Tuff to keep track of it all isn't it JMH.

I'm constantly swamped, but no place better to try to keep up than right here.


“…significant contributions to science by the Arab world.”


Arabs were barbaric nomads, good only to conquest and destroy civilizations. As of today, even after adsorbing notable civilizations of Magreb, Syria, Egypt, etc., Arabs are among stupidest and unproductive nations on the face of the Earth.


Iran Bans Mullets and Ponytails!

They would have banned Camaros too, but the last running Camaro in Iran died in 1983. It is now a public urinal in Isfahan.

Summary beheading to this day if you call it a "Chevy."

Another nanowatt brainstorm: Hojjat ol-eslam Kazem Sediqi, a prayer leader in Tehran, said: "Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes."

Preach it, Mullah!

The climate blogosphere is about to go nuclear.

The Grauniad, er, the Guardian, is liveblogging the release of the Muir Russell investigation into ClimateGate and the University of East Anglia, embargoed until 8:00 AM Eastern, today. L!ink U!nder N!ame has the link in comments.

T minus 200 seconds and counting.

Ooh, I'm getting a few positive vibes. The editor of the Lancet, yeah, that Lancet, has said that science is sick and needs revision.

Now five fraudulent investigations.  What splendor.

Oh, fuck. 'Rigour and honesty' were not in doubt. They were in charge of a surface temperature record that is worse than worthless, because it underlies so much research, and they knew there were uncertainties when they proclaimed the settledness of the science.


Rich Lowry NRO on the suit:

"Arizona has been here before. Pro-immigration groups sued over its workplace enforcement law passed in 2007. All the same arguments were mustered about federal preemption. A U.S. district-court judge (upheld by the appeals court) rejected them because the state law so closely tracked the federal law and didn’t contradict its stated purpose.

The drafters of the new law attempted to meet these same standards by directly drawing on federal statutes for its definition of immigration offenses. The courts have long upheld the right of states to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law, and the Supreme Court in a 1976 decision said federal immigration law didn’t intend “to preclude even harmonious state regulation.” Regardless, the courts will now decide."


Summer sizzler. O is going to invade Arizona.


Bond canceled. They're gow.

Rick Ballard


That's a good list but 1) (IMO) should be the continuing colossal failure of the Democrats regarding jobs and the economy. Politically, the rest of the list amounts to distractions.


That's a fine summation of Arab/Muslim "achievement" over the past five hundred years. They certainly are capable of growing a desert.


Photoshop call: Redesign NASA’s logo


Melinda Romanoff

Anybody else worry about Hezbollah having a strong presence in Lebanon?

How's about Mexico?



Captain Hate

Anybody else worry about Hezbollah having a strong presence in Lebanon?

Not since the biggest asshole ever to come out of Scranton said, during the VP debate against that ignorant snowbilly, that Hezzzzzzbollah had been kicked out of Lebanon by the US and France (!!!) before turning the place over to those stalwart UN blue-helmets to keep the vermin at bay. Since moderator Glenn Eyefull didn't register anything close to a WTF, and the MFM didn't ridicule him compared to "I can see Russia from my house", I figured it had to be the truth.


Yeah we 'really dodged a bullet, eh, Captain,
god I could scream about that idiocy

Melinda Romanoff

Cap'n- Click the link.

Hezbollah head arrested in Tijiuana.

Captain Hate

Melinda, anybody with a functioning cortex (ie. non-trolls) has realized that the Arizona dustup is in large part a security issue, which means the Il Douce cabal could give a rat's ass about it.

Btw, is anybody surprised by the lack of support that McCain is giving Jan Brewer in all this? Granted the "Mav" has been pretending to be a conservative while running for re-election but his reacharound buds in the MFM won't take kindly to anything against Sir Golfsalot' agenda. Ah the hard decisions that it takes to be Juan McAmnesty.


I held my nose and read thru the WaPo this morning thinking for sure they'd finally cover the Black Panthers case today..NADA..WaPo readers know absolutely nothing about this matter.


Need a respite from the horror of Obama? Let's enjoy the agony of SC Dems with the latest from Alvin">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-odd-odd-case-of-alvin-greene-gets-even-more-odd/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OTB+%28Outside+The+Beltway+%7C+OTB%29z">Alvin Greene


Or NASA's outreach to Muslims Clarice. WaPo readers...the most uninformed citizens America.


citizens **in** America



Don't forget about Obamacare. It's always there in the background, like a seeping stain.

Captain Hate

Clarice, to quote somebody @ AoS:

I think it was the Instapundit who pointed out that the Obama administration is principally a journalistic scandal: the widespread, conscious journalistic malpractice that ensured a malinformed electorate.


Janet. I wrote to the ombudsman about the panthers. You can take on the NASA carpola.

Capt its circular. In part because their coerage was so bad, the Post has had to substantially cut back its reporting staff. It's still stuck with contractual obligations to idiots like Colbert ing and Sally Quinn it seems.

With fewer reporters they have to pick and choose what to cover and--surprise--they cover only what they think will appeal to their readers--stuff with the same biases as the staff.


In a win for new media, new TSA directive banning its employees from viewing sites "with controversial opinions" was axed when Drudge posted it.


cns news:

" go to the Website of the inspector general of the Social Security Administration and look up the December 2008 audit report titled, “Effectiveness of Educational Correspondence to Employers.” The number for the report is A-03-07-17105.

If President Obama cares to read the report, I would point him especially to page 7. “Our review found that about 1,650 employers with over 500 name/SSN no-matches had reported about 2.6 million no-matches to SSA,” it says. “They received EDCOR letters that included 907,000 of the no-matches. Consequently, they were not informed of about 1.7 million no-matches. These employers had reported no-matches that ranged from 501 to 37,375, and about 44 percent of the employers had reported SSA (sic) 1,000 or more no-matches to SSA.”

If recent history is a guide, it is not unprecedented for an employer to file tens of thousands of no-match W-2s in a single year. In October 2004, the SSA inspector general filed an audit report analyzing the 100 employers that had filed the largest number of bad W-2s in the five years from 1997-2001. The inspector general did not name these “Top 100” bad W-2 filers but did cite the states in which they were located.

America’s No. 1 filer of bad W-2s was an Illinois-based company that filed 131,991 no-match W-2s from 1997-2001, for an average of 26,398 per year. The No. 2 filer of bad W-2s was a Texas-based company that filed 108,302 no-match W-2s from 1997-2001, for an average of 21,600 per year.

The Illinois employer, according to the inspector general, paid $5.4 billion in wages to employees whose Social Security numbers did not match their names.

The employer could have been paying that money to Americans and permanent legal residents entitled to work in the U.S. who have valid Social Security numbers and are quite happy to give them to their employers.

SSA will not give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the names of the employers who file massive numbers of no-match W-2s because they say that is protected tax information under Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Under the George W. Bush administration, DHS promulgated a regulation that instructed employers in how they could find “safe harbor” from having SSA’s no-match letters used against them as evidence that they had knowingly hired illegal aliens. But a federal court in California suspended this regulation in 2008, and Secretary Napolitano rescinded it last year.

Rep. Steve King, the Iowa Republican, has introduced the New IDEA Act (HR 3580) that would make two key changes in federal tax law: It would prevent businesses from deducting from their taxable income the wages and benefits they pay illegal aliens, and it would make the IRS share information with DHS for enforcing immigration laws.

President Obama called on Congress last week to give amnesty to illegal aliens, which also means giving amnesty to businesses that routinely hire illegal aliens and file no-match W-2s with the federal government. "

Danube of Thought

I'm afraid I'm reverting to my pre-conversion concern: it appears that AZ reserves to itself the discretion to prosecute an illegal on the basis of his illegal status, without more. Here's the money section:

13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception; classification

A. In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is both:
1. Present on any public or private land in this state.
2. In violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

B. In the enforcement of this section, the final determination of an alien's immigration status shall be determined by either:
1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status.
2. A law enforcement officer or agency communicating with the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

C. A person who is sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence or release on any basis until the sentence imposed is served.

It thus seems to me that the illegal, by his mere presence in AZ, commits the state misdemeanor of trespass, and can be prosecuted for it. Where am I wrong?

Captain Hate

In a win for new media, new TSA directive banning its employees from viewing sites "with controversial opinions" was axed when Drudge posted it.

I don't have any problems with employers telling employees not to screw around on teh interwebbz at work; and firing them if they keep doing it. It's the subjective defining of "controversial opinions" that really stunk up that directive.

Captain Hate

Question: If the Arizona law is found to be unconstitutional solely for the reasons DoT states, can't it be amended and subsequently voted on?


Janet. I wrote to the ombudsman about the panthers. You can take on the NASA carpola.

Done...but, he doesn't listen to me. Maybe the 8,463rd time is the charm!

Danube of Thought

CapnH, the law has a "severability" clause providing that if any portion is held to be invalid, the rest of the law will remain in effect.

I don't think the 1976 S. Ct. case on CA's law prohibiting the hiring of illegals helps AZ in this case. You can read the case here. The decision was based on the fact that punishing employers for hiring illegals had only an "incidental" and "speculative" effect on the federal immigration scheme, and that a federal farm labor statute had been enacted for the purpose of assisting the states in this area.

Thomas Collins

DOT, the trespass on is the most vulnerable portion of the Arizona law. However, I think it should be severable from the rest of the statute.

By the way, DOT, did you get the trespass provision from the enrolled bill or an earlier version? I thought there was some question as to whether the trespass provision made it into the final bill.

Danube of Thought

Minus 17 at Raz today.


Clarice, the NY Times had the liberal talking points up on Page 11.

There is no evidence that Savage was at the hearing. If I can ever get this latest up at You Too, that's in it.


The AZ response argues they do not ascribe any further penalty than the fed so the statute does not preclude preemption. I think they're ceding your point DoT but cite recent cases including their own that seem to agree with this proposition. *note: I have no idea what I'm talking about regards to law, just find the arguments quite interesting.

Rob Crawford

Anyone who thinks the stars with Arabic names didn't have names before that is a moron.

Melinda Romanoff


When they went to letters and numbers, it removed the romance from astronomy.

Danube of Thought

I will have to check, TC--I don't have the "final" version marked anywhere, so every time I search for the statute is a new adventure.

Danube of Thought

Somebody at Volokh believes that this federal provision in Title 8, Section 1252c is preemptive on the state's authority to make arrests for immigration violations:

(a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who—

(1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and

(2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction,
but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.

JM Hanes

Arizona law as Engrossed.


Obama could have avoided all this trouble if he had a normal American upbringing.

Any kid who grew up in this country knows that the southwest is inhospitable terrain for grand schemes, even if they come from a high IQ super genius.

And especially if the schemes are on behalf of the coyotes.

JM Hanes


I have trouble understanding why the trespass provision, in particular, would be fatally flawed. Outside of trespassing on Federal property, what authority do the Feds have for interference in defining a crime which probably already varies from state to state, and which would, I assume, almost universally be prosecuted in state courts? Is there a Federally defined crime of trespassing to be preempted?

JM Hanes

From Gov. Brewer's statement on the Arizona suit:

As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels.  Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice.  Today's filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds.  These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.
The irony is that President Obama’s Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.

Andrew Malcolm has the full text.


Clarice -- one thing I'm worried about with the social security w-2 name/number mismatch is just your typical bureaucratic idiocy. For example, I get the occasional 1099 with "Cathy" on it but my legal name is "Catherine". The year I got married, I quit my job in September, and got married and moved in October. By the time my w-2 arrived the following January, I had already changed my name on my social security so the w-2 was "wrong" -- but ADP had never paid me when I had the new name and had no idea that I had changed it.

Oh, and then there is the classic thing where the IRS can't seem to keep straight that when you are married, that is a non-optional tax status (even if you are married-filing-separately you are not separate) which means that a single taxable entity has 2 names and 2 social security numbers. Once we had the IRS associate my name with Dr F's social and his name with my social and manage to lose our refund that we were applying to the April estimate. They found it after a week, but clearly it gets complicated.

JM Hanes


Next time someone slams Rasmussen, we can refer them to Nate Silver's ranking of Polling Firms who take more than 10 polls per year, on the basis of "pollster-induced error" in their election polls. Out of 62 firms, Rasmussen makes a creditable showing at #15, particularly when compared to some of the usual suspects, like the NYTimes, Newsweek, and the Best-Political-Team-Evah at CNN. I'm sure Rasmussen's website has the stats on their track record overall somewhere, but IIRC, they may land higher up the list when it comes to the accuracy of their predictions, despite any ostensibly problematic methodology.

Fox is a disappointing #47, although it would be interesting to know if pollster error consistently tilts results to the right, or simply produces less reliable numbers in general. I was interested to see that PPP does quite well. They're often dismissed as a Democratic polling outfit by unhappy Republicans. While I believe the bulk of their work may be commissioned by Democrats -- which is how they got their start here in North Carolina -- I've always had the impression that they are pretty straight shooters.

No surprises on the Zogby end of the spectrum! Their interactive polling comes in dead last, but probably says more about online polling than Zogby per se. Culled from Silver's list:

#2 ABC/Washington Post
#7 NBC/Wall St. Journal
#10 Pew
#11 Gallup
#13 Public Policy Polling
#15 Rasmussen
#24 CNN
#25 CBS/New York Times
#35 LA Times
#44 Newsweek
#47 Fox/Opinion Dynamics
#53 Zogby Telephone
#62 Zogby Interactive

Danube of Thought

JMH, the trespass provision of SB1070 defines trespass as being anywhere on Arizona soil, public or private property, while illegal. In other words, it is a crime which can be completely dependent on one's immigration status. It gives the state the authority to bring a criminal prosecution for illegal status against an individual wnom the feds might elect not to prosecute.

Danube of Thought

Thanks for that polling link, JMH. I haven't tried to get behind his methodology for determining PIE, and have no idea what is the difference in reliability between, say, a 1.42 and a 1.65. But the ranking is of interest nonetheless.

Danube of Thought

Here's a law prof who seems to feel strongly both ways on the AZ lawsuit.

Thomas Collins

OK, I did a Lexis search, and it looks as if the anti-trespassing language in Arizona S.B. 1070 was amended in Arizona H.B. 2162 to become a requirement that aliens carry certain documentation (which would mean that MayBee was correct when she stated that she thought the anti-trespassing provision hadn't made it into the final bill) (because the bill doesn't become effective for a couple of more weeks, the codified version of Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1509 doesn't appear in the Lexis statutory files). I spoke to and sent an email to a staff official in the Arizona Senate, who said he would forward an email I sent to the individual who would know for sure (apparently she is out today).


TC gets results!

JM Hanes


"It gives the state the authority to bring a criminal prosecution for illegal status against an individual wnom the feds might elect not to prosecute."

But they would be prosecuting for trespassing, not illegal status, with, I presume, the same penalties in the offing which anyone else might incur. From the position as you describe it, couldn't you conceivably argue that an illegal alien could not be prosecuted by Arizona for any crime, because the Feds' discretion/priorities similarly apply? It seems to me that the Feds are effectively trying to establish a an overriding legal interest in any illegal alien.

Arizona might have removed that provision from the final iteration of the law because they didn't want to risk losing on that point, or adding an unnecessary twist, but it seems to me, per the above, that the issue really speaks to the underlying federal intentions here.

Dave (in MA)
“…significant contributions to science by the Arab world.”
The Muslims are often credited with being the first to come up with the concept of "Zero", and now he's the President.

Instapundit has a list of numerous MSM outlets who have Zero mention of Bolden's comments. Add to his list both Boston newspapers.

Danube of Thought

But they would be prosecuting for trespassing, not illegal status,

Except that, in the case of the defendant being on public property, there's no crime unless you're an illegal alien.

In any event, let's hope that the provision has been scrubbed, per TC. It seems to me that it's the weakest link in the scheme.

Danube of Thought

James Taranto explains why the 1976 DeCana case doesn't really help Arizona.

JM Hanes

Yes, DoT, I see that now.

Having finally read the DoJ complaint in full, it seems that Congress has expressly prohibited the formulation of any crime which relies on immigration status alone, a provision which the automatic trespassing provision would clearly violate.

IA (obviously) NAL, but I'd be surprised if the U.S. doesn't prevail on the preemption argument, and I don't see any easy way for Arizona the rework their law to avoid it. The first probability would be sufficient basis for an injunction, no?

That said, however, there are a lot of disturbing eye openers in the DoJ complaint, which I hope the Judge will address and decline to utilize, if not challenge directly, as a basis for his eventual ruling.

More later.


Andy McCarthy at The Corner (5:44) expounds from Legal Insurrection via the Boston Globe that RI now screens for immigration status and reports illegals to the Feds. No independent penalties so preemption not addressed but still an undue burden so why not sue RI?


Clarice asserts: `` held my nose and read thru the WaPo this morning thinking for sure they'd finally cover the Black Panthers case today..NADA..WaPo readers know absolutely nothing about this matter.''
Not even close, Clarice:
From July 7 Wapo:
• Racial motive alleged in a Justice Dept. decision: A former department lawyer hired alleges DOJ scaled down a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party because his former colleagues do not want to protect white people’s civil rights.
The paper also published AP's coverage of the story on July 1, under the headline: Ex-Justice Dept lawyer says whites' rights ignored
Wapo's David Weigel mentioned the case in his columns on June 18, June 15, May 28 and May 14 and possibly elsewhere.
Why do wingnuts cling so tenaciously to the the risible fantasy that their ideas and issues are unfairly suppressed by the mainstream?

Dave (in MA)

Following up to my 4:31, the Boring Broadsheet finally mentions Jughead's NASA plans, albeit onlyl in an OpEd piece that manages to work in a little bit of Blame Bush. Of course, the whole story is only told in the comments section.


There must be something in the water, up there, that makes them miss the whole point
of the exercise


From July 7 Wapo:

bb, that was a blog entry (in its entirety), the next-to-last bullet of about 15 on a wide variety of topics, well below such juicy tidbits as "Western lawmakers push for more long-distance flights from Reagan National" and "Hiring challenges weigh most on federal managers." Presumably not in the print edition that Clarice evidently was referring to. Ditto for all the Dave Weigel entries, which, if you'd bothered to look at them, you'd have seen were only passing references.

So there appears to have been one story about it a week ago, but no ongoing coverage.


Like I said, jimmy, not even close. one could argue that the case should be given higher profile, but the assertion that it's been given no coverage is false. moreover, this is very old news and, as Weigel repeatedly demonstrated, inconsequential and only of concern, apparently, to those who feel there's a political benefit in blowing what happened out of proportion...

The comments to this entry are closed.