Arizona told to stop prosecuting job-seeking (illegal) immigrants

A federal judge ordered an immediate halt Monday to Arizona’s enforcement of identity theft laws that penalize immigrants in the country illegally for seeking employment.

U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell said in his order that the laws are at odds with federal statutes that protect such immigrants from prosecution simply for applying for work.

Federal law makes it a crime to use falsified documents, but draws a distinction between identity theft and application to work. The application to work by an immigrant in the country illegally is not, in itself, a crime under federal law.

Arizona tried to change that. In bills passed in 2007 and 2008, Arizona changed the definition of identity theft to include attempts at employment by immigrants in the country illegally. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio began to enforce them. 

A group of plaintiffs challenged those laws, including a woman who was convicted of identity theft and a taxpayer in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix. They objected to using taxpayer dollars to enforce the law. Arpaio tried to get the suit thrown out of court.

The plaintiffs argued before Campbell that the federal rule on employment applications by immigrants in the country illegally supersedes Arizona law. To resolve those challenges, Campbell took into account a 1947 U.S. Supreme Court case that says courts should assume that “the historic police powers of the states” aren’t superseded “unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.”

read more here:

Views: 731

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I am sure that that is why Arizona is being victimized. Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been enforcing all the laws and been hit on every count, especially if it deals with the illegal aliens.. I am so sick and tired of the illegals trying to make our country other than what she used to be. We used to have English only on all signs, reading material, spoken at the stores and banks and people assimilating into this country and our ways. Next they will be putting all the road signs in 3 or 4 languages and screw us Americans. Can hardly wait till #DML2016 and we start getting our country back! I will be looking forward to your proposed COS Constitutional Amendments. Maybe we can get the process started and start seeing some hope for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you Oren.

Joan, You are right on. That is the hope of so many of us.

I take it that the federal judge held that the 10th Amendment was of no importance.

Since when does federal law trump state laws?  Arizona....KEEP ON.

Since federal judges and politicians said it does, unfortunately.

It's not suppose to.

The judges and the politicians of the NATIONAL government have decided the Sovereignty Clause of the Constitution means that they can overrule any and all State decisions. Yet Article 1 Section 8 only gives the federal government limited authority to do so in matters specifically delegated to the federal government.

And the Constitution gives Congress the right to replace this judge...he may have been appointed by a prez but the Constitution says they are under control of the Congress....

However, the Constitution states that removal of federal judges must be through the impeachment process. Do you think enough Democrat senators would join Republicans to achieve a 2/3rds victory in the Senate to convict and remove him?

NO Judge/court, especially a FEDERAL one, can dictate to a state or its legislatures !  Throw out the judge - since he has no right to even be IN a state, much less dictate to it !  Judges of a state (not DC's Federal entities) are to only see to it lawfully  made written laws are carried out - period !  They cannot have an opinion or make or change laws and rule on it.  Even "case law" is unlawful, as that is a judge's OPINION - NOT ' WRITTEN  LAW '.
A Federal judge 'ordered' an immediate halt Monday to Arizona’s enforcement of identity theft laws that penalize immigrants in the country... The Treasonous court/judge is ordering to stop criminal investigations !  OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE LAW CALLS FOR - GET RID OF THE  JUDGE - ARREST HIM  !   HE JUST COMMITTED MORE THEN ONE CRIME BY HIS "ORDER" !
He needs to be Jeffersoned !
For those who are unaware of our TRUE history, Thomas Jefferson removed more judges from the bench then any other President or Official.
If a judge even gave the slightest hint of non-Constitutional actions or rulings - they were gone immediately and permanently.  They were never allowed to be a judge again.
Judges had to stick strictly to the  common law. Constitutional law.  They could not use opinion law that we call 'case law' today.  NONE of today's judges would be two minutes on the bench if Jefferson were here ! Jefferson called that an Oligarchy and ordered that no judge was to have the last word on any Constitutional law - judges were not held in high esteem back then - certainly not the gods they have been made into today !
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."    -- Thomas Jefferson

Vote from the roof tops.

Obama does not listen to Federal Judges why should Arizona.




Political Cartoons by Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel


Florida Sheriff — “I Will Not Enforce Assault Weapons Ban, Neither Will Most Sheriffs”

Dennis Lemma, who is the Sheriff in Central Florida’s Seminole County, told a group of 2nd Amendment activists recently that he would not enforce an assault weapons ban that could soon become Florida law if the “Ban Assault Weapons Now” amendment passes in the Sunshine State.

According to News965, the ban has the following specifications.

The amendment proposed in the state legislature would ban possession of assault weapons, which are defined as “semiautomatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device.”

Lemma, an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a first term sheriff who is running for re-election, said this about whether or not he would enforce such a law.

“It’s not only that I wouldn’t, the majority of sheriffs across the state would not do it,” Lemma said in the video. It’s up to the sheriffs what they are willing to enforce.”

Trump Holds Rally in Milwaukee, WI 1-14-20

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service