On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:43:28 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 09:41:50 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:11:47 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

San Fransicko, Californica, pontificates with boycotts, but reality
sets in....

http://www.kcbs.com/bayareanews/Sanctuary-City-/6993538

...Jim Thompson

And they're (no surprise) hypocrites....

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERE...34b-CA_PC.html

...Jim Thompson

I'm not sure that statute, despite being 'still on the books', is
operational as it was part of Prop 187, which was ruled
unconstitutional by the Federal District Court and placed under
'permanent injunction'.

At least that's how some are 'reporting' it. What really happened is
the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996" ( IIRIRA) was passed (alleged Supremacy Clause conflict) and the
suit was *mediated*, so it's 'possible' that section remained after
the 'mediation' but I doubt it.

However, in investigating the IIRIRA I've come to the conclusion it's
likely (not foregone conclusion) the Court will rule the Arizona
statute unconstitutional because the IIRIRA specifically provides for
the Fed to enter into 'agreements' with state and local officials for
the purpose of enforcing federal immigration law, placing requirements
on those officials, and that will, no doubt, invoke another Supremacy
Clause argument.

In particular: "SEC. 133. ACCEPTANCE OF STATE SERVICES TO CARRY OUT
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.

‘‘(g)(1) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States
Code, the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement
with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant
to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who
is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform
a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation,
apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including
the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention
centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State
or political subdivision and to the extent consistent with State
and local law.
‘‘(2) An agreement under this subsection shall require that
an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State
performing a function under the agreement shall have knowledge
of, and adhere to, Federal law relating to the function, and shall
contain a written certification that the officers or employees
performing the function under the agreement have received adequate
training regarding the enforcement of relevant Federal
immigration laws......."

As sympathetic as I am to Arizona's problem I don't see an obvious way
around the Supremacy Clause issue, at least not when one considers how
the Court traditionally interprets it and the "Naturalization" clause.
The problem lies in this Administration and Congress's disregard for
their Constitutional duty. For example, rather than indignant
pontification Obama could have said he was directing ICE to
investigate increasing the number of cooperative agreements, and
training, with local authorities: something he could actually do
legally, and without 'taking over' half the country, but I suppose
that's not nearly so much fun as 'remaking America."

We'll just throw 'em in jail :-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy