By Jennifer Medina • Correspondent
Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is appealing a court decision against the state’s strict new immigration law. Photo provided by Annie Tritt for The New York Times
In July, just one day before the law was to take effect, a lower court suspended parts of it, ruling that the state could not require local law enforcement officials to check on the immigration status of people they stop and detain them if they were suspected of entering the country illegally.
Ms. Brewer is appealing that decision. Whatever the outcome from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit here, it, too, is expected to be appealed, and Ms. Brewer has said she will take it to the Supreme Court if necessary.
During Monday’s hearing, the appellate judges abruptly ended a discussion of a provision of the state law that would forbid illegal immigrants to work in the state, saying that a decision in another case had already blocked the state from making it a crime for such immigrants to seek employment.
The judges focused on the central question of whether a state could take it upon itself to enforce federal laws.
“If I don’t pay my income tax to the federal government, can California come along and sue me?” asked Judge Carlos T. Bea.
John J. Bouma, the lawyer for Arizona, responded, “I don’t think California would be particularly interested.”
The panel also grappled with whether police officers were free to question the people they stop about crimes beyond the grounds for the stop. The judges pointedly asked lawyers for the Justice Department whether the practice should never be allowed. The Obama administration has said that requiring police officers to question immigration status is unconstitutional and could damage relationships with other countries, making American citizens abroad more vulnerable to unfair treatment.
At one point in the hearing, Judge Richard A. Paez and Mr. Bouma sparred over parsing of the law.
“The statute says ‘shall’ check the immigration status,” Judge Paez said.
“We encourage them to do it,” Mr. Bouma replied.
“That’s a generous interpretation of the word ‘shall,’ ” Judge Paez responded, one of several times the judges drew laughs from the packed courtroom.
Judge John T. Noonan Jr. pressed Edwin S. Kneedler, the deputy solicitor general representing the Justice Department, on why such a requirement was unconstitutional.
“I don’t understand your argument,” Judge Noonan said, adding that such a requirement did not necessarily usurp federal law. “I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don’t have an argument.”
The judges suggested they might agree that requiring immigrants to carry citizenship papers would conflict with federal policy, telling the lawyers not to spend time discussing that part of the law during the one-hour hearing.
Posted in: Uncategorized
The Upstate Upstart 
Benito
November 16, 2010
“Prop. 200”, “House Bill 2013″ and “SB1070″
0 = Arizona
3 = USA/ Our Constitution/ We the People of the United States
We are a country that is ruled by the Constitution (with all Amendments), and the Declaration of Independence, not by the majority of the day. When the uneducated do not know the principles in these documents, therein lays the problem in losing, so no one should be surprised when the dullards lose in court after being smartly challenged.
Last month of October 2010, our Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote or the 2004, “Prop. 200”. In the month of July 2010, our U.S. Federal courts have found the so called State of Arizona hate filled legislation namely “House Bill 2013″ and “SB1070″ Un-constitution (So much for the intellect of Jan Brewer, “Did you read the bills you signed?”). But we all know that they will go crying to the Supreme Court of the United States, please, please, please go. We will fight you in Arizona, any other state, and yes in Washington DC. We will not tire, we will not be silent and we will persevere, I promise you.
In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme of clans; the Baggers, Birthers and Blowhards (people who love to push their beliefs and hate on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win in November. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of these laws, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO! You were all wrong then and you are wrong now!
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by people of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all people are created equal, and that the rights of every person are diminished when the rights of one person are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis people of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some people comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.