A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling 2-1, upheld a lower court’s decision that Congress doesn’t want states meddling in immigration. The appeals court said that nullifies Arizona’s attempt to empower local police to detain and question those they suspect are in the country illegally.
“Foreign policy is not and cannot be determined by the several states,” Judge John T. Noonan Jr. wrote in his concurring opinion. “Foreign policy is determined by the nation as the nation interacts with other nations. Whatever in any substantial degree attempts to express a policy by a single state or by several states toward other nations enters an exclusively federal field.”
“Foreign policy is not and cannot be determined by the several states,” Judge John T. Noonan Jr. wrote in his concurring opinion. “Foreign policy is determined by the nation as the nation interacts with other nations. Whatever in any substantial degree attempts to express a policy by a single state or by several states toward other nations enters an exclusively federal field.”
...
“Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to compensate for the administration’s dereliction of duty,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “Every state has a duty and a right to protect its citizens. I find it ironic the administrationhas sued Arizona for enforcing the law while [federal officials] largely ignore it.”
One part of Monday’s ruling is bound to attract disproportionate attention: The two judges in the majority referred to statements from Mexican officials that foreign relations would be harmed by the law.
Judge Carlos T. Bea, the dissenting judge, said considering the opinions of foreign governments would essentially give a “heckler’s veto” to other countries.
Judge Bea said the majority’s opinion made attacks on the state law that even the government didn’t make in its case, and said far from intending to prevent states from acting on immigration, Congressat times invites the help.
“The majority misreads the meaning of the relevant federal statutes to ignore what is plain in the statutes - Congress intended state and local police officers to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration law,” Judge Bea wrote.
The judges’ heated writings could be a reflection on the divisiveness of immigration in the political debate. Judge Richard A. Paez, in his majority opinion, said Judge Bea “resorted to fairy tale quotes and other superfluous and distracting rhetoric” in his dissent.
One part of Monday’s ruling is bound to attract disproportionate attention: The two judges in the majority referred to statements from Mexican officials that foreign relations would be harmed by the law.
Judge Carlos T. Bea, the dissenting judge, said considering the opinions of foreign governments would essentially give a “heckler’s veto” to other countries.
Judge Bea said the majority’s opinion made attacks on the state law that even the government didn’t make in its case, and said far from intending to prevent states from acting on immigration, Congressat times invites the help.
“The majority misreads the meaning of the relevant federal statutes to ignore what is plain in the statutes - Congress intended state and local police officers to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration law,” Judge Bea wrote.
The judges’ heated writings could be a reflection on the divisiveness of immigration in the political debate. Judge Richard A. Paez, in his majority opinion, said Judge Bea “resorted to fairy tale quotes and other superfluous and distracting rhetoric” in his dissent.
No comments:
Post a Comment