Drug Cartel Kills American While He Jet Skied with Wife on Falcon Lake, Texas

Tiffany Hartley and her husband David Michael Hartley

BROWNSVILLE — Gunmen presumed to be Mexican drug operatives opened fire today on a couple riding water skis on the binational Falcon Lake reservoir, possibly killing the husband and sending the woman fleeing frantically to the U.S. side.

Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez said the couple — believed to be from McAllen — had crossed to the Mexican side when they came under a spray of bullets by two boatloads of men. The man, 30, was shot in the head and his wife said she fears he is dead.

“They saw them approaching and started revving it up back to the U.S. side,” Gonzalez told the Associated Press. “The guys just started shooting at them from behind.”

According to unconfirmed reports, the woman circled back to get her husband but the gunmen continued shooting, even after she crossed back to the U.S. side.

Gonzalez said he had contacted the Mexican consulate for help finding the husband. As of late Thursday afternoon, he was tracing down leads with the FBI, said Mary Pulido, a dispatcher fielding a barrage of press calls.

“I do know that it happened on the Mexican side, that’s what’s making the investigation very difficult,” she said.

The shooting follows reports in May that boaters in the famed bass fishing oasis were at risk of being shaken down by “pirates” lurking on the Mexican side.

The 60-mile long Rio Grande reservoir is shared by the United States and Mexico, and due to its location along sparsely populated Starr and Zapata counties is believed to be a favorite location for trafficking drugs.

Rep. Aaron Peña, D-Edinburg, who along with state Rep. Ryan Guillen, D-Rio Grande City, recently traveled to the area for a briefing by the Texas Department of Public Safety on Falcon Lake dangers said that any gunfire that took place on the U.S. side of the lake — in some places demarcated by floating markers — would represent a serious step over the line for a drug war that’s “getting out of hand.”

“These guys are getting very aggressive,” he said. “It’s a significant incident, but it has international ramifications if the shots continued into our side. This was just a couple of people having a good time.”

Peña, as chair of the emergency preparedness committee, said the incident strengthened his resolve to fight budget cuts for DPS, who along with Border Patrol agents patrol the lake.

“They’re essentially the Texas marine force,” he said. “We need them to protect our citizens and keep our lakes safe.”

Thursday’s reported shooting comes during what may be the most deadly and prolonged streak of Mexican drug cartel violence in memory.

In May, the Texas Department of Public Safety reported several incidents of pirates shaking down U.S. boaters. The robbers in at least one case posed as Mexican federal law enforcement, searching fishing boats for guns and drugs and then demanding cash at gunpoint.

The DPS issued a statement warning people not to cross to the Mexican side of the lake. Boaters were encouraged to file a float plan with family members.

“The robbers are believed to be members of a drug trafficking organization or members of an enforcer group linked to a drug trafficking organization who are…using AK-47s or AR-15 rifles to threaten their victims,” it said. “They appear to be using local Mexican fishermen to operate the boats to get close to American fishermen.”

The warning came as the county of Zapata geared up for a summer of fishing tournaments, prompting the chamber of commerce to say that the warning was drastic and that people were safe if they stayed in U.S. waters.

Falcon Lake was formed by a dam in 1953 to conserve water for agriculture and control downstream flooding.

http://oneoldvet.com/?p=23289

David Michael Hartley riding his Jet Ski at home in Colorado

Mexican Pirates Attack US Couple on Falcon Lake; Husband Missing, Feared Dead

Mexican pirates operating on Falcon Lake, which is shared by the United States and Mexico, on Thursday shot an American tourist who had crossed the border on a Jet Ski.

Tiffany Hartley, 29, said her husband, David Michael Hartley, 30, was shot in the back of the head as they tried to escape an ambush on the lake, The Associated Press reports.

Hartley tried to turn around to save her husband but said she had to continue to retreat when she heard bullets whizzing by. Today, search teams continue to comb the Texas side of the lake for David, who is presumed dead. Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez said he had asked the Mexican consulate to conduct a search on his country’s side of the lake as well.

Falcon Lake pirate gangs in May after a spat of robberies prompted the Texas Department of Public Safety to issue a bulletin warning Americans to stay in U.S. waters. Authorities believe the pirates are offshoots of Mexican drug gangs operating in the area.

On April 30, five American fishermen crossed the border to explore Guerrero Viejo, a town that was abandoned and flooded when the Rio Grande was dammed to create Falcon Lake in 1953. The Americans’ boat was boarded by four men who said they were federal police but were not wearing uniforms.

The Texas Department of Public Safety said the men demanded to know if the fishermen had drugs before making off with $200. They also had several tattoos of the letter “Z,” raising suspicions that they were members of the Zetas drug cartel, which controls territory in northern Mexico.

Like the fishermen, the Hartleys had crossed the border Thursday to see Guerrero Viejo. Gonzalez said today that the gunmen chased the couple into American waters, according to the AP. He also said he suspects they returned for Hartley’s body or let it sink to the bottom of the lake in the hopes of destroying evidence of his murder.

Falcon Lake, which is approximately 50 miles south of Laredo, Texas, is a water sports and fishing destination, making it a prime target for an unusual brand of piracy. There have been at least five reported attacks on the lake this year, although none of them was deadly.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department spokesman Mike Cox told the AP that the last reported sighting of the pirates was on Aug. 31, when boaters reported seeing gunmen in a small craft with “Game Wardin” spelled out in duct tape on the side of the boat.

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/falcon-lake-pirates-ambush-american-couple-shoot-husband-in-head/19657660

Search resumes for US man shot in Mexican waters

SAN ANTONIO — Texas officials planned Friday to renew warnings about pirates marauding on a U.S.-Mexico border lake after a Colorado tourist was gunned down in Mexican waters while his wife dodged bullets and raced her Jet Ski back to American soil.

Search teams combed the U.S. side of Falcon Lake for David Michael Hartley, 30, whose wife told police he was shot in the back of the head Thursday after being ambushed by gunmen on boats.

The gunmen are suspected pirates who have turned Falcon Lake, a waterskiing and bass fishing hotspot down the border from Laredo, into uneasy waters for fishermen and boaters. There have been at least five reported run-ins with pirates on the lake this year, though prior holdups had never been deadly.

Hartley’s fate was unclear. Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez said 29-year-old Tiffany Hartley fears her husband is dead. She circled back on her Jet Ski to rescue him but had to retreat when she heard bullets whizzing by.

Gonzalez said he had contacted the Mexican consulate to ask them to search for Hartley on its side of the lake.

“I’m not trying to place the blame on her or him,” Gonzalez said. “But we’ve told people not to go over there, and now this happens.

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department spokesman Mike Cox said Friday that the state planned to issue a fresh warning to boaters about staying on the U.S. side of the lake. The last warning came in May, and some campers on the lake have taken to arming themselves.

Falcon Lake is a dammed section of the Rio Grande that straddles the border. The border is marked by 14 partially submerged concrete towers that mark the Rio Grande’s path before the lake was created in 1954.

According to Gonzalez, Tiffany Hartley told police that the couple rode their Jet Skis for sightseeing and to take pictures of a famous church in Old Guerrero. They were riding back when they saw the armed gunmen on the boats, and immediately began racing back to U.S. waters.

David Hartley didn’t make it. His wife told authorities he was shot in the back in the head; Cox said one of the boats may have crossed into U.S. waters briefly while trying to run down Tiffany Hartley.

Cox said Tiffany Hartley estimated that the shooting took place about five to six miles from the Texas shoreline where she parked and called for help.

In April, pirates robbed another group of boaters who also went to Old Guerrero to see the church. Cox said the most recent reported pirate sighting had been Aug. 31, when boaters saw gunmen riding a small skiff with “Game Wardin” misspelled in duct tape on the side of the vessel.

Cox said it appeared the pirates were trying to imitate state game warden boats they have seen patrolling the lake.

Gonzalez has previously chalked up the dangerous waters as the product of fighting between rival Mexican drug gangs.

Violence on the Mexican side of the lake has been climbing for several months, as a fractured partnership between the region’s dominant Gulf Cartel and its former enforcers, the Zetas, plunged many of the area’s Mexican border cities into violence.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5haMJhn6enRPZBA8z3GreQPLl8SMQD9IJ0RLG0?docId=D9IJ0RLG0

Agents feared Mexican drug cartel attack on border dam

Falcon Lake Dam

An alleged plot by a Mexican drug cartel to blow up a dam along the Texas border — and unleash billions of gallons of water into a region with millions of civilians — sent American police, federal agents and disaster officials secretly scrambling last month to thwart such an attack, authorities confirmed Wednesday.

Whether or not the cartel, which is known to have stolen bulk quantities of gunpowder and dynamite, could have taken down the 5-mile-long Falcon Dam may never be known since the attack never came to pass.

It may have been derailed by a stepped-up presence by the Mexican military, which was acting in part on intelligence from the U.S. government, sources said.

The warning, which swung officials into action, was based on what the federal government contends were “serious and reliable sources” and prompted the Department of Homeland Security to sound the alarm to first responders along the South Texas-Mexico border.

Mexico’s Zeta cartel was planning to destroy the dam not to terrorize civilians, but to get back at its rival and former ally, the Gulf cartel, which controls smuggling routes from the reservoir to the Gulf of Mexico, said Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez, head of the Southwest Border Sheriff’s Coalition, as did others familiar with the alleged plot.

But in the process, massive amounts of agricultural land would stand to be flooded as well as significant parts of a region where about 4 million people live along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.

The dam along the lower Rio Grande was finished in 1954 as part of a joint U.S.-Mexico project to collect water for flood control, hydroelectric power and water for drinking and agriculture.

Gonzalez’s agency was among many that responded, as did the U.S. Border Patrol, the Texas Department of Public Safety and even game wardens, who put more boats on the water.

Citing security concerns, neither Homeland Security nor DPS commented.

“We trust that DPS and their federal and local law enforcement partners are constantly collecting intelligence and monitoring all threats to Texas and taking the appropriate action to protect our citizens from those who would do us harm,” said Gov. Rick Perry’s deputy press secretary Katherine Cesinger.

Varying credibility

Law enforcement officials huddled at the dam, near Rio Grande City, to discuss the threat and how to stifle it, said an officer who attended the meeting.

Officers interviewed by the Chronicle gave the warning varying degrees of credibility. They noted that among the Zetas ranks are Mexican military defectors who were trained in special forces tactics, including demolition.

Special cameras were set up along the dam, which has six 50-foot-tall steel gates, and lawmen hid in brush.

A Mexican military spokesman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said he had not heard of any threat to the Falcon Dam and expressed doubt that the Zetas would try such an attack.

“This isn’t the way these groups operate, they have never attacked installations like that,” he said.

Rick Pauza, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection, in Laredo, said the port of entry at the dam had been at a heightened alert due to violence in Mexico.

Residents warned?

The attack may have been thwarted in Mexico. It raises the fear of what the powerful cartels could do.

“It would have been a hell of a disaster,” said Gene Falcon, director of emergency preparedness for Starr County, site of the dam. “There was plenty of concern.”

With handbills and bullhorns, members of the Zeta cartel are said to have warned the civilian population on the Mexican side of the river near the dam to get out of the area, according to residents and intelligence information from law enforcement officials.

A border law enforcement official told the Chronicle the warnings originated in part by the seizure of small amounts of dynamite near the dam, and the discovery of a copy of the alert on the Mexican side of the border.

Capt. Francisco Garcia, of the Roma (Texas) Police Department, said there was no way to know what the traffickers were capable of doing, but bringing down the dam would require nearly a tractor-trailer full of dynamite.

“As far as blowing it up — making it fall apart completely — it would have to be something like 9/11,” he said. “By the time they’d start to do something, there will be so much law enforcement there it’d be ridiculous.”

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7033818.html

Small-town mayor stoned to death in western Mexico: Drug Cartel’s Blamed for Murder of 5th City Leader

By GUSTAVO RUIZ
Associated Press Writer

MORELIA, Mexico (AP) – A small-town mayor and an aide were found stoned to death Monday in a drug-plagued western state, the fifth city leader to be slain in Mexico since mid-August.

Michoacan state Attorney General Jesus Montejano said the bodies of Tancitaro Mayor Gustavo Sanchez and city adviser Rafael Equihua were discovered in a pickup truck abandoned on a dirt road near the city of Uruapan.

Montejano’s spokesman, Jonathan Arredondo, said initially that the victims were hacked to death with a machete, but the attorney general said they were killed with stones.

Arredondo said police were trying to determine a possible motive.

Tancitaro, a town of 26,000 people, is in a region where soldiers have destroyed more than 20 meth labs in the last year and several police officers have been killed by suspected drug gang members.

Last year the city council chief, Gonzalo Paz, was kidnapped, tortured and killed. Then in December, the mayor and seven other town officials resigned saying they had been threatened by drug traffickers and local police were not showing up to work.

Soon after, the department’s entire 60-officer force was fired for failing to stop a series of killings and other crimes, and Michoacan state police and soldiers took over security in the town. Sanchez was named mayor in January.

Also Monday in Michoacan, five gunmen and a marine were killed in a shootout in Coahuayana on the Pacific coast, the navy said in a statement. A second marine was wounded, and authorities were searching for more gunmen.

Coahuayana authorities canceled school and warned people to stay indoors.

The navy said another gunbattle across the country in the Gulf coast state of Tamaulipas left eight gunmen and one marine dead in the border city of Reynosa.

Meanwhile, the Defense Department said soldiers arrested a man suspected in the kidnapping and killing of the mayor of Santiago in the border state of Nuevo Leon. It said in a statement that Miguel Cervantes was arrested Monday.

In the border state of Chihuahua, gunmen broke into a police complex, subdued the guards and stole at least 40 automatic rifles and 23 handguns, police spokesman Fidel Banuelos said.

Banuelos said 10 officers who were in the building at the time were being questioned. He said it was not clear whether the assailants were members of a drug cartel.

In Ciudad Juarez, a border city in Chihuahua, the Public Safety Department announced the capture of a drug gang member who allegedly helped set up a car bomb that killed three people.

Suspect Jose Contreras allegedly killed a man and dressed him in a police uniform to lure federal agents to the area where the car bomb exploded, killing a federal police officer and a doctor who was helping the shooting victim.

Contreras is a member of La Linea gang, which works for the Juarez drug cartel, the department said in a statement.

Ciudad Juarez, across the border from El Paso, Texas, has become one of the world’s most dangerous cities amid a turf war between the Sinaloa and Juarez cartels.

http://www.abc-7.com/Global/story.asp?S=13224935

3rd Mexican Mayor Slain by Hit Men This Month – Bodies of Police Detectives Investigating Slaughter of 72 Migrants Found

3rd Mexican Mayor Slain by Hit Men This Month

Another Mexican mayor slain; Clinton angers Mexico by comparing it to Colombia decades ago

The third Mexican mayor in a month was slain by suspected drug gang hitmen on the same day the U.S. secretary of state raised hackles in Mexico by saying the country is “looking more and more like Colombia looked 20 years ago.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton and other U.S. officials pointed to Mexican drug cartels’ use of three car bombs, a tool once favored by cartel-allied rebels in Colombia, as evidence that the gangs “are now showing more and more indices of insurgency.”

While the Mexican government quickly condemned the killing of the mayor of the northern town of El Naranjo, it rejected the comparison with Colombia, where the Medellin drug cartel waged a full frontal assault on the state, endangering its very integrity with attacks on police, politicians and judges and terror attacks against civilians.

More worrisome to Mexican legislators, Clinton suggested the United States was looking to implement some type of Plan Colombia for Mexico and Central America, referring to a U.S. anti-drug program in which American special forces teams trained Colombian troops and U.S. advisers are attached to Colombian military units.

 
 
 

Edelmiro Cavazo Mayor of Santiago, Mexico - Kidnapped from Home & Assassinated By Cartel

McAuley’s World: As in Columbia, hundreds of Politicians and Police are in the pay of the Mexican Cartels.

The reaction was swift.

Mexico — which has suffered at least three U.S. invasions — has always rejected allowing American troops on its soil, except for a single symbolic presence: Mexico’s Senate has authorized a U.S. detachment to march in next week’s Bicentennial parade.

“Starting right now, we have to say this clearly. We are not going to permit any version of a Plan Colombia,” said Sen. Santiago Creel, a member of President Felipe Calderon’s National Action Party. “We cannot permit a Plan Colombia in Mexico.”

Sen. Ricardo Monreal of the leftist Labor Party said U.S. aid to Colombia hadn’t stopped drug trafficking there. “Whoever thinks Colombia is a cure-all, and if the United States thinks it is necessary to apply the same model to us they applied to Colombia, they are mistaken,” he said.

Plan Colombia has been widely credited for helping Colombia diminish the rebel threat…

Clinton made her statements Wednesday in Washington at the Council on Foreign Relations, where she said drug cartels are “morphing into, or making common cause with, what we would consider an insurgency in Mexico and in Central America.”

Clinton also suggested that “we need to figure out what are the equivalents” for Mexico and Central America of Plan Colombia, acknowledging “there were problems and there were mistakes, but it worked.”

Edgar Valdez Villarreal, alias the "Barbie"

Mexican cartels are becoming increasingly violent — federal police reported Wednesday they had found four bodies in a clandestine grave linked to arrested U.S.-born drug hitman Edgar Valdez Villarreal, alias “La Barbie” — and are carrying out more attacks on government officials in Mexico.

Hooded gunmen burst into Mayor Alexander Lopez Garcia’s office in the northern Mexico state of San Luis Potosi on Wednesday and shot him to death.

President Felipe Calderon’s office issued a statement condemning the killing — the third mayor slain in less than a month — calling it a “cowardly and criminal” act.

There was no immediate information on the motive in the attack, but the style of the slaying resembles methods used by Mexico’s drug cartels.

On Aug. 29, the mayor of a town just across the state line in

Hidalogo Mayor Mayor Marco Antonio Leal Assassinated by Cartels 08.30.2010

Tamaulipas was shot to death and his daughter wounded. [Marco Antonio Leal Garcia, 46, was shot dead while he was driving his car, the source said. His four-year-old daughter was seriously wounded in the attack, the source said.] The mayor of Santiago, a town in the neighboring state of Nuevo Leon, was found murdered Aug. 18, a crime for local police officers allied with a drug gang are suspected.

The San Luis Potosi state prosecutors’ office said Lopez Garcia was killed by a squad of four hitmen. The rural township of about 20,000 people borders the violent-wracked state of Tamaulipas, where 72 migrants were massacred by drug gunmen in August.

On Wednesday, the Mexican government announced that marines had arrested seven gunmen suspected of killing 72 Central and South American migrants last month in the worst drug cartel massacre to date.

Four of the suspects were arrested after a Sept. 3 gunbattle with marines, and the other three were captured days later, spokesman Alejandro Poire said at a news conference.

Poire alleged the seven belong to the Zetas drug gang, but he gave no further details on their identities or what led to their arrests.

Investigators believe the migrants were kidnapped by the Zetas and killed after refusing to work for the cartel.

San Luis Potosi Central Square - City Hall in Background

The arrests “will help determine exactly what happened in San Fernando, Tamaulipas, and it’s a significant step toward ending the impunity surrounding assaults on migrants by organized crime,” Poire said.

An eighth suspect already was in custody. Marines arrested a teenager after a shootout with gunmen at the ranch the day they discovered the bodies. Three gunmen were killed during that battle.

A Twitter account linked to Calderon’s website said two youths aged 14 and 17 had also been detained for allegedly participating in the massacre, but offered no details. The president’s office was not immediately available to clarify the report.

In addition, marines last week found the bodies of three other men suspected of participating in the massacre after an anonymous caller told authorities where to find them. Officials say they have no information on who made the call, but in the past drug gangs have handed over suspects in especially brutal killings that draw too much attention.

Zetas Dump 12 Bodies Outside San Louis Petosi

A Honduran man who also survived the slaughter and is under police protection in Mexico later identified the three dead men as having been among the killers.

The latest arrests were announced one day after authorities found the bodies of two men believed to be those of a state detective and a local police chief who participated in the initial investigation of the massacre. [Prosecutor Roberto Jaime Suarez]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wirestory?id=11589288&page=1

 

Four decapitated bodies hung from bridge in Cuernavaca, Mexico

Hector Beltran Leyva

CUERNAVACA, Mexico — The decapitated bodies of four men were hung from a bridge Sunday in this central Mexican city besieged by fighting between two drug lords.

A gang led by kingpin Hector Beltran Leyva took responsibility for the killings in a message left with the bodies, the attorney general’s office of Mexico state said in a statement.

The beheaded and mutilated bodies were hung by their feet early Sunday from the bridge in Cuernavaca, a popular weekend getaway for Mexico City residents.

Cuernavaca has become a battleground for control of the Beltran Leyva cartel since its leader, Arturo Beltran Leyva, was killed there in a December shootout with marines.

Mexican authorities say the cartel split between a faction led by Hector Beltran Leyva, brother of Arturo, and another led by Edgar

Aturo Beltran Leyva

 Valdez Villareal, a U.S.-born kingpin known as “the Barbie.”

The message left with the bodies threatened: “This is what will happen to all those who support the traitor Edgar Valdez Villareal”

Authorities said the four men had been kidnapped days earlier. The family of one of the men reported the abduction to police.

In western Mexico, police found the body of a U.S. citizen inside a car along the highway between the Pacific resorts of Acapulco and Zihuatanejo.

A report from Guerrero state police said the man was shot to death and had identification indicating he was from Georgia.

Death of Aturo Beltran Leyva

The U.S. Embassy could not be reached to confirm the man’s identity.

Police said they had no suspects and had not determined a motive.

Guerrero state has been wracked by drug-gang violence, including the strife within the Beltran Leyva cartel. There have also been a series of deadly carjackings this year along highways in the state.

Mexico has seen unprecedented gang violence since President Felipe Calderon stepped up the fight against drug trafficking when he took office in December 2006, deploying thousands of troops and federal police to cartel strongholds.

Edgar Valdez Villareal

Since then, more than 28,000 people have been killed in violence tied to Mexico’s drug war.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/08/22/general-lt-drug-war-mexico_7868957.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews

Nineteen bodies found in Mexico mine shaft

11 of 16 Bodies Dumped Along The Roadside In Tijuana

Police in Mexico say they have found at least 19 bodies in an abandoned mine shaft in Hidalgo, near Mexico City.

The security forces said they found the decomposing remains after a tip-off from two alleged members of a drug cartel they had arrested on Friday.

The two men also named nine police officers who they say worked for their cartel, Los Zetas.

The nine have been arrested and are being questioned, while police continue to search the area for more bodies.

They say the two alleged cartel members told them there were more human remains at at least four other locations in the area.

Since President Felipe Calderon came to power four years ago, more than 28,000 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico.

And while turf wars between rivalling drug cartels have been particularly fierce in the north of the country, mass graves are also  increasingly being discovered in other states.

In May, police found 55 bodies in an abandoned mine near Taxco, in Guerrerro state.

And on Sunday, four decapitated bodies were found hanging from a bridge in the affluent central city of Cuernavaca.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11066631

The Immigration Debate: The Arizona Law – Judge Bolton’s Decision (Part 4)

Read Part 1 here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-1/

Read Part 2 here:  https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-2/

Read Part 3 here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-3/

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c), DHS is required to “respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status . . . for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.” DHS has, in its discretion, set up LESC, which is administered by ICE and “serves as a national enforcement operations center that promptly provides immigration status and identity information to local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies regarding aliens suspected of, arrested for, or convicted of criminal activity.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 6-7 (citing Palmatier Decl. ¶¶ 3-6).) Mr. Palmatier states in his Declaration that LESC resources are currently dedicated in part to national security objectives such as requests for immigration status determination from the United States Secret Service, the FBI, and employment-related requests at “national security related locations that could be vulnerable to sabotage, attack, or exploitation.” (Palmatier Decl. ¶ 4.)  (Page 18, lines 1 to 12)

Yes, I would invite you to review the history of the LESC and visit the LESC website. http://www.ice.gov/partners/lesc/index.htm

Chapter 8, § 1373(c), Obligation to respond to inquiries:

The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1373&url=/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001373—-000-.html

“shall… any individual … for any purpose authorized by law … by providing the requested information”

THIRD FALSE STATEMENT: DHS, IN ITS DISCRETION SET UP THE LESC – LESC MANDATED BY CONGRESS

We should note the additional false statement above, that, “DHS has, in its discretion, set up LESC”. The DHS was instructed by Congress to establish the LESC and provided with the funding to do so. This action was “mandated” by Congress, there was no “discretion” involved. The issue of “discretion” in the Executive Branch flows in this direction, the DHS will exist as long as the United States Congress allows it to exist, the DHS exists at the sole discretion of Congress, the DHS is a Congressional creation.

 Thus, an increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities. (Page 18, lines 13 to 16)

Again, the significance of argument is what? This is not a constitutionally recognized argument of “preemption”. The allegations presented by the DOJ do not state a claim of preemption recognized by our Federal Courts nor does this claim state a cause of action for which relief maybe granted by a Federal Court.

The Federal Courts cannot forgive an Executive Agency from a responsibility delegated to it by Congress.

The DOJ may want to seek protection from the Federal Courts because Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Mr. Palmatier at  the LESC are incompetent and cannot properly allocate the resources provided by the Congress to their Executive Agencies. The fact that Attorney General Holder and Secretary Napolitano are not qualified to hold their jobs does not mean that a request from the State of Arizona or any other State for that matter is unconstitutional. An otherwise constitutional request cannot become “unconstitutional” because the Executive Agencies involved cannot allocate their resources to successfully complete those tasks specifically assigned to the Agencies by Congress.

For these reasons, the United States has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on its claim that the mandatory immigration verification upon arrest requirement contained in Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law. This requirement, as stated above, is likely to burden legally-present aliens, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s directive in Hines that aliens not be subject to “the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” 312 U.S. at 74. Further, the number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established. (Page 18, Lines 17- 24).

Simply put, the Judge is wrong. This finding is, as has already been demonstrated, not supported by existing law, the doctrine of “federal preemption” or any analysis of Congressional intent. In fact, the Judge’s contradicts the specific Congressional intent specifically stated in the Immigration Statutes and the creation of NSEERS and LESC.

I’m have no doubt that the points presented in this summary will be stressed by the Supreme Court when the Judge Bolton’s decision is reversed.  

FOOT NOTE 7 The problems associated with burdening federal resources are even more acute when considered in light of other state laws similar to this provision. (See Pl.’s Mot. at 31-32 (citing to a newspaper article stating that at least 18 other states are considering parallellegislation).); see also North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423, 458-59 (1990) (Brennan, (Page 18, Lines 26 – 28)

 b. Immigration Status Determination During Lawful Stops, Detentions, or Arrests

Next, the Court turns to the first sentence of Section 2(B): For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by [an Arizona] law enforcement official or . . . law enforcement agency . . . in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. A.R.S. § 11-1051(B). The United States makes essentially the same arguments about this requirement. First, the United States advances that it imposes a burden on lawfully-present aliens not permitted by Hines, where the Supreme Court sought to protect the personal liberties of lawfully-present aliens to leave them free from the possibility of intrusive police practices that might affect international relations and generate disloyalty. (Pl.’s Mot. at 26 (citing Hines, 312 U.S. at 74).) Second, the United States argues that this requirement impermissibly burdens and redirects federal resources away from federally-established priorities. (Id.) The United States’ arguments regarding burdening of federal resources are identical to those outlined above and will not be restated. However, the United States makes several arguments with respect to the burden on lawfully-present aliens that are specific to or slightly different in the context of the first sentence of Section 2(B). First, the United States argues that this provision “necessarily places lawfully present aliens (and even U.S. citizens) in continual jeopardy of having to demonstrate their lawful status to non-federal officials.” (Id. at 26.) The United States further asserts that there are numerous categories of lawfully-present aliens “who will not have readily available documentation to demonstrate that fact,” including foreign visitors from Visa Waiver Program (Page 18, Lines 1 to 23)

The Court notes, “The United States makes essentially the same arguments” and “it imposes a burden on lawfully-present Aliens not permitted by Hines”. For the same reasons previously enumerated, the Court is wrong. The Court’s finding does not comport with the facts of this case, the law of the land or the intent of Congress. The Hines case, again, was a case involving State registration of aliens who had not been “arrested”. The DOJ has failed to produce any proof of an additional burden as was the case in Hines, there is no constitutional prohibition against confirming the “immigration status” of those under arrest … and the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that checking an arrested aliens NCIC record does not create an undue burden … the Judge’s second finding confirms, beyond all doubt, that this Judicial opinion is rooted in politics not law …

countries, individuals who have applied for asylum but not yet received an adjudication, people with temporary protected status, U and T non-immigrant visa applicants, or people who have self-petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. (Id. at 26-27.) Also, the United States points out that United States citizens are not required to carry identification, and some citizens might not have easy access to a form of identification that would satisfy the requirement of Section 2(B).9  (Page 19, Lines 1 to 6)

FALSE STATEMENT 4: “who will not have readily available documentation to demonstrate that fact,”…  including foreign visitors from Visa Waiver Program… The Visa Waiver program does not supersede any other section of United States Immigration Law.

First I want to urge the reader to note Foot Note 8 below, where I’ve added the specifics of the Visa Waiver Program. Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1187.

I find it very hard to express my complete devastation at the lack of candor and outright dishonesty exhibited by both Judge Bolton and our Department of Justice. These are not “errors” in reading the law, errors based on stupidity or incompetence; these are now, in my opinion, instances of dishonesty.     

It has been quite a while since I worked in the legal field on a daily basis, but I have written many, many briefs and read thousands of legal opinions. Never before have I come across a judicial opinion with 4 false statements made by a Judge. There are frequent disagreements concerning the interpretation of specific laws, however, the specific language or wording of a statute is easily determined. A statute’s wording is written in bold face on the page …. I’ve inserted the relevant statutes into this post for you to read and provided links for you to verify the accuracy of my claims … you  can decide for yourself. 

Unscrupulous Attorneys will misquote and miss-site cases, but I have never seen this from a Judge before never mind an Attorney General of the United States. The statement above is a false statement and I believe it to be an intentionally false statement. No matter what “program” an alien seeks to be admitted under, that alien must first register and once registered is required by Federal Law to carry their documentation … 

Foreign visitors requesting admission through the Visa Waiver Program must still register with NSEERS and/or the DHS. An individual seeking entry under the Visa Waiver Program is required to comply with all other “entry” and registration requirements. An individual asking inclusion in the “Visa Waiver Program” is asking for exemption from the requirement to “qualify” for a visa under our system of immigration quotas. Gaining an exemption from the Visa Quota System, does not exempt an individual from “registering” as an alien.  

(The fact that the Holder DOJ suggests that admission under the Visa Waiver Program exempts foreign nationals from registering with the U.S. Government should raise all sorts of red flags in Congress).

Title 8, Chapter 12, 1304; regulates alien registration procedures in the United States.

Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1304: Forms for registration and fingerprinting

 (a) Preparation; contents

The Attorney General and the Secretary of State jointly are authorized and directed to prepare forms for the registration of aliens under section 1301 of this title, and the Attorney General is authorized and directed to prepare forms for the registration and fingerprinting of aliens under section 1302 of this title. Such forms shall contain inquiries with respect to

(1) the date and place of entry of the alien into the United States;

(2) activities in which he has been and intends to be engaged;

(3) the length of time he expects to remain in the United States;

(4) the police and criminal record, if any, of such alien; and

(5) such additional matters as may be prescribed.

(b) Confidential nature

All registration and fingerprint records made under the provisions of this subchapter shall be confidential, and shall be made available only

(1) pursuant to section 1357 (f)(2) of this title, and

(2) to such persons or agencies as may be designated by the Attorney General.

(c) Information under oath

Every person required to apply for the registration of himself or another under this subchapter shall submit under oath the information required for such registration. Any person authorized under regulations issued by the Attorney General to register aliens under this subchapter shall be authorized to administer oaths for such purpose.

(d) Certificate of alien registration or alien receipt card

Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this chapter shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1304&url=/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001304—-000-.html

The United States contends that the impact on lawfully-present aliens of the requirement that law enforcement officials, where practicable, check the immigration status of a person lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested where there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present will be exacerbated by several factors. (Id. at 28-29.) First, the United States suggests that the impact on lawfully-present aliens is enhanced because this requirement applies to stops for even very minor, non-criminal violations of state law, including jaywalking, failing to have a dog on a leash, or riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. (Id. at 28.) Also, the United States argues that the impact will be increased because other provisions in S.B. 1070 put pressure on law enforcement agencies and officials to enforce the immigration laws vigorously.10 (Id. at 29.) Hines cautions against imposing burdens on lawfully-present aliens such as those described above. See 312 U.S. at 73-74. Legal residents will certainly be swept up by this requirement, particularly when the impacts of the provisions pressuring law enforcement (Page 20, Lines 7 to 19).

Foot Note 8: The Visa Waiver Program permits visitors from certain countries to enter the United States without a visa, so long as various requirements are met. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1187; 8 C.F.R.§,§ 217.1-217.7. (Page 20, Lines 21 to 23).

Again, the Court acted dishonestly it discussing the Visa Waiver Program. The Visa Waiver Program does not eliminate an alien’s duty to register with trhe Federal Government and caryy their registration documents with them at all times. 

Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1187. Visa waiver program for certain visitors

 

(1) Seeking entry as tourist for 90 days or less

The alien is applying for admission during the program as a nonimmigrant visitor (described in section 1101 (a)(15)(B) of this title) for a period not exceeding 90 days.

2) National of program country

The alien is a national of, and presents a passport issued by, a country which

(A) extends (or agrees to extend), either on its own or in conjunction with one or more other countries that are described in subparagraph (B) and that have established with it a common area for immigration admissions, reciprocal privileges to citizens and nationals of the United States

3) Machine readable passport

(A) In general

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), on or after October 1, 2003, the alien at the time of application for admission is in possession of a valid unexpired machine-readable passport that satisfies the internationally accepted standard for machine readability.

(4) Executes immigration forms

The alien before the time of such admission completes such immigration form as the Attorney General shall establish.

(6) Not a safety threat

The alien has been determined not to represent a threat to the welfare, health, safety, or security of the United States.

(7) No previous violation

If the alien previously was admitted without a visa under this section, the alien must not have failed to comply with the conditions of any previous admission as such a nonimmigrant

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1187&url=/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001187—-000-.html

An individual admitted under the Visa Waiver Program must still register their entry with the Government, the alien must possess a passport (a legally recognized form of ID under the Arizona Law). They must undergo an NCIC and NSEERS check and complete the legally required screening process established by CONGRESS and Administered by the Executive Agencies. The “burdensome check” imagined by the Executive Agencies and agreed to by the Courts involves nothing more than an electronic inquiry of the data systems chartered by Congress and maintained at taxpayer expense to respond to just such an inquiry.

agencies to enforce immigration laws are considered. See A.R.S. § 11-1051(A), (H). Certain categories of people with transitional status and foreign visitors from countries that are part of the Visa Waiver Program will not have readily available documentation of their authorization to remain in the United States, thus potentially subjecting them to arrest or detention, in addition to the burden of “the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” Hines, 312 U.S. at 74. In Hines, the Supreme Court emphasized the important federal responsibility to maintain international relationships, for the protection of American citizens abroad as well as to ensure uniform national foreign policy. Id. at 62-66; see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 700 (2001) (“We recognize . . . the Nation’s need to ‘speak with one voice’ in immigration matters.”). The United States asserts, and the Court agrees, that “the federal government has long rejected a system by which aliens’ papers are routinely demanded and checked.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 26.)11 The Court finds that this requirement imposes an unacceptable burden on lawfully-present aliens. With respect to the United States’ arguments regarding the burden on and impediment of federal resources as they relate to the first sentence of Section 2(B), the Court’s conclusions mirror those stated above regarding the second sentence of Section 2(B). Federal resources will be taxed and diverted from federal enforcement priorities as a result of the increase in requests for immigration status determination that will flow from Arizona if law enforcement officials are required to verify immigration status whenever, during the course of a lawful stop, detention, or arrest, the law enforcement official has reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence in the United States.12 In combination with the impermissible burden this provision will place on lawfully-present aliens, the burden on federal resources and priorities also leads (Page 21, Lines 1 to 22).

 The Court continues to make clearly erroneous rulings, rulings not support by the facts, the law or Congressional intent.

Specifically the Court states, in error, that; “transitional status and foreign visitors from countries that are part of the Visa Waiver Program will not have readily available documentation”. As previously outlined. Individuals in the Visa waiver program are required to register, provide a passport, carry documentation and keep their “registration documents” on their person. Any implication to the contrary is dishonest. Even should the individual loose or have all of their documentation stolen, the person can be identified if they deal with the local authorities in an honest manner and identify themselves. Every alien who enters this Country legally creates a “data record” that the LESC can access.

The Court again returns to discuss cases that are not on point. The Court notes that, “a system by which aliens’ papers are routinely demanded and checked” are disfavored. The Courts, in fact, do not “disfavor” Law Enforcement authorities completing immigration checks or individuals taken into “custody”, there is not a single instance of a Court “overruling” an “immigration check” completed on a person who has been taken “into custody”. The status check is, technically, completed by the Executive Agency that receives the inquiry. The “detaining” or “investigating officer” requests a “status determination”, as is specifically outlined in Federal Immigration law.

to an inference of preemption. Therefore, for the purposes of preliminary injunction analysis, the Court concludes that the United States has demonstrated a likelihood of success on itschallenge to the first sentence of Section 2(B). Section 2(B) in its entirety is likely preempted by federal law.  (Page 22, lines 1 to 4)

3. Section 3: A.R.S. § 13-1509

Section 3 states that “a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 [U.S.C. §§] 1304(e) or 1306(a).” A.R.S.§ 13-1509(A).13 The penalties for violation of Section 3, a class 1 misdemeanor, are amaximum fine of $100 and a maximum of 20 days in jail for a first violation and up to 30 days in jail for any subsequent violation. A.R.S. § 13-1509(H). Section 3 also limits violators’ eligibility for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon, and commutation of a sentence and requires violators to pay jail costs. A.R.S. § 13-1509(D), (E). Section 3 does not apply to “a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the United States.” A.R.S. § 13-1509(F). Essentially, Section 3 makes it a state crime to violate federal registration laws and provides for state prosecutions and penalties for violations of the federal registration law. The United States argues that Section 3 is preempted because it interferes with comprehensive federal alien registration law, seeks to criminalize unlawful presence, and will result in the harassment of aliens. (Pl.’s Mot. at 34-39.) Arizona asserts that Section 3 neither conflicts with federal law nor regulates in a federally occupied field. (Defs.’ Resp. at 21-22.) “[T]he power to restrict, limit, regulate, and register aliens as a distinct group is not an equal and continuously existing concurrent power of state and nation[;] . . . whatever power (Page 22, Lines 1 to 22).

 

To be continued:

Read Part 1 here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-1/

Read Part 2 here:  https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-2/

Read Part 3 here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-3/

The Immigration Debate: The Arizona Law – Judge Bolton’s Decision (Part 3)

The Immigration Debate: The Arizona Law – Judge Bolton’s Decision (Part 3)

Even if the Government’s allegation that, “It will result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens,” is true, and it is not, the allegation fails to state a claim subject to  one of the three areas of “preemption”. A claim of harassment may lend itself to a “civil rights claim”, it is not a within the “class of claims” to be considerd under the Federal preemption doctrine.

Example: A suspect is arrested and it is alleged that the suspect had 10 tons of cocaine in his possession. After the suspect is placed under arrest he is charged with bank robbery. Even if the Judge assumes the suspect had 10 tons of cocaine in his possession, the Judge must dismiss the bank robbery charges, because those charges do not apply to the facts alleged.

Even if the Government’s allegation is true, that the Arizona Law will “result in the harassment” of lawfully present aliens”, such action does not give rise to a claim of preemption.

Claim 2:  “it will burden federal resources and impede federal enforcement and policy priorities.”

Does this allegation state a basis for a “preemption claim” or is this claim one of “administrative inconvenience”. One type of claim is protected by the Constitution, one is not.

Is this a claim of Express Preemption? No, the DOJ doesn’t allege that Congress “reserved” enforcement for the Federal Government, such a claim would be unsustainable.

Is this a claim of Field Preemption? No, the DOJ has not alleged that the Congress intended to preclude the States from supplementing the enforcement of our Immigration Laws.

Is this a claim of Conflict Preemption? No, the allegation fails to state a claim which, even if it were true, would fall within the criteria of “conflict preemption”. The allegation is one of “administrative inconvenience” not of “conflict preemption”. The Holder DOJ has not alleged that the Arizona Law creates the situation where “compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility”… the Holder DOJ just states that compliance will be difficult … the DOJ does not state that it is impossible.

What was the Congressional Intent?

Despite being instructed by both the Federal Appellate Courts and the U.S.  Supreme Court to, “look to the intent of Congress” prior to interpreting Immigration Law, this Judge failed to do so.

Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1252c, (b) Cooperation

We know what Congress intended  when Congress passed Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1252c, (b) Cooperation; because Congressional expressly stated what Congress wanted the Attorney General, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to do; Congress instructed, “The Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials.”

This Congressional statement is the exact opposite of an “express preemption” of Federal Law, the statement is, in fact, an “express invitation” to the States. Congress’ language evidences an “express invitation” by Congress to the States, an invitation for the States to assist in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Law. The language also “orders” the Attorney General and his DOJ and the DHS to supply the necessary information.

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c),

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c), This Court makes reference to this section of Title 8 later in this opinion. The Court states. “DHS is required to “respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status …

Who placed this obligation on the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security? The Congress imposed this requirement, this obligation. Unequivocal evidence of Congressional intent.

The LESC – “The Law Enforcement Support Center”

Later in this opinion Judge Bolton will discusses the LESC, however, Judge Bolton does not discuss the Congressional intent behind the LESC, what the LESC does nor will she acknowledge the accomplishments of the LESC.

From the LESC Website:  http://www.ice.gov/partners/lesc/index.htm   

The Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) serves as a national enforcement operations center by providing timely immigration status and identity information to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies on aliens suspected, arrested or convicted of criminal activity. The LESC operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week assisting law enforcement agencies with information gathered from 8 DHS databases, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Interstate Identification Index (III) and other state criminal history indices.

So, the LESC was created to comply with Congressional mandates and the specific mission of the LESC is to provide the exact information to be requested under the Arizona Law by Arizona Law Enforcement Officers.

In addition to providing real time assistance to law enforcement agencies that are investigating, or have arrested, foreign-born individuals involved in criminal activity, the LESC also performs the following investigative functions:

The LESC is “chartered” to assist assists law enforcement officers in completing the exact law enforcement duties anticipated under the Arizona Law.

National Crime Information Center (NCIC) – The LESC administers and controls immigration related cases in this nationwide law enforcement consortium and criminal database for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The LESC Communications Center serves the law enforcement community with NCIC hit confirmation information. (As is required under Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1252c, (b) Cooperation.)

You can read the August 1, 1995 GAO report to Congress on the LESC here:  http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95147.pdf

The LESC defines its mission this way:

The mission of the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) is to protect the United States and its people by providing timely, accurate information and assistance to the federal, state and local law enforcement community—365 days a year, 24 hours a day.

The Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), administered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is a critical point of contact for the national law enforcement community, providing a wide range of informational services to officers and investigators at the local, state and federal levels.

The primary users of the LESC are state and local law enforcement officers in the field who need information about foreign nationals they encounter in the course of their daily duties.

LESC technicians have ready access to a wide range of databases and intelligence resources, including the following:

ICE immigration databases;

National Crime Information Center (NCIC);

Interstate Identification Index (III);

Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS);

U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) system; and

National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS).

http://www.ice.gov/partners/lesc/lesc_factsheet.htm

The LESC has devised a “computerized contact screen” accessible by State and Local Law enforcement from their squad cars. The LESC “contact screen” has been incorporated into “State” computerized criminal investigation systems.

Over the last 6 years. LESC has processed nearly 10,000,000 (10 million) information requests from State and Local Law Enforcement Officers.

Over 90 percent of the “information requests” submitted to the LESC are submitted electronically. (Just like the NCIC System). Over 90 percent of the requests are processed in under 10 minutes … under 10 minutes. In the last 4 years the LESC has processed over 4,000,000 electronic queries. Electronic inquires are system based and system responded … they require no human contact. The NCIC system relies on electronic inquiries/responses.

http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/lesc.htm    

NSEERS

From the Official NEERS web site:

The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) also known as Special Registration, put in place after September 11, 200 , to keep track of those entering and leaving our country in order to safeguard U.S. citizens and America’s borders. NSEERS was the first step taken by the Department of Justice (DOJ)  and then by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in order to comply with the development of the Congressionally- mandated requirement for a comprehensive entry-exit program.

Through the Special Registration system, the U.S. government can keep track of the more than 35 million nonimmigrant visitors who enter the United States as well as some nonimmigrant visitors already in the United States. These individuals are required to register with immigration authorities either at a port of entry or a designated ICE office in accordance with the special registration procedures.

Nonimmigrant visitors who do not comply with special registration requirements or other terms of their admission to the United States during their stay will be considered out of status and may be subject to arrest, detention, fines and/or removal from the country.

http://www.ice.gov/pi/specialregistration/index.htm

Brief summary of preemption:

There are there “classifications” of preemption;

1). Express

2). Implied: Field

3). Implied Conflict.

The Department of Justice alleged that the Arizona Law, A.R.S. § 11-1051(B). Section 2(B), was prohibited because, “this section is preempted because (1) it will result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens and (2) will burden federal resources and impede federal enforcement and policy priorities.” Neither DOJ claim qualifies for protection under the Federal Preemption Doctrine. 

“Harassment” claims don’t qulaify for consideration under the “preemption doctine”.

The claim that the Arizona Law will “burden federal resources and impede federal enforcement and policy priorities.” fails to State an allowable  claim under the Federal preemption doctrine. When the alleged “burden” is created by an “act” or “acts” invited by Congress and anticipated  in the Congressional Legislation that created the “complaining”  Executive Agency, a claim of “preemption” cannot be sustained. In non-legal terms, an Executive Agency cannot escape the responsibilities and obligation specifically placed on the Executive Agency by Congress  by claiming, “but if we do our job, we will be too busy to do our job Congress, even if it is the job Congress gave us to do.”

The Congressional intent, manifested in: Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1252c, (b) Cooperation; Title 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c); the creation of LESC and NSEERS, (a creation “mandated” by Congress) gives clear and unequivocal evidence that Congress intends for State Law Enforcement Officers to routinely make inquiry concerning immigration status and that State Law Enforcement Officers  were expected by Congress to make routine contacts with the “Federal Executive Agencies” and obtain immigration status information as part of their daily law enforcement duties. Information that is to be obtained by State and Local Law Enforcement Officers form LESC.

Preliminary Conclusion:

The preliminary allegations of the DOJ do not state a cause of action under the “federal preemption doctrine”. The facts complained of in this case and discussed to this point, do not violate any law of the United States nor are they in vio;ation of the U.S> Constitution. The clear intent of Congress is that State Law Enforcement Officers are to make immigration inquiries and that the Federal Executive Agencies are “required by” Congressional “mandate”  to respond to the requests and that the Executive Agencies are “required” by Congress to provide the requested information. The Congressional intent is clear, expressed and specific. The Congressional intent is unequivocal.

Back to the Bolton opinion.

a. Mandatory Immigration Status Determination Upon Arrest

The Court first addresses the second sentence of Section 2(B): “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Arizona advances that the proper interpretation of this sentence is “that only where a reasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person’s immigration status be determined before the person is released.” (Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. (“Defs.’ Resp.”) at 10.)5  Arizona goes on to state, “[T]he Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona’s law enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every single person arrested – even for United States citizens and when there is absolutely no reason to believe the person is unlawfully present in the country.” (Id.) The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests. Before the passage of H.B. 2162, the first sentence of Section 2(B) of the original S.B. 1070 began, “For any lawful contact” rather than “For any lawful stop, detention or arrest.” (Compare original S.B. 1070 § 2(B) with H.B. 2162 § 3(B).) The second sentence was identical in the original version and as modified by H.B. 2162. It is not a logical interpretation of the Arizona Legislature’s intent to state that it originally intended the first two sentences of Section 2(B) to be read as … (Page 15, lines 9 to 25)

FOOT NOTE 5: Arizona acknowledges that this sentence of Section 2(B) “might well have been more artfully worded.” (Id.) (Page 15, line 27 & 28).

dependent on one another. As initially written, the first sentence of Section 2(B) did not contain the word “arrest,” such that the second sentence could be read as modifying or explicating the first sentence. In S.B. 1070 as originally enacted, the first two sentences of Section 2(B) are clearly independent of one another. Therefore, it does not follow logically that by changing “any lawful contact” to “any lawful stop, detention or arrest” in the first sentence, the Arizona Legislature intended to alter the meaning of the second sentence in any way. If that had been the Legislature’s intent, it could easily have modified the second sentence accordingly. As a result of this conclusion, the Court reads the second sentence of Section 2(B) independently from the first sentence. The Court also concludes that the list of forms of identification that could provide a presumption that a person is not an unlawfully present alien applies only to the first sentence of Section 2(B) because the second sentence makes no mention of unlawful presence: the second sentence states plainly that “[a]ny person who is arrested” must have his or her immigration status determined before release. A presumption against unlawful presence would not dispose of the requirement that immigration status be checked because a legal permanent resident might have a valid Arizona driver’s license, but an inquiry would still need to be made to satisfy the requirement that the person’s “immigration status” be determined prior to release. The United States asserts that mandatory determination of immigration status for all arrestees “conflicts with federal law because it necessarily imposes substantial burdens on lawful immigrants in a way that frustrates the concern of Congress for nationally-uniform rules governing the treatment of aliens throughout the country – rules designed to ensure ‘our traditional policy of not treating aliens as a thing apart.’” (Pl.’s Mot. at 26 (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 73 (1941)).) Finding a state law related to alien registration to be preempted, the Supreme Court in Hines observed that Congress “manifested a purpose to [regulate immigration] in such a way as to protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national . . . system[] and to leave them free from the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” 312 U.S. at 74. (Page 16, lines 1 to 28).

And what substantial burden does this activity place on those who are arrested … what is the substantial burden on those taken into custody … the DOJ is required to actually demonstrate a burden .. the DOJ is the moving party here … simply claiming a “substantial burden” does not “cut mustard”. 

The clear and unequivocal intent of Congress is for State and Local Law Enforcement Officers to make such inquiry during their daily routines. After all, the proof is in the fact that the LESC has processed over 10,000,000 requests for information over the last 6 years and that the LESC notes, in its mission statement, that Congress created the LESC specifically to reply to the requests from State and Local Law Enforcement Officials and that these Officials are expected to make such inquiry as a part of their normal law enforcement duties.

“Congress “manifested a purpose to [regulate immigration] in such a way as to protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens”…

Yes, the operative term in the Hines case is “law abiding”. The Arizona Law is not an “alien registration program”, to suggest that it is silly. An investigation of Immigration status is being conducted not on “law abiding aliens” but on those who have been arrested, before the arrested party is released.

Do you remember how many of the 911 terrorists were encountered by Law Enforcement Officers prior to flying the planes into the World Trade Center? Prior to 911 we lacked the systems to identify those terrorists and the fact that they were in this Country illegally. Today we do not.

The Hines case is not on point. What does a State registration system of those who have not been arrested, have to do with confirming an arrested suspect’s immigration status with the Executive Agencies chartered to provide local law enforcement personal with that specific information.      

Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked. Given the large number of people who are technically “arrested” but never booked into jail or perhaps even transported to a law enforcement facility, detention time for this category of arrestee will certainly be extended during an immigration status verification. (See Escobar, et al. v. City of Tucson, et al., No. CV 10-249-TUC-SRB, Doc. 9, City of Tucson’s Answer & Cross-cl., ¶ 38 (stating that during fiscal year 2009,

(Page 17, Lines 1 to 9)

I’m so disappointed in this Judge. I expected her to at least try to appear impartial and attempt to hide her political bias.

First: No State Law Enforcement Officer in any State is empowered to determine the “immigration status” of any individual. The DOJ and the DHS are charged by Congress to make that determination. The State Law Enforcement personal are charged with investigation, apprehension and inquiry … to make an immigration status inquiry to the appropriate Executive Agencies cretaed to handle such requests.

“burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked”.

Truthfully, I’ve never read an argument with less merit or less insight. The Law Enforcement Officer is making an “inquiry” concerning an arrested suspect, so while the person may or may not be “lawfully present” they have been “arrested”.  As a “criminal violator” the individual’s criminal background will be checked through the NCIC data base regardless of immigration status. The NCIC, the National Crime Information Center is administered by the FBI and as previously noted, is linked to the LESC.  The LESC inquiry and the NCIC inquiry will be done electronically and over 95% of those inquiries are completed within 10 minutes. Only those who cannot “identify themselves”, “present appropriate identification” or “refuse to identify themselves” are burdened further.

From the Official NCIC web site: 

The National Crime Information Center, or NCIC, was launched on January 27, 1967 with five files and 356,784 records. By the end of 2009, NCIC contained more than 15 million active records in 19 files. NCIC averages 7.5 million transactions per day.

NCIC helps criminal justice professionals apprehend fugitives, locate missing persons, recover stolen property, and identify terrorists. It also assists law enforcement officers in performing their official duties more safely and provides them with information necessary to aid in protecting the general public.  

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/ncic.htm

Even if the DOJ’s laughable argument were true, that the Arizona law “burdens lawfully-present aliens”, the burden cannot be removed by a claim of Federal preemption … Congress, after all, established the system creating the burden … remember the “burden” on the “suspect” is created by making an inquiry to an “Executive Agency” chartered to receive the inquiry in the first place … and the Executivew Agency has been instructed by Congress to respond to the inquiry …

Tucson used the cite-and-release procedure provided by A.R.S. § 13-3903 to “arrest” and immediately release 36,821 people).) Under Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070, all arrestees will be required to prove their immigration status to the satisfaction of state authorities, thus increasing the intrusion of police presence into the lives of legally-present aliens (and even United States citizens), who will necessarily be swept up by this requirement.6  The United States argues that the influx of requests for immigration status determination directed to the federal government or federally-qualified officials would “impermissibly shift the allocation of federal resources away from federal priorities.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 30.) (Page 17, Lines 8 to 17)

What a bizarre argument. “The influx of requests for immigration status determination directed to the federal government or federally-qualified officials would “impermissibly shift the allocation of federal resources away from federal priorities.”

As if the executive agencies are allowed to set their own priorities. As if the Executive Agencies are not “tasked” with specific “responsibilities”, specific “duties and specific “obligations” by Congress.

Never mind that fact that the DOJ is asking the Judge to accept the “hypothetical” argument that the Arizona Law would result in an “influx of requests” … so what if the law did create an “influx of requests” … the Executive Agencies receiving the requests were chartered to do just that in the first place …. receive immigration inquiry requests from the State and Local Law enforcement officers.

Can you imagine the DOJ arguing that a state law was unconstitutional because the law resulted in more letters being delivered to the Post Office …. The post office is the “Federal Agency” chartered to receive and deliver mail … can you imagine a claim that a state law is “unconstitutional” because “the influx of” mail to be sorted and delivered by the Post Office or federally-qualified Postal Officials would “impermissibly shift the allocation of federal resources away from federal priorities for mail delivery”.  

If this were not such a serious issue, this argument would be worthy of a good hard laugh.   

State laws have been found to be preempted where they imposed a burden on a federal agency’s resources that impeded the agency’s function. See Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 351 (2001) (finding a state law preempted in part because it would create an incentive for individuals to “submit a deluge of information that the [federal agency] neither wants nor needs, resulting in additional burdens on the FDA’s evaluation of an application”); cf. Garrett v. City of Escondido, 465 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (expressing concern in preemption analysis for preliminary injunction purposes that burden on DOJ and DHS as a result of immigration status checks could “impede the functions of those federal agencies”). (Page 17, Lines  18 to 28)

The major case cited by the DOJ and Judge Bolton,Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm,  is clearly not on point. In citing Buckman the Court noted, “would create an incentive for individuals to submit a deluge of information that the [federal agency] neither wants nor needs”.

Under the Arizona Law information is not being submitted to the an Executive Agency, it is being sought from it … information the Executive Agency has been instructed, instructed by Congress, to provide …

The information being requested by Arizona Law Enforcement is the very information the Executive Agency is chartered to provide … it is the “reason” for the Executive Agency’s existence and answering the request and supplying the information is an “obligation” imposed on the Agency by Congress … answering the request is not optional … it is the job the Executive Agency was created to complete.

Foot Note 6:  The Court is also cognizant of the potentially serious Fourth Amendment problems with the inevitable increase in length of detention while immigration status is determined, as raised by the plaintiffs in Friendly House, et al. v. Whiting, et al., No. CV 10-1061-PHX-SRB. (Page 17, Lines 26 to 28)

The Judge’s Liberal activist leanings are showing again. The Plaintiff DOJ has not raised the issue of Fourth Amendment problems in this section of their pleadings and as this is a request for a preliminary injunction, it isn’t proper for the Court to consider this issue on its own accord.

Let us return, briefly to Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1252c, (b) Cooperation, for an examination “Congressional intent”.

“The Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials.” 

Congress did not qualify the duties of the Attorney General or the DOJ. The Congress stated that the Attorney General shall cooperate. Congress did not state that the Attorney General could cooperate when the Department of Justice felt like cooperating, that the DOJ could pick and choose when it wanted to cooperate, that the DOJ could selectively following this “instruction’. That the DOJ was excused from following this Congressional mandate if it were difficult or would strain resources.

Congress was unequivocal –  the DOJ shall respond. The word “shall” is an instruction, a directive, an order to cooperate, not a suggestion that the DOJ might want to cooperate. The Congressional intent is clear and unambiguous.

Read Part 1 here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-1/

Read Part 2 here:  https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-2/

Read Part 4 Here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-4/

The Immigration Debate: The Arizona Law – Judge Bolton’s Decision (Part 2)

The Immigration Debate: The Arizona Law – Judge Bolton’s Decision (Part 2)

Read Part 1 here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-1/

DHS has also established the Law Enforcement Support Center (“LESC”), which is administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and serves as a national enforcement information center, answering queries from state and local officials regarding immigration status. (Page 7, lines 7 to 14).

We will revisit the Law Enforcement Support Center later in this post.

At this point I will make two comments;

1). The “DHS has also established the Law Enforcement Support Center”, the LESC was established by the DHS at the express instruction of Congress.

The DHS didn’t just decide to set up a Law Enforcement Support Center on its own volition, Congress instructed the DHS to do so. Congress then appropriated the funds for the DHS to proceed.

2). The Judge makes no mention of why Congress “ordered” the DHS to set up the LESC. The Judge does not address the Congressional intent behind the LESC, the reason or intent of Congress in appropriating funds for the LESC. The Judge failed to do this despite the fact that the Federal Appellate and U.S. Supreme Court have directed her to do exactly that.

Judicial opinions concerning Federal Immigration Law are to be guided by the intent of Congress, not the desires of the Executive or the whimsy of the Executive Agencies. 

B. Overview of S.B. 1070

1. Section 1

Section 1 of S.B. 1070 states that “the intent of [S.B. 1070] is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona” and that “[t]he provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” Section 1 also states that “there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona.”

2. Section 2

Section 2 of S.B. 1070 adds A.R.S. § 11-1051. Section 2 contains twelve separate subsections. Subsection 2(A) prohibits Arizona officials, agencies and political subdivisions from limiting or restricting the enforcement of federal immigration laws. A.R.S. § 11- 1051(A). Subsection 2(B) requires officers to make a reasonable attempt, when practicable, (Page 7, Line 16 to 28)

to determine an individual’s immigration status during any lawful stop, detention, or arrest where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. Id. § 11-1051(B). Subsection 2(B) also requires that all persons who are arrested have their immigration status verified prior to release. Id. Subsections 2(B) and 2(E) provide the process for verifying immigration status and list documents that create a presumption of lawful presence. Id. § 11-1051(B), (E). Mandatory stops for the purpose of immigration status verification are not required or authorized by Subsection 2(B). Subsection 2(C) requires notification of ICE or Customs and Border Protection whenever an unlawfully present alien is discharged or assessed a monetary obligation. Id. § 11-1051(C). Subsections 2(D) and (F) permit law enforcement to securely transport unlawfully present aliens and send, receive, and exchange information related to immigration status. Id. § 11-1051(D), (F). (At page 8, lines 1 to 11).

In addition, Subsection 2(H) permits legal residents of Arizona to bring actions in state court “to challenge any official or agency of [Arizona] that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” Id. § 11-1051(H). Subsections 2(I) and (J) address the civil penalties arising from such civil suits, and Subsection 2(K) provides that law enforcement officers are indemnified against reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the officer in connection with any suit initiated under this Section unless the officer is found to have acted in bad faith. Id. § 11-1051(I)-(K). (At page 8, lines 12 to 19).

3. Section 3

Section 3 of S.B. 1070 adds A.R.S. § 13-1509, which provides that “a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of [8 U.S.C. §§] 1304(e) or 1306(a),” federal statutes that require aliens to carry documentation of registration and penalize the willful failure to register. A.R.S. § 13-1509(A). Violation of Section 3 is a class 1 misdemeanor and results in a maximum fine of $100 and a maximum of 20 days in jail for a first violation and up to 30 days in jail for any subsequent violation. Id. § 13-1509(H). Section 3 limits a violator’s eligibility for a suspended sentence, probation, pardon, and commutation of a sentence and requires violators to pay jail costs. Id. (At page 8, lines 19 to 28)

§ 13-1509(D), (E). In the enforcement of Section 3, immigration status may be determined by a law enforcement officer authorized by the federal government or pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c). Id. § 13-1509(B). Pursuant to Subsection 3(C), law enforcement officers are not permitted to consider race, color, or national origin in the enforcement of Section 3. Id. § 13- 1509(C). Finally, Section 3 does not apply to “a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the United States.” Id. § 13-1509(F). (Page 9, lines 1 to 6)

4. Section 4

In Section 4 of S.B. 1070, the Arizona Legislature revised A.R.S. § 13-2319 by adding a provision that permits officers enforcing Arizona’s human smuggling statute to stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is in violation of any civil traffic law. Id. § 13-2319(E). Section 4 does not make any other changes or additions to Arizona’s human smuggling statute, A.R.S. § 13-2319. (Page 9, lines 7 to 12)

5. Section 5

Section 5 of S.B. 1070 adds two provisions to the Arizona Criminal Code, A.R.S. §§ 13-2928 and 13-2929. A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) provides that it is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway and is impeding traffic to attempt to hire a person for work at another location. Id. § 13-2928(A). Similarly, A.R.S. § 13-2928(B) provides that it is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle in order to be hired if the vehicle is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway and is impeding traffic. Id. § 13-2928(B). Finally, A.R.S. § 13-2928(C) provides that it is unlawful “for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.” Id. § 13-2928(C). Violation of A.R.S. § 13-2928 is a class 1 misdemeanor. Id. § 13-2928(F). Section 5 of S.B. 1070 also creates A.R.S. § 13-2929, which provides that it is unlawful for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to: (1) transport or move or attempt to transport or move an alien in Arizona in furtherance of the alien’s unlawful presence in the United States; (2) conceal, harbor, or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor, (At Page 9, lines 12 to 28). shield an alien from detection in Arizona; and (3) encourage or induce an alien to come to or live in Arizona. Id. § 13-2929(A)(1)-(3). In order to violate A.R.S. § 13-2929(A), a person must also know or recklessly disregard the fact that the alien is unlawfully present in the United States. Id. Violation of A.R.S. § 13-2929 is a class 1 misdemeanor. Id. § 13-2929(F). (At Page 10, lines 1 to 4)

6. Section 6

Section 6 of S.B. 1070 amends A.R.S. § 13-3883 to permit an officer to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that “the person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.”Id. § 13-3883(A)(5). (At page 10, lines 5 to 9)

 7. Sections 7-13

Sections 7, 8, and 9 amend Arizona’s law imposing sanctions on employers who hire unlawfully present aliens. See A.R.S. §§ 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214. Section 10 amends A.R.S. § 28-3511 to allow for the immobilization or impoundment of vehicles used in the transporting and concealing of unlawfully present aliens where the driver of the vehicle knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the alien was unlawfully present. Section 11 creates the “gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund” for civil penalties paid pursuant to Subsection 2(I). Finally, Section 12 provides for the severance of any unconstitutional provisions, and Section 13 provides a short title for the enactment. (Page 10, lines 10 to 18)

C. Procedural Posture

The United States filed its Complaint challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 1070 on July 6, 2010, naming as Defendants the State of Arizona and Governor Brewer in her official capacity (collectively, “Arizona”). On the same day, it also filed a Motion requesting that the Court preliminarily enjoin Arizona from enforcing S.B. 1070 until the Court can make a final determination as to its constitutionality. (Doc. 6, Pl.’s Lodged Proposed Mot. for Prelim. Inj.) (Page 10, Lines 19 to 24).

The United States argues principally that the power to regulate immigration is vested exclusively with the federal government, and the provisions of S.B. 1070 are therefore preempted by federal law. The Court held a Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion on July 22, 2010(Page 10, Lines 25 to 28)

The Executive Agencies presenting these arguments are not exclusively empowered to do anything …. Congress has the “exclusive power” to create and write our Immigration Laws, those laws that regulate who can legally enter the Country … the Executive Agencies who brought this lawsuit share “concurrent” responsibility for enforcement of the Immigration Laws.

When the above paragraph, “The United States argues principally that the power to regulate immigration is vested exclusively with the federal government” it is the Department of Justice, not the Congress, who is presenting the argument. (“the Hearing”). S.B. 1070 has an effective date of July 29, 2010. The Court now considers the United States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Page 11, Lines 1 and 2)

III. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

A. General Legal Standards

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). The United States primarily asserts that the statutory provisions contained in S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution makes federal law “the supreme law of the land.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, supported by both enumerated and implied constitutional powers.4 While holding that the “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power,” the Supreme Court concluded that not every state enactment “which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se preempted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised.De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354-355 (1976). (Page 11, Lines 3 to 17)

The following paragraphs are very important, as will be seen in the next few pages of this opinion. In the following paragraphs the Judge reviews the topic of “Federal preemption”, the basis of the Department of Justice Lawsuit. For the DOJ to prevail in this suit, it must present evidence to support its “allegations” that the Arizona Law violates one of the three standards for preemption. Let me state that again; the Department of Justice lawsuit cannot prevail unless the Department of Justice can establish a violation of one of three stated elements of the doctrine of  Federal preemption.

Federal preemption can be either express or implied. Chicanos Por La Causa v. Napolitano (Chicanos Por La Causa I), 544 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. granted, 78 U.S.L.W. 3065, 78 U.S.L.W. 3754, 78 U.S.L.W. 3762 (U.S. June 28, 2010) (No. 09-115).

There are two types of implied preemption: field preemption and conflict preemption. Id. Field preemption occurs “where ‘the depth and breadth of a congressional scheme . . .occupies the legislative field.’” Id. (quoting Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (Page 11, lines 17 to 23)

Once again, it has been held that the “Congressional Branch of the Federal Government” has the exclusive right to regulate Immigration, not the Executive Branch …

Preemption: There are three and only three different types of preemption.

1).  Express Preemption

Where Congress, not the Executive Branch clearly and unequivocally states that the area of law is reserved for the Federal Government. Express preemption occurs only when a federal statute explicitly confirms Congress’s intention to preempt state law. English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 78-79 (1990). “If a federal law contains an express pre-emption clause, it does not immediately end the inquiry because the question of the substance and scope of Congress’ displacement of state law still remains.” Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. ___ (2008), Docket Number: 07-562.

Implied preemption can occur in two ways: field preemption or conflict preemption. Massachusetts Ass’n of HMOs v. Ruthardt, 194 F.3d 176, 179 (1st Cir. 1999).

 2. Conflict preemption

Under the Supremacy Clause, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is preempted. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). Conflict arises when it is impossible to comply with both the state and federal regulations, or when the state law interposes an obstacle to the achievement of Congress’s discernible objectives. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992).

3. Field preemption

Even without a conflict between federal and state law or an express provision for preemption, the courts will infer an intention to preempt state law if the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to “occupy the field” in that area of the law, i.e. to warrant an inference that Congress did not intend the states to supplement it. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992). See also Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. For example, the courts have held that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts state laws directed at conduct actually or arguably prohibited or protected by the NLRA or conduct Congress intended to leave unregulated. San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244 (1959); Machinists v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Commission, 427 U.S. 132, 140-48 (1976).

A Federal Claim of “preemption” must satisfy one of these three sets of criteria.

Foot Note 4

 A variety of enumerated powers implicate the federal government’s long-recognized immigration power, including the Commerce Clause, the Naturalization Clause, and the Migration and Importation Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3-4; art. I, § 9, cl. 1; see also Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 706 (1893); Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 603-04 (1889).

(Page 11, lines 25 to 28).

 Implicate?  What and where?

Again the Immigration Laws of the United States are created by the Congressional Branch of the Federal Government, not the Executive Branch.  When one reads “Federal Government’s Immigration Power” – that power rests with Congress. Any power enumerated in United States Immigration Law has been so enumerated by the Congress of the United States not the Executive Branch. Again, the United States Supreme Court has instructed the lower Federal Courts to look to the intent of Congress when they interpret our Federal Immigration Statutes.

541 (2001)). Conflict preemption describes a situation in which “compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). An actual, as opposed to hypothetical or potential, conflict must exist for conflict preemption to apply. Id. (Page 12, lines 1 to 5).

as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”. The intent of Congress. Note that the Court has now defined “conflict preemption”.

B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

The United States must first demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374. The United States challenges S.B. 1070 on its face, before it takes effect on July 29, 2010. (Pl.’s Mot. at 7.) “A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). The Supreme Court later observed, in considering a facial challenge, “[S]ome Members of the Court have criticized the Salerno formulation, [but] all agree that a facial challenge must fail where a statute has a ‘plainly legitimate sweep.’” Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008) (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 739-40 & n.7 (1997) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgments)). In deciding a facial challenge, courts “must be careful not to go beyond the statute’s facial requirements and speculate about ‘hypothetical’ or ‘imaginary’ cases.” Id. at 449-50 (quoting United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 22 (1960)). (Page 12, lines 6 to 19)

1. Preemption of Overall Statutory Scheme

As discussed above, S.B. 1070 contains several provisions adding to and amending Arizona law. While the United States has requested that the Court enjoin S.B. 1070 in its entirety, it specifically challenges only select provisions of S.B. 1070. (See Pl.’s Mot. at 12 n.8 (noting that “the instant motion does not seek to enjoin” Sections 7-9 of S.B. 1070 and that Sections 11-13 “are administrative provisions which are not the subject of this dispute”).) The United States also argues that the overall statutory scheme of S.B. 1070 is preempted because it attempts to set immigration policy at the state level and interferes and conflicts with federal(Page 12, lines 20 to 28).

Again, the “Federal” preemption argument. I’m looking forward to reading the specifics of how the Arizona Law is preempted, not by the imaginings of the Obama Administration and its Executive Agencies, but how the Arizona Law is in conflict with one of the three specific types of preemption. The Administrative Agencies must present proof that the Arizona Law violates one of the three enumerated types of “preemption”. I’m looking forward to reading the Court’s analysis of the Congressional intent…                

 immigration law, foreign relations, and foreign policy. (Id. at 12-25.) Section 1 of S.B. 1070 declares a unified, state-wide public policy, providing: The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States. S.B. 1070 § 1. The United States urges the Court to enjoin S.B. 1070 as an integrated statutory enactment with interlocking provisions. (Pl.’s Mot. at 12-25.) The United States asserts that Section 1 animates and “infuses” the operative sections of the law. (Hr’g Tr. 13:4-14:5.) “[W]hen the constitutionality of a state statute is challenged, principles of state law guide the severability analysis and [courts] should strike down only those provisions which are inseparable from the invalid provisions.” Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Maleng, 522 F.3d 874, 886 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Tucson Woman’s Clinic v. Eden, 379 F.3d 531, 556-57 (9th Cir. 2004)). “A court should not declare an entire statute unconstitutional if the constitutional portions can be severed from those which are unconstitutional.” State v. Ramsey, 831 P.2d 408, 413 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992) (citing State v. Prentiss, 786 P.2d 932, 937 (Ariz. 1989)). Under Arizona law, it is well settled . . . that where the valid parts of a statute are effective and enforceable standing alone and independent of those portions declared unconstitutional, the court will not disturb the valid law if the valid and invalid portions are not so intimately connected as to raise the presumption the legislature would not have enacted one without the other, and the invalid portion was not the inducement of the act. Selective Life Ins. Co. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 422 P.2d 710, 715 (Ariz. 1967) (citing McCune v. City of Phx., 317 P.2d 537, 542 (Ariz. 1957)). In determining whether potentially unconstitutional provisions of S.B. 1070 may be severed from the remainder of the enactment, the primary concern is legislative intent. See id. at 715-16 (citing City of Mesa v. Killingsworth, 394 P.2d 410, 413 (Ariz. 1964)). Where a statute contains a severability provision, Arizona courts generally attempt to give effect to the severability clause. Id. at 715. (Page 13, lines 1 to 38)

Section 12(A) of S.B. 1070 provides for the severability of S.B. 1070’s provisions, stating that if any provision of the Act “is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions . . . that can be given effect without the invalid provision.” Arizona’s Legislature intended the provisions of S.B. 1070 to be severable in order to preserve the constitutionalprovisions of the Act. As a result, where the provisions of S.B. 1070 are “effective and enforceable standing alone and independent” of any unconstitutional provisions and the valid portions are not so “intimately connected” to any invalid provision as to raise the presumption that the Arizona Legislature would not have enacted the valid provisions without the invalid provisions, S.B. 1070’s provisions are severable. See Selective Life Ins., 422 P.2d at 715.

This writer will defer comments concerning how the Judge’s willfully “over looked” opportunities to sever and keep portions of the Arizona Law, as she was required to do …

While Section 1 of S.B. 1070 provides a statement of the Act’s intent and purpose, it does not create a single and unified statutory scheme incapable of careful provision by provision analysis. The Court cannot enjoin a purpose; the Arizona Legislature is free to express its viewpoint and intention as it wishes, and Section 1 has no operative function. However, this is not to say that Section 1 is irrelevant. The expression of the Legislature’s intent provides context and backdrop for the functional enactments of S.B. 1070, and the Court considers it in this capacity as it analyzes the other provisions of the law. S.B. 1070 will not be enjoined in its entirety. The Court will not ignore the obligation to preserve the constitutional provisions of a state legislative enactment or S.B. 1070’s severability clause. The Court thus evaluates the constitutionality of the individual provisions of S.B. 1070 challenged by the United States. (Page 14, lines 1 through 20).

We are approximately 1/3 of the way through the legal opinion and the Judge has not offered a legal finding or conclusion.

The Judge has made two false statements,

1). “Unlawful presence in the United States is not a federal crime” and

2). That an illegal alien needs to have been “convicted” in a criminal proceeding and subsequently deported before their unauthorized “re-entry” could be considered a crime”.

In the section immediately below, the Judge begins her consideration of the Arizona Law, in preparation for her first ruling.

The issue that will be addressed is this: The Arizona Legislature stated an intention that those individuals who have been “arrested” have their immigration status determined before the person is released and that any law enforcement officer presented with one of 11 different types of identification, should presume that the individual presenting the identification is a lawful resident of the United States.

 A.R.S. § 11-1051(B). Section 2(B) also states that if an officer is presented with one of the following forms of identification, the officer is to presume that the person is not an unauthorized alien: (1) a valid Arizona driver license or identification license; (2) a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification; or (3) a valid United States federal, state, or local form of identification, provided that the issuing entity requires proof of citizenship before issuance. Id.

The United States argues that this section is preempted because (1) it will result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens and (2) will burden federal resources and impede federal enforcement and policy priorities. (Pl.’s Mot. at 25-32.) (Page 15, lines 1 to 8).

 The Judge’s opinion in this section is in artfully worded. It is actually quite amusing. It is a shame that the subject matter is so serious …

 The problem with the wording in the Judge’s opinion is occasioned by the language of the Department of Justice’s pleading.

Let us help the Judge do her job correctly.

Or let us pretend we are the Judge’s Constitutional Law Professor and this is the Judge’s final exam in her first year Constitutional Law Class.

Step One: Examine the pleading. What is the Department of Justice alleging?

“The United States (The DOJ) argues that this section is preempted because

1). It will result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens, and

2). Will burden federal resources and impede federal enforcement and policy priorities.

Step 2: Determine if a “preemption argument” has been made or determine if the pleading “fails on its face”, because it fails to state a claim enforcebale under the Federal doctrine of preemption.

There are three and only three enumerated types of “preemption”. Does the lawsuit state a claim under one of three enumerated “preemptions”?

Claim 1: “It will result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens,”

Which of the three “preemptions” does this claim fall under?

A). Express preemption: Has the Congress expressly stated that the Federal Government has an exclusive right to the “harassment of lawfully present aliens”. How funny …. The Government has not stated a cause of action of express preemption …

B). Conflict Preemption: Does the DOJ allege that “compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility”… as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”  An actual, as opposed to hypothetical or potential conflict….

No,  The DOJ has failed to state a cause of action under the theory “conflict preemption”.

C). Field preemption: Has the Congress indicated that the States should be denied the opportunity to supplement the Federal Government’s harassment of “lawfully present aliens”.

Again, we are conducting the analysis that Judge Bolton was required to complete prior to rendering her decision. A claim of harassment does not fall within the purview of the Federal preemption doctrine. A claim of harassment may serve as the basis of a “civil rights claim”, however, it is not an appropriate topic for consideration under the “preemption doctrine”.

We are not determining whether the Arizona law will, in fact, result in the harassment of “lawfully present aliens”, because that is not what is required at this point in time.

We are, as the Judge should have, evaluating whether the DOJ’s claim, assuming the claims are true, meet the requirements of one of the three classifications for preemption.

The answer is an unequivocal NO. The claim, as stated, is not one subject to the Federal preemption doctrine.   

Read Part 1 here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-1/

Read Part 3 here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-3/

Read Part 4 Here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-4/  

%d bloggers like this: