And a lawless Regime. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned circuit in the United States, has upheld an injuction by a far-left Clinton appointee against enforcement of provisions of Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, contemptuously refered to as SB 1070. A note to the learned scholars on the 9th Circuit, an act of Congress is not referred to by its numerical designation in the House or Senate, but by its official name or acronym or by it place in the Federal Code. Such a slight is more than telling of the contempt that Judges Paez and Noonan have for the law and the Constitution.
But more frightening is the concurrance by Judge Noonan and the contempt that concurrance has for Acts of Congress. According to Noonan, the laws governing entry of aliens and their authority to remain in the U.S. is not a matter of legislation, but a matter of policy. Short shrift is given to the Immigration and Nationality Act and its amendments, and the public opinions of Regime officials and foreign politicians are given veto over duely passed and signed laws of the United States.
I concur in the opinion of the court. I write separately to emphasize the intent of the statute and its incompatibility with federal foreign policy.
Shocking in the extreme. Perhaps Judge Noonan should have noted that aliens enter not based on "federal foreign policy," but based on laws written by Congress. The same applies for the removal of aliens. The President, as he has stated mischeviously, agrees that he has no choice in enforcing the law:
It's where Obama, in an interview with Ramos during a stopover in El Salvador, claims that illegal immigrants who would have been spared by the Dream Act -- which offered legal status in exchange for attending college or joining the military -- aren't being deported because the administration is not "going around rounding up students." Then, a few days later, in another interview with Ramos during a town hall session in Washington, Obama has to acknowledge that his administration is in fact deporting students because "America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law."
Even he admitted that he can't just ignore the law.
Apparenlty, however, Judge Noonan thinks he can just ignore the law. Because immigration is just policy, not law:
Section 1’s profession of “cooperative” enforcement of federal immigration laws does not alter Arizona’s enactment of its own immigration policy distinct from the immigration policy and the broader foreign policy of the United States.
Then Noonan conflates immigration policy with foreign policy.
Federal foreign policy is a pleonasm. What foreign policy can a federal nation have except a national policy? That fifty inividual states or one individual state should have a foreign policy is absurdity too gross to be entertained. In matters affecting the intercourse of the federal nation with other nations, the federal nation must speak with one voice.
Well, the one voice that is spoken on immigration policy is the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. That operates separately from any foreign policy. The law says that certain aliens can be admitted. It also says that certain aliens cannot be admitted, regardless of any "policy" of a particular administration. It also says that certain aliens must be removed from the United States.
If the Obama Regime wants to have priorities in the removal of aliens, perhaps it can do that, and, it could, as it refuses to deport illegal aliens students, but it can do that only under the pretense that it is doing something more important, like not arresting terrorists, not that it will hurt its foreign policy. John Morton has repeatedly stated that its priorities on the removal of aliens is based on the danger level posed by an alien, not foreign policy. Morton has also stated that nothing concerning ICE's priorities restricts the authority of ICE to arrest any illegal alien. So clearly he knows that the law governs the entry and removal of aliens from the United States, not policy. Why, because the President takes an oath to see that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.
Noonan then contends that any State involvement in immigration law enforcement is a violation of exclusive authority of the Federal government over foreign policy.
The foreign policy of the United States preempts the field entered by Arizona. Foreign policy is not and cannot be determined by the several states. Foreign policy is determined by the nation as the nation interacts with other nations. Whatever in any substantial degree attempts to express a policy by a single state or by several states toward other nations enters an exclusively federal field.
There we have it, aliens=foreign policy. Neither supported by law or practice, but by naked judicial fiat.
But what Noonan does not explain is that how does an alien arrested by a Maricopa County sheriff's deputy differ in the "foreign policy" of the United States, than one arrested by a Border Patrol Agent? There is no difference nor is there any interference with "foreign policy." Even more important to the arguement is that the Obama Regime could simply refuse to take custody of any illegal alien arrested by State or local officers in Arizona.
But, it cannot do that openly, only in secret, because of the domestic political impact of any open defiance of the law. Even Obama says he can't do that:
Obama said, "There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates, would not conform with my appropriate role as president."
Noonan even equates the issuance of passports to Americans and the issuance of visas to Mexicans as part of our foreign policy:
To take one example from our relations to our nearest neighbor to the South, it is an expression of federal foreign policy that the State Department issues passports by whose use approximately twenty million American citizens enter Mexico annually, while the State Department annually issues approximately one million visas which enable citizens of Mexico to enter this country.
Again, the issuing of passports to Americans is regulated by law. As is the issuing of visas to Mexicans. The law says who gets passports, and who gets visas, not policy. An American with arrears in child support payments can't get a passport. The law says that, not policy. A Mexican must meet the requirements of the law to get a visa. Not meet the requirements of a policy. A Mexican is deported based on law, as the President says, not based on policy.
So this lawless judge is repudiated by the very lawless regime that the judge is acting to support, because he supports illegal immigration.
The Arizona statute before us has become a symbol. For those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States, it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt.
And that is the crux of the issue. Two judges support illegal immigration. Nothing more, nothing less. And they will use naked judicial power to further their support for illegal immigration. The law be damned.
And just as aliens are governed by law, not policy, the authority of the several States to enforce federal law is governed by law, and explicitly authorized by law:
But kudos to Judge Brea, who in his dissent, identifies the problem, policy is not the law and this is about the law:
It is Congress’s intent we must value and apply, not the intent of the Executive Department, the Department of Justice, or the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Moreover, it is the enforcement of immigration laws that this case is about, not whether a state can decree who can come into the country, what an alien may do while here, or how long an alien can stay in this country.