No Court Ruling Can Stop Crazy Joe Arpaio


Though a federal judge blocked key components of Arizona's immigration law from going into effect tomorrow, that ruling might not rein in rogue law enforcement in Maricopa County in any meaningful way. ABC News

It's the law, after all.

interviewed Sheriff Joe Arpaio prior to the judge's decision, and Arpaio made it clear that he's going to round up some illegals, naysayers be damned.

ABC News: I know you were prepared for another sweep, 200 deputies and volunteers prepared to go out for a crime and immigration sweep. You're going to do that no matter what happens with the new law, whether the judge puts a hold on it or not?

Arpaio: Yeah, it doesn't matter. We've been doing it for three years, enforcing other illegal immigration state laws. So nothing is going to change. We will continue enforcing all the laws, especially the illegal immigration laws.

Nor is he worried about running out of jail space.

Arpaio: I put up more tents, so I have plenty of room to house any violators.

As for protestors engaging in civil disobedience, there's plenty of room for them, too.

Arpaio: I'm ready for it. I hear rumor they want to block my jails. They want to block the jails, they can have a little trip in the jails. So we're not going to put up with any civil disobedience.

Browse Reason's coverage of Arpaio's brazenly authoritarian antics here.

NEXT: Tim Cavanaugh Discusses the Bell California Tax Revolt On Fox Business' Varney & Co.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m not familiar with the details of the court case. Does the federal judge’s decision mean:

    1. Satuary cities are overstepping their powers by making laws about immigration.

    2. Cops can no longer stop and search suspected drug users who violate a minor law.


    1. Cops can no longer stop and search suspected drug users who violate a minor law.

      Is that an effective use of a police officer’s time and public safety budgets?

      1. No, it isn’t a good use of an officer’s time. I’m just wondering if we’ll get principles applied equally, or if we’ll have a separate set of rules for groups that the media writes sympathetic stories about.

        By the way, I favor increasing the diversity visas to 1 million per year, speeding up the immigration process, and opening the diversity visa lottery to people from all countries.

      2. Arizona v. Gant solved that for vehicles.

    2. I don’t know the details either…

      But my understanding is that the stay just means they’ve halted implementation while the case opposing the law is under consideration.

      Anti-immigration people will no doubt react to the stay like it’s Prop 187 all over again, which was passed by referendum. …a stay quickly followed the referendum, and then Prop 187 was hanged, revived, put on the rack, disemboweled, drawn, quartered and its carcass was burned at the stake along with Pete Wilson’s dreams of ever being President.

      Anyway, just because it’s starting out like Prop 187 doesn’t mean it’ll end like Prop 187–this is just the beginning. By the time we see the end of the litigation, Barack Obama might not even be president anymore.

      1. Let’s hope the litigation ends next week, then.

      2. Ummm, I’m anti-ILLEGAL immigration myself.

        1. Just for the record, I don’t really give a crap if they’re legal or not.

          I resent the hell out of paying for their social services, but paying for social services for my fellow Americans pisses me off more in a way.

          Americans should know better.

          I guess you could call me an equal opportunity welfare queen hater.

        2. That’s like saying Mayor Dailey is only anti-ILLEGAL firearms.

        3. I am too. I don’t think immigration should be illegal.

      3. ……………/??/
        ………….,/? /
        …(`(…(…(…. ?~/`..`)
        …`\`…\………. _.?

        1. You might want to on you parody

          since this has pretty much been Arpaio’s platform for 18+years and it still works for him.

    3. Any reports on how much SB 1070 is going to cost Arizona for prosecutions?

  2. Bitching about Joe Arpaio is a bit like Salon Liberals bitching about Jesse Helms. His constituency likes what he does, wants him there, and in the end, there’s very little extra-constituency bitching that’s going to change that.

    1. You mean his cosnituency likes the police to allow rapists to walk to keep their stats looking good while resources are directed away from apprehending violent criminals towards chasing down some guy who does not have government permission to work in a factory?

      Why doesn’t Arizona just leave the Union and join Cuba and get it over with?

      1. What other explanation is there?

    2. Cecil Price was popular with his “constituency” too. Some things don’t become any less wrong as they become more popular.

    3. It’s not Joe’s “constituency”(i.e. The full-time residents of Maricopa County) that keep voting his fat carcass in every time, it’s the blue-haired snowbirds from Minnesota who come for 3 or 4 months in the winter and get told horror stories about life in “the big city” and just pay attention to Joe’s media sound bites, and then without thinking, elect him to office and leave again a few months later. You only have to live in Az 3 months out of the year to vote in their elections.
      I particularly like how Joe says he’s going to “especially” enforce the immigration laws. If you paid attention, you’d know that he has 40,000 outstanding felony warrants sitting on his desk, collecting dust. He doesn’t go after those because they don’t get him on the news. The man is a media whore, not a “great American patriot” or even the “Toughest Sheriff in America”, just a fat gasbag.

  3. ?

    It’s only an injunction until the actual case is heard, and it’s not acutely or consistently argued. It was styled to make headlines. That happened.

    Nothing’s been decided.

  4. I LOVE JOE, whish we had more like him. He is the greatest Sheriff since Wyatt Erp. I would not want to be a protestor trying to block his jail doors. YOU GO JOE!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Seek professional help.

      1. That’s better than my suggestion.

        Which was seek a busy freeway and a blindfold.

        1. I disagree. Your suggestion is better.

          1. You do know that was sarcastic, right? At least, I hope he was sarcastic…

            1. I know not what this sarcasm is?

    2. I don’t know about Mr. Erp, but Wyatt Earp was never a sheriff.

    3. Excellent parody. Right? This has to be.

      1. Who knows anymore?

        Reads genuine to me. Just barely though.

  5. this is where the 2nd amendment comes in handy.

  6. The Greatest Sheriff ever, he has the balls and drive to get the Invaders out, WE, in California WILL SUPPORT YOU, JOE!

    1. Space Invaders?

    2. Which is meaningless, since YOU don’t vote in Maricopa county. I don’t support the guy, but despite living in Arizona, I can’t do anything about it either, because I live 100 miles south of his jurisdiction, and his is NOT a statewide office.

      At least here in Pima County, our Sheriff has refused to check people’s papers. But, we’re so close to the border, the BP has checkpoints throughout our county anyway, all along interstate 8, 10 and 19, as well as state routes and U.S. highways that skirt the border or traverse Indian reservations.

      1. AKA “The Constitution Free Zone.”

      2. So much for the 4th amendment…

      3. I got stopped driving from Tombstone to Tucson at one of those fucking checkpoints. But, since my sister and I are white, they just let us through. I’d dread going through one if I were Hispanic, even if I talked like George Will.

        1. I live in Cochise county. It’s really not a big deal. Half the BP agents are hispanic themselves. If you are driving a uhaul, or a suburban packed with junk, or their dog goes off on you… then you may need to pull to side. Other than that, they pretty much wave you through or just ask you where you’re from, regardless of race.

  7. Where’s J. Edgar Hoover when you need him? Which thought got me wondering. Might there be an image somewhere of Arpaio in a dress and high heels? (Those with the skills should make it so.)

  8. I get out of the military here in a few weeks and move back to Tempe, AZ for school. And I can see nothing has changed back home.

    1. Yeah, Tempe’s still full of over-tattooed liberal pinheads.

      1. Yep, riding around on their ‘fixie’ bikes…still, Tempe’s the coolest place in the Phoenix area to live, imo.

        1. “coolest place in the Phoenix area”

          Which is like saying a place is the safest neighborhood in Mogadishu.

          1. Pinheads aside, I do love my hometown. Too bad its in Maricopa County though.

            1. BTW, any of you all who know Tempe see that one of the dams to the lake in the river broke? HA!

              1. Yes, only six months after the government ignored the Firestone rubber company’s admonition tha the dams were beyond their service life and needed replacing. They ignored them because they were supposed to be building a permanent earthen dam, but work was repeatedly delayed, and the rubber dams were left totally exposed to Arizona’s punishing sun. Rubber+Sun=Disaster. I feel sorry for any homeless dudes living under the bridges down the wash.

        2. Tempe’s the coolest place in the Phoenix area to live, imo.

          That’s not saying much when it only gets down to 98 degrees at night.

        3. I agree… it’s close to Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, and, most importantly, Sky Harbor.

      2. You’re thinking of Tucson.

  9. “They want to block the jails, they can have a little trip in the jails. So we’re not going to put up with any civil disobedience.” – Sheriff Joe Arpaio

    “Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.?” – Henry David Thoreau (Civil Disobedience)

    1. Precious.

    2. There’s only one problem with this argument. A person who is in jail for trespassing and violating property rights isn’t being jailed unjustly.

      Calling what you’re doing “civil disobedience” doesn’t give you the right to do infringe on property rights.

      1. Whose property? They are (or will be) blocking a municipal jail.

    3. Well, the whole point of civil disobedience is to get arrested, anyway, to crowd the jails. Or at least to run an extremely high risk of it.

  10. 5* welcome to our shops ,we have cheap ugg boots ,air max shoes,software..

  11. 5* welcome to our shops ,we have cheap ugg boots ,air max shoes,software..

  12. the true place for a just man is also a prison5* welcome to our shops ,we have cheap ugg boots ,air max shoes,software..

  13. the true place for a just man is also a prison.?”

  14. Say what you want Joe is enforcing a law that is on the books. What everyone seems to miss here is he is deporting illegal immigrants.

    As a person who has gone though the immigration process I agree it sucks and needs to be fixed, but that doesn’t give someone the right to break the Law.

    You go Joe

    1. “An unjust law is no law at all” -St. Augustine

      1. “You want to quote St. Augustine, you can have a little trip in the jails.” – Me

    2. Growe, is everyone from your homeland a bootlicking sycophant, or is it just you?

      1. Joe does have some very lickable boots.

        1. They are made of…Candy!

          Delicious Candy!

          Who needs freedom when we got Candy!

          1. This is the 1st Flapjack ref I’ve seen on the Reason bathroom wall. Cap I, you are truly well-rounded.

            1. There ain’t no streams of soddie-pop drippin’ down the rocks!

    3. “I agree slavery sucks and should be ended, but that doesn’t give someone the right to break the law.”

      -Google fugitive slave act

      1. Mexico is now one giant slave plantation?

        Well at least it’s moving in the right direction, a couple of months ago it was Auschwitz south.

        At this rate it will be libertopia in a couple of years.

        1. Way to miss the point.

  15. Robby Soave … are you related to Rico?

  16. Thread Jack. Kind of.

    7 presidents including FDR have attended and spoken at the Boy Scout Jamboree. The 100th anniversary of the organization is being celebrated during this Jamboree and President Obama will not be speaking.

    Aren’t we all supposed to be serving more and giving more of our time? One of the tenants of the organization he’s snubbing and his idol loved for just that.

    1. I would consider his no show an honor if I were the Boy Scouts.

      Joe Biden could provide the entertainment though.

      1. I think he’s snubbing it to go on the view.

        1. Much easier gig than simulating interest in front of all those future Christian racist homophobes.


          1. My local BSA troop is neither racist nor homophobic. Minority religions are also well represented in it, although I don’t know why you brought up religious affiliation, Hockey Guy.

            1. I think he was imitating the ‘left’… see that ‘\sarcasm’ at the end of his comment? That means he’s ‘turning sarcasm off’ signifying that his comment is sarcastic.

              1. Right. My bad.

        2. So I have read.

    2. This is one of the few policy decisions Obama has made that I can get behind.

      Do we really need the President speaking at one of the few surviving paramilitary youth groups founded during the Western World’s infatuation with fascism in the aftermath of WW I?

      1. I know. Those evil boy scouts. Look at all of that paramilitary fascism they project. Lil’ bastards should be carpet bombed.

        1. You know who else gave out merit badges…

        2. Look at all of that paramilitary fascism they project.

          Since a major part of scout training involves teaching ‘patriotism’ & ‘citizenship’ complete with having little kids salute and pledge their undying loyalty to the state, given that one of the major planks of the government charter for the organization is to train children to serve the state, I am baffled why any lover of freedom would not have their hackles rise at the the organization’s existence.

          And no, the kids shouldn’t be carpet bombed (why is it that people in love with the state immediately assume that opposing an organization automatically means we want its members killed? Are they that unimaginative?).

          Convincing civilized people not to indoctrinate their children to serve the state unquestioningly is all that is needed.

          1. I don’t know, I spend ten years as a scout and made Eagle Scout. Now I am an atheist libertarian. Either they’re not indoctrinating kids, or they’re just not doing it very well.

            1. Or you are a somewhat atypical person, which is the case with most libertarians.

    3. “””The 100th anniversary of the organization is being celebrated during this Jamboree and President Obama will not be speaking.””

      They are better off. The amount of security a presidential visit requires these day just spoils the party.

      1. The Jamboree is at AP Hill. There are 50k people there. The final or opening ceremony are where they usually speak, at an amphitheater (grassy hill) that holds all the people.

        1. The point being it really isn’t a big deal security wise (outside the norm.) Plus it’s in Washington’s back yard.

          1. The norm for the president is a big deal security-wise.

        2. A grassy knoll?


    4. Not “tenants,” but “tenets.”

      ? ?/?t?n?t; Brit. also ?tin?t/
      any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.

      1. You can quite you’re job and follow me if you want.

        You be a good grammer Nazi.

        I was discussing housing and tenants paying rent while the property is foreclosed on, it leaked.

        1. I can’t get a decent answer on how this would play out if any bankruptcy lawyers here would like to comment. It’s been bugging me since the Timmeh thread.

          1. Not an attorney, but the following articles from may help start to answer your question:…..30133.html and…..30064.html

            I strongly suspect that your answer will vary widely by state, despite the Federal “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009.”

  17. Hmm, I think you should take a look at…..scouts.asp

    1. How many bails of straw did that take to make?

      Do you have a point, or did your helmet slip of and you hit your head when your drool bib flipped up while you were riding your tricycle? Or did you forget your meds?

      1. lol someones an angry cubscout who is sad he didnt get to see his president. cheer up buddy, maybe youll get to go for ice cream after the jamboree.

        1. You troll like old people fuck. Slow, sloppy, and to the right.

  18. Hey, Joe…kiss my lily-white disobedient azz, you worthless pimple.

  19. Its about time the kangaroo courts put a lid on that hill billy redneck punk sheriff Joe Arpaio and his goon squad!


    1. Now that’s some long awaited effort bot.

      Does this mean you’re back?

      1. Yeah. I started to miss our cool bot.

  20. There’s getting to be a few Joes with nicknames, let’s keep them straight:

    “Crazy” Joe Arpaio
    “Vinegar” Joe Lieberman
    “Douchecanoe” Joe P Boyle

    Did I miss any?

    1. “Batshit Billy” Joe Biden

      1. Diamond Joe Quimby.

  21. So reading all the comments here and I think we all agree this country has a problem. My question is what should we do with immigrants that are currently in the U.S. illegally?

    1. Make it easier to not be here illegally?

      1. I agree immigration process needs to be improved, but for those who are in this county illegally I have a problem with rewarding them for breaking US laws.

      2. I agree immigration process needs to be improved, but for those who are in this county illegally I have a problem with rewarding them for breaking US laws.

        1. Like people who break US drug laws?

          1. So I’m missing something I was discussing immigration not drug trafficking. Drug traffickers should just be shot on site and left to rot where they lie.

            1. You are upset someone broke a federal US law. Do you feel the same for the people who break US drug laws by smoking pot? Do you think if the drug laws are repealed that those that did smoke pot should still have to pay a price?

              1. No I don’t believe is pot is made legal anyone should be punished. Using your pot logic: The US would have to repeal all imitation laws which will never happen. Go have a smoke and relax.

                1. They wouldn’t have to repeal all laws. They could easily change the law to be something different. The analogy is perfect. Say the US moves pot off it’s schedule of drugs. There are still stiff drug laws, but pot is no longer a part of that. Say the federal government decides that there needs to be a guest worker program. There’s still immigration law, it’s just different.

                  1. I don’t smoke. I’ve had a CDL For years and the shit makes me itch. Plus if I get anymore relaxed than I normally am I’d be comatose.

                2. “The US would have to repeal all imitation laws which will never happen.” I realize this was a typo, but quite the appropriate Freudian slip, especially on this website, no?

            2. Hey, don’t get all bitchy just because you were stupid enough to pay to get in the U.S., and all the Mexicans are sneaking in for free.

              Jeez that is all we need here; more bitchy narcs.

              1. Where are you from, growe?

              2. I never said I was from another country I just said I’d been through the immigration process. Only bitching being done is from your keyboard

                1. You do realize he was being sarcastic?

                2. It ain’t my fucking keyboard, it’s me.

                  In my book you are a fucking liar. Paired with your hard-on for authority, I would say that you are less than a man.

                  I would take an honest wetback over your bootlicking self anyday.

                3. I also am a natural-born citizen, who has been through the immigration process as an employer-sponsor for someone who needed a green card. The whole thing is an out-of-control racket, imho.

                  1. My sister-in-law became a US citizen this year.

                    She rocks.

                  2. Well, thank you James for providing the appropriate qualifiers, as to not lead the reader into believing that you are foreign born.

                    1. Though there are a few exceptions (growe apparently), I find that most people who have been through the legal immigration process (myself included on behalf of my wife), far from saying “Those ‘illegal’ bastards need to go back and get in line”, are actually more sympathetic to their situation than those who have no clue how the legal immigration process works… or in many cases doesn’t.

                    2. The one immigrant I have discussed this with (on a baseball site, incidentally), thinks that all Mexicans should be summarily rounded up and put in jail (if not shot), along with homosexuals. So I think it just depends on the immigrant.

                    3. You right… let me rephrase what I said:

                      “I find that most US BORN CITIZENS who have been through the legal immigration process on behalf of others (mostly spouses) far from saying “Those ‘illegal’ bastards need to go back and get in line”, are actually more sympathetic to their situation than those who have no clue how the legal immigration process works… or in many cases doesn’t.

                      My wife is less sympathetic then I am, but seems to be more sympathetic with time…

                    4. MWG, I’ve observed the exact opposite. Legal, non-hispanic (in the case of my wife’s Laotian family) immigrants have no sympathy whatsoever for illegals. I’m not sure whether that is because they view each illegal is one less of their relatives that are going to be given the opportunity to enter legally, or because they just have a basic sense of fairness, or that they are crazy right-wingers (most of them do HATE communists, and many spent time in their former country trying to kill as many Vietnamese commies as they possibly could and will proudly tell you all about it).

                    5. Your right, which is why I rephrased my original comment to US born citizens who have been through the process on behalf of others.

                      I used to be a hardcore conservative, but over the last few years I have become a pretty hardcore libertarian. Going through the immigration process only cemented my libertarian beliefs and resulted in a loathing of conservatives who argue that “illegals need to get in line”…

                      The arguments we see from conservative here against illegal immigration are precisely the same ones I made before I’d seen the legal process with my own eyes.

                    6. Oh, many have sympathy for illegals–whether they’ve been through the immigration process or not. But a lot of us have more sympathy for the person waiting in line to do it legally.

                      They’ve dotted their ts and crossed their is and paid their cash and are doing all the things that they’re supposed to be doing–and if some kind of amnesty happens they’ll get pushed towards the back of the line in favor of people who’ve shown no respect for the country they’ve broken into.

                    7. Meh. I’m first generation. No one in my family gives a toss. I don’t.

                      My father was naturalized twice (Canada and then the US); he says he regrets becoming a citizen, it was a waste of time.

          2. Exactly, hmm. Not a single politicial is suggesting amnesty for the 20 million Americans who have smoked marijuana in the past year, yet half of congress acts as if keeping 11 million illegal aliens on the wrong side of the law is a crisis.

            1. That’s because deep-down everyone knows that marijuana is basically harmless. Illegal immigration, on the other hand, costs us millions of dollars and – allegedly – leads to an increase in violent crime.

    2. Stick a bone up their ass and let the dogs drag them away.

    3. My question is what should we do with immigrants that are currently in the U.S. illegally?

      The same thing we did to people who entered mixed race marriages illegally when that type of marriage was legalized.

    4. You do realize you’re worrying about what to do with people who have committed a misdemeanor, right? It’s not worth the effort to prosecute them if the law gets reformed, just chalk it up to “they got away with it, oh well” and go on with your life.

      1. A lot of conservatives miss this point completely. Being in the country illegally is not a crime.

        1. Exactly. Parking tickets and speeding violations are worse crimes than entering the country illegally as they are infractions. Illegal immigration is just a civil violation and doesn’t carry prison time or even a fine, you just get sent packing.

          There are far, far more important things for our police to focus on than this.

  22. I almost didn’t notice. Better alt text, and article improvement. Maybe some more of your own text, and less C&P.

    One thumbs up, one thumbs…well lets just say not up.

  23. Ok you wonks! Can anyone tell me the first time the Federal government was established as being invested with immigration authority (or rather, that the States did NOT have such authority) under the Constitution, and what the prevailing rationale was? Discuss!

    1. I would guess it was the Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan, or some similar Yellow Menace tantrum.

    2. Unless you’re talking about the 1808 limit for “the importation of persons” established in the Constitution. But that’s not really immigration in the modern sense.

      1. That didn’t establish any federal authority. You can’t establish a positive authority with the expiration of an explicit prohibition. At least, not with a constitution that has a clause like the Tenth Amendment.

    3. I always thought it started when people in California started screaming “THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!!” when the Chinese railroad workers muscled all the white folk out of the lucrative clothes laundering industry in the 19th century.

      1. You are close, though I am disappointed that someone didn’t get closer.

        The Federal authority for immigration control was officially established in 1875, with the Supreme Court’s decision in Chy Lung v. Freeman, which overturned a decision of the California Supreme Court and voided a State statute. The key points, in summary:

        * The powers which the {California Immigration] commissioner is authorized to exercise under this statute are such as to bring the United States into conflict with foreign nations, and they can only belong to the federal government.

        * If the right of the states to pass statutes to protect themselves in regard to the criminal, the pauper, and the diseased foreigner landing within their borders exists at all, it is limited to such laws as are absolutely necessary for that purpose, and this mere police regulation cannot extend so far as to prevent or obstruct other classes of persons from the right to hold personal and commercial intercourse with the people of the United States.

        * The statute of California in this respect extends far beyond the necessity in which the right, if it exists, is founded, and invades the right of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and is therefore void.

        At one time, Chinese-fearing California had an Immigration Commissioner, who was empowered to declare certain people “undesirable,” such that they would have to post a $100 bond to enter the State via its ports. In voiding the empowering statute, the Supreme Court explained that a State immigration power (“if it exists at all”) cannot interfere with the federal power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which includes general immigration authority. The decision to admit or exclude foreigners could make life hard for the US in the conduct of foreign relations, the negotiation of treaties, etc., so the States cannot be empowered to make such decisions, and the only agency left who could is the federal government. Done and done.

        On the one hand, this opinion differs from many others of its era, in that the Justices seem to have at least offered some Constitutional justification for their decision. But I think they erred in at least two ways. First, immigration is not generally an example of either foreign relations or commerce with foreign nations. On occasion, it might become so, and at those times, to the extent necessary, the federal government might become involved. But that’s a long way from saying that immigration authority is invested primarily (or only!) in the Federal government.

        The other error comes from not taking the 10th Amendment into account. The Federal government is not granted a specific immigration authority in the text of the Constitution. If it has one, that authority must be necessary and proper for exercising an explicit constitutional authority. Otherwise, the States have that non-enumerated authority, or the people are at liberty with respect to immigration. Would a lack of immigration authority prevent the federal government from conducting foreign relations or regulating commerce with foreign nations? Is such an authority essential and necessary to those functions? The Supreme Court seemed to assume so. But what worries me most about the decision, is the suggestion that no State can have a power, which overlaps with the Federal government’s, or which, when exercised, might make the Federal government’s job harder. In its decision, the Supreme Court not only seemed to ignore the 10th Amendment, but to contradict it, by denying to the States a power because, among other reasons, the exercise of it could bring the nation into conflict with other nations, thus usurping a federal authority.

        It seems to me that conflicts between the States and Federal government in these gray areas would be best handled on a case-by-case basis, but it also seems pretty clear from the court’s opinion that the Justices were trying to establish federal primacy in immigration and get the States out of the business. Read for yourself and see what you think:

        1. “The Federal government is not granted a specific immigration authority in the text of the Constitution.”


          Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 4:
          The Congress shall have Power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

  24. Well Warlord Joe was doing it before the law even existed, so why would another confirmation that it’s illegal have mattered?

  25. What does Sherif Joe charge the illegal aliens with? If he’s been doing it for 3 years, he must be using a statute besides the new Arizona law.

  26. I don’t know about this, something north of 70% people in AZ see a real problem there.

    Now, I think 90% of the border violence could be solved by ending the WOD that funds the drug gangs, but the Fed response seems to be “Hands off those future Obama voters!”

    No one should have to live in the craphole that is Mexico, so it would be nice if we could open the border, but it’s just not sustainable with the welfare state we’ve built.

    1. I don’t know about this, something north of 70% people in AZ see a real problem there.

      Since something north of 60% of US-born Arizona residents weren’t born in Arizona, I am skeptical whether those new voting immigrants to the state should be making rash changes to the 160-year-old relationship Arizona has had with its border.

      Has any poll broken down support of such laws against how long one has lived there? At first glance, the biggest immigration problem Arizona has is from its north and east.

      1. “At first glance, the biggest immigration problem Arizona has is from its north and east.”

        Change “Arizona” to “California” and you still have a true statement. My State has seemingly undergone a total personality change in the past half-century or so, and hispanic immigration from south of the border was not the cause.

  27. Arpaio seems like the kind of guy who read some Judge Dredd comics a while back and thought they were the coolest thing ever and would be a great idea to implement in real life.

  28. I am so looking forward to watching the heads explode on the 9th Circuit when they try to reconcile ruling that

    (1) the states have no authority to legislate in an area (immigration) where the feds have legislated, and

    (2) the states have ample authority to legislate in an area (marijuana legalization) where the feds have legislated.

    Extra deliciousness because the AZ immigration law is consistent with federal law, while the marijuana legalization in California is inconsistent with federal law.

  29. Unless you’re talking about the 1808 limit for “the importation of persons” established in the Constitution. But that’s not really immigration in the modern sense.

    The full clause include immigration, you know:

    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    1. The authors were talking about slavery, of course, with no intent to affect voluntary migration. They said so in their writings. I believe that slavery was viewed as a case of commerce between nations, which the Federal government is explicitly authorized to handle.

      If there were no tenth amendment, one might be able to argue that, although immigration authority was not enumerated in the affirmative, it were at least intended by the implication of the time-limited prohibitory clause. (You would have to ignore writings by the founders themselves in contradiction of that argument, but you could make it.) The Tenth Amendment, however, seems to require that federal powers actually be granted by the Constitution; otherwise, there is little point in having a Tenth Amendment OR a Constitution.

    2. It’s a good thing that this power can be read into the Constitution, or the Supreme Court would have had to resort to ridiculous claims that sovereignty alone would grant the power over immigration to the federal government rather than the states.

      Let’s see what they said in Chae Chan Ping v. United States

      The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one.

      Oh, my. They had a chance to cite this clause, but invented a power out of thin air instead — passing yet another artifact of sovereignty from the states to the federal government in the process.

      Do you have a single example of a respected political or legal opinion from the 18th or 19th centuries that thinks that this clause has anything to do with anything except slavery? Because certainly the people who wrote it and read it at the time knew it had to do exclusively with the migration and importation of slaves.

      1. Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 4:
        The Congress shall have Power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

        1. Naturalization is neither migration, immigration, nor denization.

          1. Yeah, maybe. Maybe not.

            1. Certainly to the people who wrote and signed the Constitution, naturalization was not immigration.

  30. “The authors were talking about slavery, of course, with no intent to affect voluntary migration. They said so in their writings.”

    Could you provide some links regarding those writings? I’m not challenging your claim. I’ve heard RCDeans argument before from others and I don’t buy it.

    1. Here are a couple…

      James Madison in Federalist 42:

      Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.

      And the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, who didn’t feel the need for continued euphemisms when they rewrote the same clause:

      The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

    2. There’s also the Tucker’s Blackstone discussion on naturalization:

      The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject…. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states…. It might therefore have been extremely impolitic in the states to have surrendered the right of denization, as well as that of naturalization to the federal government, inasmuch as it might have operated to discourage migration to those states, which have lands to dispose of, and settle; since, it might be a disagreeable alternative to the states, either to permit aliens to hold lands within their territory, or to exclude all who have not yet completed their probationary residence within the U. States, so as to become naturalized citizens, from purchasing, or holding lands, until they should have acquired all other rights appertaining to that character.

    3. Thanks for the help MikeP. I get very tired of having to do other people’s research for them, but I still try to respond to sincere “requests to cite” when I can. Today, I was busy with other things, and it is so wonderful to come here and see that you have not only posted the Federalist passage that I would have provided, but also tossed in CSA constitutional language and the Blackstone passage as well. Good stuff. Thanks again.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.