Arizona never denied licenses to immigrants

Across the country headlines are reading that the Ninth Circuit court blocked Arizona from denying licenses to immigrants. This is, of course, a lie. The decision of ARIZONA DREAM ACT COALITION V. JANICE BREWER (PDF) blocks the executive order of Jan Brewer ordering the Arizona Department of Transportation not to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens.

Brewer noted in a response to the Ninth Circuit court ruling that Arizona Revised Statute 28-3153, Subsection D forbids the Arizona Department of Transportation from issuing licenses to anyone who cannot prove they are here in accordance with federal law. Immigrants — who are those here legally applying for citizenship or by other authorized means such as a work visa — can get a license in Arizona. The law forbids issuing licenses to illegal aliens.

The Ninth Circuit Court stated in their decision:

The federal government has enacted a program called “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (“DACA”), which authorizes certain immigrants who came to the United States as children, without permission, to remain in the United States. In response, Arizona officials — Defendants here — implemented a policy that prevents DACA recipients from obtaining Arizona driver’s licenses.

The “federal government” — so-called by the Ninth Circuit court. They are referring to the national government in Washington D. C. — never enacted such a program. The Department of Homeland Security page on DACA states:

Over the past three years, this Administration has undertaken an unprecedented effort to transform the immigration enforcement system…

The DACA program was started by Executive Order to contravene United States Code. It is not based on law authorized by Congress. On July 2d, 33 Republican lawmakers sent a letter (PDF) to the Obama administration demanding that he stop this program and start deporting illegal aliens.

The reponse of Governor Brewer also read, in part:

In 2012, based on President Obama’s lawless directive, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made an administrative policy choice to defer removal proceedings of illegal aliens who were brought to the United States as children, a program referred to as DACA. This policy choice is not federal law authorizing an illegal alien’s presence in the country – it simply is a choice by the executive branch not to enforce deportation proceedings as required under existing federal statute. DHS itself has expressly acknowledged that the DACA Program does not grant any substantive rights and that only Congress can do that.

The DACA Program, the decision to not enforce federal law, has directly led to the massive influx of illegal crossings and the crisis we are witnessing today. If the Ninth Circuit ruling is allowed to stand, the President, as he has already threatened, can contrive a new program refusing to deport the latest arrivals, issue employment authorization cards, and Arizona would have to issue licenses to them as well.

. . .

Lawless decrees by the President demonstrate animus to Congress, states and the Constitution. It is outrageous, though not entirely surprising, that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has once again dealt a blow to Arizona’s ability to enforce its laws. With today’s decision, a three judge appellate panel, appointed by Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama, disregarded judicial precedent and procedure. This continues us down a dangerous path in which the courts and the President – not Congress – make our nation’s laws.

Executive Orders were first issued by President George Washington to explain to cabinet members how to enforce the laws enacted by Congress; not how to circumvent enforcement.

The Constitution give Congress no authority to regulate the issuance of drivers licenses within a State which makes it a Tenth Amendment issue. A law or “order” that violates the Constitution of the United States of America can safely be ignored by States. The policing power of the sovereign States has been established since the Supreme Court decision of Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

The decision would mean that Arizona would have to issue licenses to terrorist group members who have come through the Mexican border illegally and are now waiting for “comprehensive immigration reform.” This is especially troubling since Arizona moved to “real ID” licenses which they claimed they would never do. This will give terrorists groups access to airports and flights.

Senate approves Friedland’s nomination to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

freidland-connorThe U.S. Senate voted Monday to approve the nomination of San Francisco lawyer Michelle Friedland to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. With Friedland’s confirmation on a 51-40 vote, the highest federal court to serve California will be fully staffed for the first time in decades.

Friedland is a Stanford Law School grad who works with Munger, Tolles & Olson. Her expertise is in antitrust and higher education litigation, but she also worked pro bono on the legal challenge to California’s anti-gay marriage measure Proposition 8.

University of Richmond Law School professor Carl Tobias calls Friedland “extremely well qualified” — so much so that retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor showed up at her confirmation hearing. Friedland clerked for the nation’s first female justice when she was on the high court.

It’s been a long time since the nation’s busiest appeals court has been fully staffed. How long? Tobias says “maybe as far back as the Reagan administration.” At times, as many as a third of the seats were vacant due to partisan battles between the White House and the Senate. Tobias says the 9th became one of the slowest appeals courts in the country, with a case load that overwhelmed the judges.

Read more at KPCC