Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law
 

I still don't understand this argument. I understand the concept behind it, but a lot of state or local laws mirror Federal law.

Could you imagine a local cop letting a guy driving a car loaded with drugs go free because it's "the DEA's job to enforce drug laws"?

LOL @ "It's already illegal to be in the country illegally"

http://420.thrashbarg.net/lol_que.jpg

^^^ Giant hispanic pear.

Isn't that how it works in states where medical marijuana is legal though? The local cops don't interfere, only the federal guys enforce the federal laws.

So even though it's a state law, I guess the question is whether states even have the jurisdiction to deal with immigration issues.

It depends on which court this case lands in. If it is a liberal court Feds win, if it is a conservative court, AZ wins.

If it goes to the Supreme court 5-4 AZ wins.

The issue is do non-citizens have constitutional protected rights?

The local cops don't interfere because it's "legal" but medical marijuana is a whole 'nother monster which I don't feel like getting into.

It's not that simple really, at the Supreme Court level it's not about immigration it's about jurisdiction and federalization.

And generally we extend most rights to non-citizens in some form or another. But this isn't about that, beyond the federal vs state issues it's about whether people who LOOK like illegal immigrants should be asked for their papers. That can include legal US citizens. (Even if it's not supposed to.)

I understand, just comparing the state vs. federal thing.

The civil rights lawsuits are being taking care of by the ACLU and while I can see the validity in that lawsuit I'm not sure about the DOJ being able to prove that local enforcement of Fed law impedes the Feds from enforcing the same laws. If you read SB1070, it's essentially just mandating that state law enforcement agencies enforce federal immigration laws.

Yeah it's two seperate bits there civil rights and jurisdiction.

And I guess I'm not sure. I object on the civil rights grounds and I see the fed's side that if every state passes their own immigration laws things are going to be very .. well difficult at the least. I think it depends on what happens after the local police make a call to ICE - are they allowed to hold someone for federal reasons (not even charges)? Are they going to be makine 300 calls to ICE a day? I don't know enough about law enforcement to know.

It's not local enforcement of federal law that is the issue. It's the passage and enforcement of a state law that the Fed is suing over.

Sorta like how certain states passing medical marijuana laws have made things a little difficult on the fed's?


If they have the agreements made then yes and yes.

Could you elaborate?

Sure but in a different way.

The lawsuit is about the Federal government suing the State of Arizona over the State law, not about the state police enforcing the Federal immigration law. Kind of.

IMO, It's more that giving the state's jurisdiction over immigration at all is iffy and citizenship issues at least are embedded in the federal constitution, although I admit flat out I have no idea whether immigration is or not.

What Drole said.

how different is this AZ law from what was previously going on? someone fact check me, but i thought immigration statuses were being verified during stops before this was ever passed.

Previously police could call immigration or check up on people if they suspected something but didn't have to. Now they're required if they suspect the person is illegal. I think the law was amended to make it clear that it had to be while ticketing/arresting someone, but I'm not 100% certain they couldn't walk up to a guy on the street and demand proof of legal status. (Maybe only if he's loitering while brown or something)

To your edit: Not necessarily, in some communities they overlook/ignore signs of illegal status in favor of catching the drug dealers/gang members/ etc. Turning in the people who might come to you for help means that people don't come forward. Similarly your average officer doesn't have the time/interest to hold someone for ICE.

Also, all immigrants must have documentation on them at all times stating that they're legal. I don't know that carrying it at all times was required previously.

And all of this is being done at the state level instead of by ICE investigation. I do wonder if it interferes with ICE investigations as they may be looking for the workplaces that hire illegal immigrants or the people who bring them over.

The way I interpreted it, only a country (i.e. federal government) can enforce laws about someone violating national borders. Arizona could make a law about state borders (maybe), but not national borders.

There's also the issue of them messing up a federal investigation. INS could be tracking a huge child trafficking case, but a local cop in Phoenix could mess it all up looking for illegal immigrants. If they are going to look for people here illegally, they should get the go ahead from the feds first.

ok, so they determine a person is illegal. then what? i didn't see anywhere that there were local penalties in addition to federal penalties. i don't think that states have the power to deport, right?

They don't. Local authorities are to hand over suspected illegals to ICE.

I heard Erwin Chemerinsky is of the opinion that the feds will win this one. I tend to agree. I can see good arguments on both sides. Here are a few good ones off the top of my head:

1) The power to legislate in the area of immigration is a power delegated to the federal government. Much like the dormant commerce clause keeps states from enacting their own legislation relating to interstate commerce, the immigration powers of the federal government foreclose states even enacting completely consistent legislation.

2) Even if the states can arguably enact completely consistent legislation, if it's not enforced in the same way the feds enforce it, they are violating congressional intent. In this case, Arizona's intent seems to be to enforce this law much more effectively and broadly than any federal agency does. Congress' intent seems to be that by a conduct of lack of action and funding in the area, that they really don't want to block all illegal immigration, thus a policy actually doing that would be unconstitutional and preempted.

3) (and this is slightly weaker)That Arizona, by doing this has caused an international incident and is in effect conducting foreign policy, which it is not, as a state, allowed to do.

Well if the federal government would do their JOB and PROTECT the borders, this law wouldn't have been made.

I respect people's opinions, but really until you've lived in AZ and are 1) constantly watching news reports about an illegal immigrant committing murder, 2) constantly hearing about illegal immigrant drop houses/drug busts, 3) constantly hearing about an illegal immigrant stealing someones identity (or have had your's stolen by an illegal immigrant), you CANNOT possibly understand WHY legal AZ residents are getting frustrated and looking to the government for solutions.

I truly believe that they made this law to make people PAY ATTENTION to what California, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico are dealing with when it comes to illegal immigration. It should not be these 4 states jobs to be fighting this epidemic (and that is what it is).

Our borders are federal and our federal government should be taking care of them.

This is strictly my opinion. I completely understand that others are going to feel differently. But instead of attacking, think about the people who deal with illegal immigration on a daily basis.

I now live in Fayetteville, NC. I have never heard the Raleigh news once mention illegal immigration. It probably isn't something that they deal with. I'm sure there are illegal immigrants in the state, but probably not to the extent as the 4 border states.

What is right and what is legal ain't the same thing.

I don't think anyone here is attacking the good people of the state of AZ. I'm sure it's frustrating to live there. However that doesn't make the law automatically OK even if the federal government wasn't enforcing their laws well. Yes there needs to be reform, but at the federal level.

And you should check out the illegal immigration stats for places like Iowa, much higher than you'd think. Slaughterhouses seem particularly prone.

The third point is kind of weak ;)

I hear that the Feds are going to be using the Supremacy Clause to render this law invalid, it is also my understanding that the Feds will have to prove that SB1070 CONFLICTS with federal law in order to achieve this. I also read that AZ lawmakers foresaw this and wrote the bill in language that DIDN'T conflict with Federal law, blah blah blah blah blah...

I'm just going to sit back and watch this one play out :cool:

It doesn't even come close. I grew up in MI and lived in AZ for awhile, even though Detroit has it's fair share of undocumented, it's just so much more prevalent and "in-your-face" in AZ.

In regards to ASUADPi, It kind of upsets me watching people getting bussed in from California or Oklahoma to protest in Phoenix. Thats awesome that they are that passionate about the issue but they aren't the ones dealing with it on a daily basis.

No they don't. They just have to show that Congress has enacted a scheme which is intended to occupy the field. That would mean (at least theoretically) that the states can't even enact consistent legislation without permission. And even if they did, running afoul of Congressional intent could still foul that up.

I see a lot of blah blah blah, yackity smackity, but I'm not reading SHIZZAT until MysticCat rolls through.

The funny thing about all of this is that it's all recession driven. The immigrant problem is less severe than in recent years. Jan Brewer has had to manufacture statistics to support the cause. Just last week she was spouting off nonsense that the majority of illegal immigrants were drug mules. ICE officials disputed that stat unconditionally. She came back and said, "Well, the drug dealers are trafficking in humans and that's wrong." Good try, Jan. Anyway, there is definitely crime. There is definitely an issue with drug smugglers at the border, but picking up random illegal immigrants trying to find work doesn't address that problem. The way this law was written, we are stopping illegal immigrants from taking the poorly paid, menial jobs in Arizona. If the lawmakers really wanted to stop the drug smugglers, they would have called up the Arizona National Guard and put them along the border. It's just BS that this law is going to fix the problems that they claim it will. The violent drug cartels couldn't care less about SB1070.

Amen.

Of course, MC would have the ultimate say! And I want to state upfront that I'm not against immigration - I've been to naturalizations to hand out flags and the whole bit. But if it's illegal to come into the United States without the correct papers, how can the government say that it's illegal to try to stop illegal immigration? This is our money paying for yet another frivolous lawsuit, IMHO. As said before, if the Feds aren't doing their job, why shouldn't AZ pass a law to help them out? This isn't Dog, the Bounty Hunter, it's a situation where a person already pulled over or otherwise coming to the attention of the police is asked to prove their legal residence. People in CA can pay a normal wage for housekeepers, landscapers, and babysitters, and maybe the amount of drug lords will be kept out.

If Arizona passes the law that, if an illegal immigrant couple have a child, and that child does not automatically become a citizen, that would be a much deeper issue.

True and that is outright prohibited in the constitution.

Again, no legal eagle here, but I believe the problem is with the HOW, not the WHAT. I believe the method of enforcement is the issue.

I *heart* you. ALMOST as much as MC.
;)

The problem is also that we have a state that is reeling from the housing bust. There is no money, but suddenly they want to start a VERY expensive program that diverts police attention from law enforcement to illegal immigration (which is already down) leaving other areas uncovered. It's not going to save the state any money by decreasing the immigrant load...you throw them out, they find a way back in. We'll just end up spending a ton of money on a completely useless program that will not be supported by ICE when we hand over the illegals that we round up. Sounds like an excellent plan.;)

Hence the problem. So why don't we just open up the borders and let anyone and everyone in? Because we can't. We can however limit the ability of illegal aliens to cross as easily as they do. Seal the borders as best we can. This is what needs to be done first and then we address the people who are here illegally.

AZ should sue the U.S. Gov't for not doing their duty when it comes to immigration. Unfortunately, there is probably some damn law that covers the Fed's.

Or let more people in legally and remove the incentive for coming through illegally (crackdown on employers)

And you know good and well that is not what I am saying, but the rhetoric that is being used to support this law is ridiculous. This will not save the Arizona economy. It will not stop the drug cartels. It will not decrease illegal immigration at the borders. Pretending otherwise that it does anything other than waste Arizona tax payer money is stupid.

Need:

http://www.wnba.com/media/mystics/20...erStars_00.JPG

+

http://i41.tinypic.com/wwj2mb.jpg