Arizona governor signs immigration bill

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I guess these guys haven't heard of the supremacy clause.

considering that this law was written by lawyers, i'm willing to bet they have.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by starang21

considering that this law was written by lawyers, i'm willing to bet they have.

If you've been following the antics of a certain Harvard grad District Attorney in Maricopa County, you'd believe as I do, that though they have heard about things like the Supremacy Clause, they don't think those things apply to them.

We had a similar law in Oklahoma, although admittedly weaker than Arizona's law. It was struck down by the 10th Circuit on preemption grounds holding that federal law both expressly and impliedly preempted the Oklahoma laws.

State laws are expressly preempted by federal law when either Congress has already enacted a statutory scheme intended to occupy the field or when it becomes a physical impossibility to comply with both the federal and state laws. When it comes to immigration, there is a statutory scheme on the books and at least one federal agency whose sole purpose is to fight illegal immigration. If there's no argument for an intent to occupy the field here, I don't think there's one anywhere.

Further, a law can be impliedly preempted. One way for that to happen is if the new law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full objectives of Congress.

Congress has chosen, through inaction mostly, to have a semi-porous border with our Southern neighbor. It is federal policy to encourage immigration. The Arizona law would seem to interfere with the objectives of Congress, giving state officials unfettered power to over-enforce Congress' statutory scheme, bringing about an end result which few would claim was what Congress had in mind when enacting the current statutory scheme.

For the above reasons, just about all of Oklahoma's laws, which at the time (Google Oklahoma and HB1804 from 2007) were the strongest in the country were held unconstitutional on preemption grounds. The only part which was allowed to stand was a voluntary ID-check thingamajig for employers where employers were given some sort of incentive to check the immigration status of new employees through a federal database called EVerify.

I don't actually know anyone who uses that system though.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If you've been following the antics of a certain Harvard grad District Attorney in Maricopa County, you'd believe as I do, that though they have heard about things like the Supremacy Clause, they don't think those things apply to them.

We had a similar law in Oklahoma, although admittedly weaker than Arizona's law. It was struck down by the 10th Circuit on preemption grounds holding that federal law both expressly and impliedly preempted the Oklahoma laws.

State laws are expressly preempted by federal law when either Congress has already enacted a statutory scheme intended to occupy the field or when it becomes a physical impossibility to comply with both the federal and state laws. When it comes to immigration, there is a statutory scheme on the books and at least one federal agency whose sole purpose is to fight illegal immigration. If there's no argument for an intent to occupy the field here, I don't think there's one anywhere.

Further, a law can be impliedly preempted. One way for that to happen is if the new law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full objectives of Congress.

Congress has chosen, through inaction mostly, to have a semi-porous border with our Southern neighbor. It is federal policy to encourage immigration. The Arizona law would seem to interfere with the objectives of Congress, giving state officials unfettered power to over-enforce Congress' statutory scheme, bringing about an end result which few would claim was what Congress had in mind when enacting the current statutory scheme.

For the above reasons, just about all of Oklahoma's laws, which at the time (Google Oklahoma and HB1804 from 2007) were the strongest in the country were held unconstitutional on preemption grounds. The only part which was allowed to stand was a voluntary ID-check thingamajig for employers where employers were given some sort of incentive to check the immigration status of new employees through a federal database called EVerify.

I don't actually know anyone who uses that system though.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

i couldn't figure out explicitly how this law is going to implemented. but i figure that something to the affect that the everify thing that you mentioned would be a good idea.

and from what i'm gathering from your post, the state has no right to fight illegal immigration because there's a federal agency already existing to do so?

so you're saying that it's congress's explicit policy to encourage immigration or it's interpreted policy through inaction?