What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I stand corrected, they can stop them to check for immigration status.

So if they stop people to check for illegal handguns or drugs?

[jinx]

It's interesting that the DOJ suit that 'they' keep saying will be filed any second focuses not on 4th amendment or lawful contact issues, but on federal jurisdiction to set immigration policy.
I don't really get that, because the AZ law doesn't set new policy, it's just an attempt to enforce known public policy with state and local agencies.

On the other hand, we have California passing the Compassionate Use Act way back in '96 - that puts state law at direct odds with Federal.

Originally Posted by jinx

It's interesting that the DOJ suit that 'they' keep saying will be filed any second focuses not on 4th amendment or lawful contact issues, but on federal jurisdiction to set immigration policy.
I don't really get that, because the AZ law doesn't set new policy, it's just an attempt to enforce known public policy with state and local agencies.

From what I have read, the DoJ is considering challenges on both issues, but the supremacy clause issue would logically be the first test, being the more overriding of the two.

The timing....it is common practice NOT to file too far in advance, particularly if the fed and the state are privately attempting at some level to reach an agreement on modifications to the law.

[jinx]

But how does the supremacy issue make any sense here?
That would be like saying that state and local law agencies cannot enforce federal drug laws. But they do.

Originally Posted by jinx

But how does the supremacy issue make any sense here?
That would be like saying that state and local law agencies cannot enforce federal drug laws. But they do.

It is not saying that at all.

AZ law enforcement officials can and do enforce the federal immigration law, based on language in the federal law and an agreement between the feds and the state.

The AZ law goes beyond what that agreement allows under the federal law by criminalizing illegal immigration at the state level. The Supremacy Clause establishes that the federal law always prevails when federal/laws are in conflict.

[jinx]

Don't states have individual drug laws?

ie. Marijuana is a controlled substance under federal law, but penalties/enforcement for possession vary by state.

Originally Posted by jinx

Don't states have individual drug laws?

Possession of illegal drugs has never been solely a federal crime nor does federal law identify it as such.

What the AZ laws does is make illegal immigration a state crime when federal law (and the Constitution?) deems it to be solely a federal crime....that the states can help enforce, but NOT make more restrictive than the federal law.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Possession of illegal drugs has never been solely a federal crime nor does federal law identify it as such.

What the AZ laws does is make illegal immigration a state crime when federal law (and the Constitution?) deems it to be solely a federal crime....that the states can help enforce, but NOT make more restrictive than the federal law.

State Troopers seem to be the ultimate law enforcement agency at all state levels. It seems to me that they have great leeway to enforce all law, both state and federal. You keep saying the AZ law is more restrictive, when it is not. We have already agreed that Federal police agencies (ICE and Border Patrol) have the same authority that they are giving to local and state police agencies in AZ.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

State Troopers seem to be the ultimate law enforcement agency at all state levels. It seems to me that they have great leeway to enforce all law, both state and federal. You keep saying the AZ law is more restrictive, when it is not. We have already agreed that Federal police agencies (ICE and Border Patrol) have the same authority that they are giving to local and state police agencies in AZ.

In the opinion of many, the AZ law is more restrictive because it create state arrest authority for violations of federal immigration law in situations that do not exist under federal law.

The issue is not state troopers being the ultimate law enforcement agency, but the state legislature and governor enacting a law that says illegal immigration is a state crime...when the Constitution (?) and federal law deem immigration legislation/regulation to be a federal matter...with enforcement support from the state.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

In the opinion of many, the AZ law is more restrictive because it create state arrest authority for violations of federal immigration law in situations that do not exist under federal law.

Illegal immigration is a crime. ICE and Border Patrol arrest and detain persons who are here illegally everyday. The only difference I see is that now a state level or lower duely appointed law enforcement official can now assist the feds in doing the same, arresting and detaining persons for a violation of crime. They arrest people who can be tried under federal law on a daily basis, it just so happens that they are liable to arrest for similar violations at the state level. I don't see how that is more restrictive.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Redux

What the AZ laws does is make illegal immigration a state crime when federal law (and the Constitution?) deems it to be solely a federal crime....that the states can help enforce, but NOT make more restrictive than the federal law.

Shortly after the U.S. Civil War, some states started to pass their own immigration laws, which prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in 1875 that immigration was a federal responsibility[1].

Supreme Court case, Chy Lung v. Freeman.

We are not called upon by this statute to decide for or against the right of a state, in the absence of legislation by Congress, to protect herself by necessary and proper laws against paupers and convicted criminals from abroad, nor to lay down the definite limit of such right, if it exist. Such a right can only arise from a vital necessity for its exercise, and cannot be carried beyond the scope of that necessity. When a state statute, limited to provisions necessary and appropriate to that object alone, shall, in a proper controversy, come before us, it will be time enough to decide that question. The statute of California goes so far beyond what is necessary, or even appropriate, for this purpose, as to be wholly without any sound definition of the right under which it is supposed to be justified. Its manifest purpose, as we have already said, is, not to obtain indemnity, but money.

Originally Posted by jinx

Supreme Court case, Chy Lung v. Freeman.

The Supreme Court ruled the state law was unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress had exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce and immigration. It also held that the state law violated 14th amendment rights of non-residents (that it did not apply only to citizens).

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Supreme Court ruled the state law was unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress had exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce and immigration.

The USSC cases I have provided links for show a precedence for specific immigration issues not affecting commerce to be considered a police matter and within a states right to legislate.

[jinx]

Sorry I edited my post so many times. Trying to make sense of it.

[jinx]

I don't see "unconstitutional" anywhere really. CA demanding payment for accepting prostitutes is what "invades the right of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and is therefore void." not enforcing existing immigration law by state/local agencies.
In the context of, "If you don't pay us $500 per hooker on board, the ship may not dock."

1. The statute of California which is the subject of consideration in this case does not require a bond for every passenger, or commutation in money, as the statutes of New York and Louisiana do, but only for certain enumerated classes, among which are "lewd and debauched women."
2. But the features of the statute are such as to show very clearly that the purpose is to extort money from a large class of passengers, or to prevent their immigration to California altogether.
3. The statute also operates directly on the passenger, for unless the master or owner of the vessel gives an onerous bond for tine future protection of the state against the support of the passenger, or pays such sum as the Commissioner of Immigration chooses to exact, he is not permitted to land from the vessel.
4. The powers which the 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.