Obama administration to sue Arizona.

[dtugg]

I've done so several times now.

I apologize. I didn't see before.

ETA:
I don't understand your answer. Do you agree with the Federal government's position on the Arizona law? Do you think the Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional?

Upon doing some reading, it appears that the law is in conflict with with 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c, if one interprets it strictly. But case law does not seem to support that interpretation. For example, in OK an illegal immigrant was arrested for being an illegal immigrant. He challenged the arrest on based on that very statute. (U.S. v. Vasquez-Alvarez) The 10th Circuit Court ruled that 1252c "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law."

More.

 

[BeAChooser]

Post number #56.

The Arizona law authorizes police to detain someone without a warrant and without there being a prior felony. This is in conflict with the Federal law.

You and your source are wrong. That is not in conflict. The fact that Federal law authorizes state and local officials to arrest and detain an individual for a given reason (in this case, being illegal and being convicted of a previous felony or having been deported previously) does not preclude the state from arresting and detaining a person for another reason … a suspected violation of Arizona laws (which is what the Arizona law allows) … such as committing an ordinary crime like robbery. The Constitution gives state's Supremacy where violating ordinary laws (within the borders of the state) are concerned. Then, there is nothing in Federal law to preclude the state from inquiring as to the legal status of the person, provided they don't profile (and the AZ law specifically prohibits profiling).

Do you grasp how absolutely ridiculous it will be for the Federal government to argue that a State has no power to arrest and detain people within it's borders who are suspected of committing a crime just because they are illegals? And there is nothing in federal law that prohibits the state from then inquiring as to the legal status of that individual, provided they don't profile. In fact, as noted already, California law gives it's authorities essentially the same power as the Arizona law to inquire about legal status. And if it then turns out the arrested person is illegal, after the state punishes the individual for violating it's laws, there is nothing in Federal law prohibiting the state from turning that person over to Federal authorities. In fact, they are likely duty bound to do it.

Obama and the democrats will lose this case hands down and become the laughing stock of most Americans if they try this defense of yours.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I think the point of filing a suit against SB 1070 is so that a judge will prevent the law from being enforced until the legal challenges are ironed out. It will likely take years... Remember California and prop 187?

Since immigration is in the domain of Federal law, do the Feds have any plans to address the concerns of Arizona? I doubt it...

 

[rbanks1]

If the United States were any other country in the world, would we even be having this conversation? What happens, if I, a US citizen, enter Mexico illegally? What happens if I attempt to enter Canada and stay for an extended period of time without the proper paperwork and approval? What if I decide that Iran should simply allow me free passage into their country, and while I am there, I'll demand that they allow me free medical care.

I've spent time in all three countries. One would be stern but forgiving of my arrogant ideas of rights in a country from which I do not hail. Another would send me to jail to await deportation, and yet another, would throw me in prison or hang me from a crane, executed as a spy.

Why is it such an awful, distasteful idea the the United States have proper enforcement of our borders and regulations regarding who crosses the border and how long they stay here as a guest? Every other goddamn country in the world has border enforcement and strict immigration laws, why should we be any different?

 

[Frank Newgent]

And there is nothing in federal law that prohibits the state from then inquiring as to the legal status of that individual, provided they don't profile.

How do you question the immigration status of anyone for no reason without profiling?

 

[Neally]

How do you question the immigration status of anyone for no reason without profiling?

Read the law. It doesn't involve questioning the immigration status of anyone for no reason.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You and your source are wrong. That is not in conflict.

No, you are wrong, no matter how many times you claim the laws are identical.

And again, if they are identical are you arguing that the law should stand because it changes nothing?

Either state police are authorized to arrest someone without a warrant and without a prior felony or they are not. The two laws are different in this regard. The federal law has supremacy.

Also, back to the idea of field pre-emption, from the beginning, naturalization was held by the courts to be a power exclusive to Congress to the exclusion of the states. (See Chirac v. Chirac's Lessee in 1817).

In Galvan v. Press (1954), Justice Frankfurter expressed the court's position (my bolding):

Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remains here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government. In the enforcement of these policies, the Executive Branch of the Government must respect the procedural safeguards of due process. . . . But that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissue of our body politic as any aspect of our government.

 

[dtugg]

No, you are wrong, no matter how many times you claim the laws are identical.

And again, if they are identical are you arguing that the law should stand because it changes nothing?

Either state police are authorized to arrest someone without a warrant and without a prior felony or they are not. The two laws are different in this regard. The federal law has supremacy.

Also, back to the idea of field pre-emption, from the beginning, naturalization was held by the courts to be a power exclusive to Congress to the exclusion of the states. (See Chirac v. Chirac's Lessee in 1817).

In Galvan v. Press (1954), Justice Frankfurter expressed the court's position (my bolding):

Did you read my first post on this page?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How do you question the immigration status of anyone for no reason without profiling?

That's another good challenge to the law that is being made by Officer Escobar of the Tucson police. He's arguing that they will either be vulnerable to discrimination lawsuits (as you say, how do you decide whose status to verify if you're not racially profiling?) or they'll spend all their time verifying the status of virtually every person they come into contact with. Either way, it will make doing their jobs more difficult.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Did you read my first post on this page?

Yes I did. You agree with me (not BaC) that the laws are in conflict and not identical, but you seem to think that is not reason for federal preemption of the state law.

In fact, even the weakest interpretation of federal preemption recognizes conflict preemption. Field preemption is the weaker of my two arguments, and it actually pertains in fields other than fields "which the States have traditionally occupied". (Rice v Santa Fe Elevator Corp, 1947).

There is plenty of case law that supports implied pre-emption --so Congress doesn't have to expressly state that they intended to occupy the field of naturalization, even though, as mentioned, the Constitution specifically gives Congress the job of creating a uniform rule of naturalization. If the intent was not to occupy the field, but to allow each state to set their own rules, then there is no uniform rule.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But the states aren't empowered to make their own rules of naturalization. And the Arizona law doesn't attempt that.

Now you do know the definition of naturalization, don't you?

I think you're unaware that the treatment of aliens is part of Congress' naturalization power. (ETA: See the quote I offered from Galvan v. Press above.)

Sometimes I think leftists don't.

Ad hom noted, and ignored since my personal political views (or anyone else's) are also irrelevant.

 

[dtugg]

Yes I did. You agree with me (not BaC) that the laws are in conflict and not identical, but you seem to think that is not reason for federal preemption of the state law.

In fact, even the weakest interpretation of federal preemption recognizes conflict preemption. Field preemption is the weaker of my two arguments, and it actually pertains in fields other than fields "which the States have traditionally occupied". (Rice v Santa Fe Elevator Corp, 1947).

There is plenty of case law that supports implied pre-emption (so Congress doesn't have to expressly state that they intended to occupy the field of naturalization, even though, as mentioned, the Constitution specifically gives Congress the job of creating a uniform rule of naturalization. If the intent was not to occupy the field, but to allow each state to set their own rules, then there is no uniform rule.

Apparently you didn't, or you're in denial or something. Because in 1999 the 10th Circuit Court ruled that there federal law "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law." US v. Vasquez-Alvarez.

There, I established that according to current case law, it is not illegal for states to enforce immigration laws. Deal with it. I also find it ironic that back then the US was arguing that states do have the authority to arrest illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants.

I suppose it is possible that the courts will ignore the precedent but I doubt it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Apparently you didn't, or you're in denial or something. Because in 1999 the 10th Circuit Court ruled that there federal law "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law." US v. Vasquez-Alvarez.

There, I established that according to current case law, it is not illegal for states to enforce immigration laws. Deal with it. I also find it ironic that back then the US was arguing that states do have the authority to arrest illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants.

I suppose it is possible that the courts will ignore the precedent but I doubt it.

First, the Supreme Court is allowed to ignore lower court precedent, but that's not really the point. If the laws are in conflict, the case you're citing doesn't apply.

And if an arrest is made that is only authorized under Arizona SB1070 and is not authorized under federal law, the case you cited doesn't apply. Again, we're not talking about cases where the status is somehow known, but where state police only suspect the person is illegal. In the absence of a prior felony, federal law does not authorize arrest and detention. So it cannot be claimed that the state police are enforcing the federal law. Such an arrest would only be authorized under the new state law.

And if state law and federal law is in conflict, the federal law is supreme.

It could be that the court will decide the case ala carte and only strike down the parts of the Arizona law that are in conflict, and leave the rest. Then again, what's the point? If all that's left changes nothing from the status quo, what's the intent of the law? (Leaving off the political intent of the law! The scapegoating of immigrants and political exploitation of anti-immigrant sentiments.)

 

[WildCat]

Why is it such an awful, distasteful idea the the United States have proper enforcement of our borders and regulations regarding who crosses the border and how long they stay here as a guest? Every other goddamn country in the world has border enforcement and strict immigration laws, why should we be any different?

It is amazing, isn't it? Apparently, the US is the only country in the world that isn't allowed to control immigration.

 

[bynmdsue]

Someone in this thread has yet to read the law.Can you guess who it is?

 

[dtugg]

First, the Supreme Court is allowed to ignore lower court precedent, but that's not really the point.

I am aware of this. That is why I said it is possible that they will ignore the precedent.

If the laws are in conflict, the case you're citing doesn't apply.

But the case says the laws aren't in conflict.

And if an arrest is made that is only authorized under Arizona SB1070 and is not authorized under federal law, the case you cited doesn't apply. Again, we're not talking about cases where the status is somehow known, but where state police only suspect the person is illegal. In the absence of a prior felony, federal law does not authorize arrest and detention. So it cannot be claimed that the state police are enforcing the federal law. Such an arrest would only be authorized under the new state law.

And if state law and federal law is in conflict, the federal law is supreme.

It could be that the court will decide the case ala carte and only strike down the parts of the Arizona law that are in conflict, and leave the rest. Then again, what's the point? If all that's left changes nothing from the status quo, what's the intent of the law? (Leaving off the political intent of the law! The scapegoating of immigrants and political exploitation of anti-immigrant sentiments.)

Dude, read the case. It applies nearly perfectly. The cop arrested Vasquez solely for being an illegal immigrant. It turned out the guy had a history of convictions and deportations but the cop didn't know that until later. The court ruled that it didn't matter because the law in question "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law."

You can disagree with the 10th Circuit Court and hope that the precedent is changed if you want to. But at least admit that according to case law, there is nothing illegal about states arresting illegal immigrants. It couldn't be more clear.

 

[BeAChooser]

How do you question the immigration status of anyone for no reason without profiling?

I highlighted the portion of your question that is a false assumption.

And you must have wax in your ears and a blindfold on, because the sponsors/defenders of the Arizona law have answered that question a thousand times already in print, on radio and on TV.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But the case says the laws aren't in conflict.

What case? The federal lawsuit against the Arizona law hasn't even been filed, and no other court has reviewed this law and found that they aren't in conflict.

Again, you said you agreed with me that the Arizona law conflicts with the federal law. If you concede that point, then it's an easy matter to support conflict preemption.

BaC is sticking to his guns that the laws aren't in conflict.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is amazing, isn't it? Apparently, the US is the only country in the world that isn't allowed to control immigration.

What? No one's saying anything like that.

The authority to control immigration is given to Congress, not the states. That's the issue at the heart of this lawsuit.

 

[BeAChooser]

No, you are wrong, no matter how many times you claim the laws are identical.

No, I am right, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

Which is why I'm confident that either the Obama administration will never actually file a lawsuit (it's all just rhetoric to try and keep the base supportive until the November elections ... which are going to turn out badly for democrats, in any case, in part because of nonsense like this) or if they do file a suit, they will lose badly.

And again, if they are identical are you arguing that the law should stand because it changes nothing?

I already clearly stated my reasons for believing the law will stand a court test. I feel no need to repeat myself, just because you don't want to even try and understand those reasons.

Either state police are authorized to arrest someone without a warrant and without a prior felony or they are not.

So you are claiming that state police cannot arrest anyone without a warrant and without them having a prior felony? Do you know absolutely silly that sounds?

The federal law has supremacy.

Not when it comes to ordinary crimes committed in the state.

naturalization was held by the courts to be a power exclusive to Congress to the exclusion of the states.

But the Arizona law does nothing to preempt Congress's power in that regard.

I'll ask you again, Joe, do you even know what the term naturalization means? The term, as used in the Constitution, ONLY pertains to the legal requirements needed for granting citizenship. The term naturalization has nothing to do with the rights of people who are caught here illegally. And that fact was made quite clear in the writings of those who created and signed the Constitution.

Furthermore, regarding the opinion (Galvan v. Press) you cited, the Arizona laws says nothing about policies "pertaining to the entry of aliens" or their "right to remain here". If the Obama administration decided to release the illegals the moment they were turned over to the Federal government by Arizona, they could do so. And nothing prevents those illegals from getting "due process" in the event the Federal government decided not to release them on our streets again.

You and the socialist left simply don't know what you are talking about Joe. And apparently most Americans are already wise to that which is why polls show support of the Arizona law increasing. And any forum that gives my side of this debate an opportunity to inform them further, like a court of law, will only increase that support. So like I've been asking in other threads, Joe, is this to be a nation governed by the Rule of Law or the Rule of Obama? What right does he and his justice department have to arbitrarily ignore our laws, as he just did in allowing an illegal Harvard student to remain in this country? It's not like we really need another socialist, leftist lawyer.