U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-25-2010, 12:42 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,087,243 times
Reputation: 957

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jambini View Post
Arizona has done it before. They passed the E Verify law in which the Feds lost their lawsuit on similar grounds.
E-verify is a federal program with its provisions and regulations...please read the E-Verfy manual in PDF form from the federal government...I have.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedoc...ify_Manual.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2010, 01:03 PM
 
349 posts, read 394,176 times
Reputation: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
Uh, any violation of the law is considered a crime in legal terms, crime is not limited to robbery, murder, etc.

"To summarize, nothing in federal law precluded Peoria police from enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Arizona law authorizes local officers to arrest for violations of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325 where there is probable cause to believe the arrestee has illegally entered the United States." Paragraph 38
So, you didn't read the opinion, right?

The entirety of paragraph 38 here:

To summarize, nothing in federal law precluded Peoria police from enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Arizona law authorizes local officers to arrest for violations of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325 where there is probable cause to believe the arrestee has illegally entered the United States. However, enforcement procedures must distinguish illegal entry from illegal presence and must comply with all arrest requirements imposed by the federal Constitution.

Emphasis mine.

Also see paragraph 17

Plaintiffs correctly assert that an intent to preclude local enforcement may be inferred where the system of federal regulation is so pervasive that no opportunity for state activity remains. Id. We assume that the civil provisions of the Act regulating authorized entry, length of stay, residence status, and deportation, constitute such a pervasive regulatory scheme, as would be consistent with the exclusive federal power over immigration. However, this case does not concern that broad scheme, but only a narrow and distinct element of it--the regulation of criminal immigration activity by aliens. The statutes relating to that element are few in number and relatively simple in their terms. They are not, and could not be, supported by a complex administrative structure. It therefore cannot be inferred that the federal government has occupied the field of criminal immigration enforcement.

Again, emphasis mine.

Some violations of law are treated criminally while others are civil, like speeding or running a stop sign. Unlawful presence is legally equivalent to running a red light.

Thank you for taking the time to learn the truth.

So, myth 11 is that 1070 is just enforcing federal law.

False. It creates state crimes and establishes penalties for civil provisions of the INA contrary to the rule of law and should be held unconstitutional.

Myth 12 Arizona had to do something because the feds aren't doing anything.

False. USBP agents have quadrupled in size since 1993 and doubled since 2000. Deportations are at record highs and nearly doubled just since 2003.


I don't believe enforcement only will actually do anything to decrease the overall number of unlawfully present aliens, I'm just exposing some myths.

Last edited by mauiwowie; 06-25-2010 at 01:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2010, 01:06 PM
 
349 posts, read 394,176 times
Reputation: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
E-verify is a federal program with its provisions and regulations...please read the E-Verfy manual in PDF form from the federal government...I have.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedoc...ify_Manual.pdf
You and your facts and technicalities . Why can't you just believe everything you hear and see?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2010, 04:19 PM
 
25,060 posts, read 22,118,541 times
Reputation: 11576
"The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona."

"The law specifically states that police, “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070. "

Center for Immigration Studies on the New Arizona Immigration Law, SB1070 | Center for Immigration Studies

Click for more points

Quote:
Originally Posted by mauiwowie View Post
You and your facts and technicalities . Why can't you just believe everything you hear and see?
Those darn technicalities huh? Well, since the Arizona law explicitly prohibits racial considerations when asking about a person's immigration status, then TECHNICALLY the law is NOT racist wouldn't you say?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2010, 05:31 PM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,690,528 times
Reputation: 3010
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
and you continue to not understand...all States can, and do, follow[enforce] federal immigration law.

there is no need to write a law if you wish to enforce existiing Federal law.

you continue to miss that point, Arizona can enforce Federal immagration law, but they can not write their own versions.
Normally, I wouldn't cite Wikipedia, but whomever wrote this particular entry has done a very good job of bringing highly credible sources and information together in one place.

Quote:
The Constitution and federal law are the supreme law of the land, thus preempting conflicting state and territorial laws in the fifty U.S. states and in the territories. However, the scope of federal preemption is limited, because the scope of federal power is itself rather limited. In the unique dual-sovereign system of American federalism (actually tripartite when one includes Indian reservations), states are the plenary sovereigns, while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights. Thus, most U.S. law (especially the actual "living law" of contract, tort, criminal, and family law experienced by the majority of citizens on a day-to-day basis) consists primarily of state law, which can and does vary greatly from one state to the next.
Law of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't quit your day job.

KTHXBAI
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2010, 12:07 AM
 
349 posts, read 394,176 times
Reputation: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
"The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona."

"The law specifically states that police, “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070. "

Center for Immigration Studies on the New Arizona Immigration Law, SB1070 | Center for Immigration Studies

Click for more points



Those darn technicalities huh? Well, since the Arizona law explicitly prohibits racial considerations when asking about a person's immigration status, then TECHNICALLY the law is NOT racist wouldn't you say?
You've quoted an opinion piece from a biased group. Why not read the actual case law and include all of it?

You keep rehashing info that has largely already been stipulated.


Directly, can states enforce civil provisions of federal immigration law?

I would prefer applicable case law and/or laws, statutes, or codes supporting your position. Any factual evidence would be helpful though.

You cited older information concerning the law.

As originally written, I do believe the law was racist. the language has now been changed.

You've thus far avoided the obvious fact that Gonzalez v Peoria excludes civil provision enforcement, making distinctions between unlawful entry and unlawful presence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2010, 05:09 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,087,243 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
Normally, I wouldn't cite Wikipedia, but whomever wrote this particular entry has done a very good job of bringing highly credible sources and information together in one place.



Law of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't quit your day job.

KTHXBAI
Quote:
The Constitution and federal law are the supreme law of the land, thus preempting conflicting state and territorial laws in the fifty U.S. states and in the territories. However, the scope of federal preemption is limited, because the scope of federal power is itself rather limited. In the unique dual-sovereign system of American federalism (actually tripartite when one includes Indian reservations), states are the plenary sovereigns, while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights. Thus, most U.S. law (especially the actual "living law" of contract, tort, criminal, and familylaw experienced by the majority of citizens on a day-to-day basis) consists primarily of state law, which can and does vary greatly from one state to the next.


Using your quote, I think most would agree with what is stated, but I have a differing view of the last statements. The author correctly points out that the bulk of U.S.[thus State] law is "living law"; what courts practice on a day-to-day basis[contract,criminal,tort,family].

Since the author was not writng specificly about US Immigration Law, he did not state that US Immigration Law is a branch of law called Admistrative law.

Quote:
Administrative Law
Branch of law governing the creation and operation of administrative agencies. Of special importance are the powers granted to administrative agencies, the substantive rules that such agencies make, and the legal relationships between such agencies, other government bodies, and the public at large. Administrative law encompasses laws and legal principles governing the administration and regulation of government agencies (both Federal and state). Such agencies are delegated power by Congress (or in the case of a state agency, the state legislature) to act as agents for the executive. Generally, administrative agencies are created to protect a public interest rather than to vindicate private rights.
The Federal Government sees "Improper entry into the US" as breaking of US rules[Admistrative Immigration laws] and not a commisson of a hard crime[criminal law]. That is why in most cases the undocumented are simply deported without fines or jail time.

Because of this reason, Congress has granted and the Courts have upheld that the Federal agencies that deal with US Immigration have a much broader latitude in the questioning and detention of persons believed to be in the US Without Authorization. Yes racial profiling is used, not granting Miranda and other "Constitutional" rights dont have to be observed, because [in this context] Congress and the Courts believe that the person, in not committing a "crime" and being here W.A. does not afford that person all Constitutional rights. For this reasoning, most people found to be here in the US WA are simple deported. Basically the person is never charged with a crime...more like asked to leave for breaking US rules[laws] on improper entry into the US.

Arizona in making "presence" in the Arizona, WA a State crime punishible by fines and jail time, has incured the questions of ..."if the US agents can ask immigration status of anyone, why cant Arizona LEO?".... The reason being, in making WA a crime, they have to afford the accused all the protections of the Constitution, from the initial contact, to the persons last day in jail. Even on that persons last day in Arizona custody, Az has to turn that person over to the Feds for deportation.

In the past, States did have the right to write the own immigration laws, but Congress and the Courts have consolidated the power from the States to the Federal government. The main reason being, there would be 50 different versions of immigration law.

In the case of the State of Arizona and its SB1070 law The Courts will Decide whether Arizona regains its State's right to write its own Immigration Law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2010, 07:38 AM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,690,528 times
Reputation: 3010
Quote:
Arizona's controversial new immigration law probably would withstand legal challenges on constitutional grounds, according to a panel of three University of San Diego law professors. Professor Lawrence Alexander, who teaches constitutional law at USD, said that argument would fail because the Arizona law does not conflict with federal immigration law. The state law is only seeking to enforce the federal law, he said.

"I don't see anything in this law that is going to fail a challenge on the grounds of federal supremacy," Alexander said. Alexander was a panelist along with professors Donald Dripps, a scholar on criminal law, and Maimon Schwarzschild, who specializes in constitutional law.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sd...3655b4465.html

I'll take their word for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2010, 11:30 AM
 
Location: US
3,074 posts, read 3,336,948 times
Reputation: 1621
This is much more broad and expanding than you or I, or anyone else, can even attempt to put here in a little forum. There's pages and pages and pages of agreeing and disagreeing commentary, law review articles, analysis of these cases. Are you aware that some consider the Ninth Circuit's discussion of "civil provisions" to be dictum since the issue before the court was a criminal violation, and that there is actually no case law which says a state cannot enforce civil provisions, since the Gonzalez ruling related to criminal violations?

And what is your analysis of the "applicable case law," statutes and codes. Are you certain of what is actually encompassed in "civil provisions"? What if an illegal immigrant is discovered to be illegal in the course and scope of interrogation regarding the commission of another crime, no matter how minor?

Gonzalez is packed with points of law that have been discussed in many, many other cases. Have you compared all the case law and understand the different points? Under Gonzalez and DeCanas for example, unless state and local laws attempt to regulate conditions of entry and residence in the US, state and local laws will not be invalidated as constitutionally prohibited. Gonzales and De Canas actually establish a preemption framework favorable to state and local regulation which will enable state and local governments to enforce their own laws without regard to the suspect's immigration status. Warrantless searches are permitted. Does that mean there's no limitations on states? Of course not, but neither you nor I are in a position to state that what is with authority.

I don't understand how you can confidently cite and even mock others about a state's ability or inability to enforce "civil provisions" other than the fact that you read it in paragraph 38 when we can't even really say what can or can't be agreed to under Section 133 of the Immigration Act, or Section 372 which gives states authority in an emergency? Are you saying the federal government can't give or hasn't already given some states authority to enforce civil provisions? Do you have case law to cite here which states Sections 133 or 372 cannot grant a state power to enforce civil provisions?

Someone cannot even pretend to try to state with authority as to what is or isn't permissible by a state given their acknowledged broad powers and/or the ability to granted broad powers by the federal government.

We have to let this play out, and someone is going to lose or the court is going to split, giving a little to Arizona and a little to the Arizona's opponents, whoever that turns out to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mauiwowie View Post
You've quoted an opinion piece from a biased group. Why not read the actual case law and include all of it?

You keep rehashing info that has largely already been stipulated.


Directly, can states enforce civil provisions of federal immigration law?

I would prefer applicable case law and/or laws, statutes, or codes supporting your position. Any factual evidence would be helpful though.

You cited older information concerning the law.

As originally written, I do believe the law was racist. the language has now been changed.

You've thus far avoided the obvious fact that Gonzalez v Peoria excludes civil provision enforcement, making distinctions between unlawful entry and unlawful presence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2010, 03:21 PM
 
349 posts, read 394,176 times
Reputation: 161
Good post Carol. You're right that it will play out in court. I think that there is broad agreement that sec 1227 concerns civil provisions and unlawful presence is enforced as a civil provision of federal law.

1070 treats unlawful presence criminally per section 3. To me it is unarguable that this is a conflict.

Others have ignored what I've written and continued to restate the same things over and over. Some criticize those that oppose 1070 as having not read it while at the same time not reading available information themselves.

If I'm shown to be in error or have missed relevant facts, then I want that pointed out and I will reconsider my opinions or admit my error. The same courtesy has yet to be extended by the other side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top