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.
There are several interesting implications of this case. As pointed out by several posters, in a great number of areas state statutes and law enforcement mimic federal laws, and assist in their enforcement. This includes firearms laws, any federal crime (kidnapping and bank robbery come to mind) and civil rights issues. Are those arguing in support in the feds stand saying that states must stand aside and allow only federal law enforcement to act upon violations of these laws as well? If the feds are deemed the only legal entity for federal law enforcement, are state laws that undermine or run contrary to federal laws deemed null and void? These would include "medical" pot laws and so-called sanctuary city laws.
No where in the AZ law is there a claim that the state grants naturalization status to anyone, that arguement is a non-starter. The only thing this law does is to allow state and local law enforcement to arrest people for violation of immigration laws. As I understand, deportation would still be the responsibility of the feds. Perhaps the more appropriate question is since AZ law enforcement will be assisting in enforcement of federal law, will the state be reimbursed by the federal government?
I would like to see the border states that have any sense and that have cities that have passed sanctuary laws sue the cities until they are either black and blue or move from the State, e.g., Chandler, Arizona and Houston and Katy, Texas. Actually, a good radiation treatment for Houston may be better for treating that Texas cancer.
much speculation, but remember that according to SB1070, once proper identification has been given, be it a passport and a visa, green card, state issued drivers license, state issued ID card, resident alien card, etc. unless the documents provided are fake, ALL QUESTION OF A PERSONS RIGHT TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY ENDS, PERIOD. the arizona law is very specific on this. it also REQUIRES a legal contact and reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally. and there is recourse against the officers who violate the spirit of the law through the court system. but since the law has NOT gone into effect yet, there can be NO racial profiling accusations until such time as it happens which is why the federal government is not suing to stop the law on those grounds.
the tenth amendment;
no where in the constitution that i have seen so far grants the federal government police powers, thus police powers are reserved by the states, and that means that the states can enforce federal laws along with state laws. in fact police agencies across the nation enforce, as a matter of daily operation, enforce federal laws.
yes the rule is;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
that is naturalization, being the way to US citizenship.
You've got a very good argument there, but it doesn't address my arguments.
First, immigration is a federal issue because it's about American citizenship, not Arizonan citizenship. Your police powers argument is not relevant, because police powers have nothing to do with citizenship issues.
And secondly, nothing you've said counters the problem with the fact that the Arizona law, by leaving it up to an officer's discretion, and by targeting immigrants, is in and of itself, an incentive to racial profiling. It provides an incentive for police officers to look for specific characteristics that could indicate that someone is an illegal immigrant, and gives an officer additional power because of that suspicion. What makes one person more suspicious than another?
I agree with most everyone that the federal government should be doing more to help Arizona with its illegal immigration problems. And I understand why Arizona is trying to force the federal government to do so via this law. As I said before, the law would be more Constitutional if it didn't leave it to the officer's discretion, but forced EVERYONE to meet the same criteria for proving AMERICAN citizenship. By leaving it up to the individual officer, they are opening the door to widespread abuse of the law.
much speculation, but remember that according to SB1070, once proper identification has been given, be it a passport and a visa, green card, state issued drivers license, state issued ID card, resident alien card, etc. unless the documents provided are fake, ALL QUESTION OF A PERSONS RIGHT TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY ENDS, PERIOD.
:
the tenth amendment;
Its funny how quickly a jump to the tenth amendment is made. But remember, naturalization and securing borders is a federal responsibility granted by the constitution. And above all, states don't have the rights, people do. And to quote the fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
People are protected, not just from federal government, but state governments too. As a citizen, what reasonable suspicion would AZ use to search me, and for my papers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
Are those arguing in support in the feds stand saying that states must stand aside and allow only federal law enforcement to act upon violations of these laws as well?
Yes. It is federal responsibility to secure the borders and deal with international affairs. It is the law. States are secondary. They are not entitled to run a parallel law of their own.
Quote:
If the feds are deemed the only legal entity for federal law enforcement, are state laws that undermine or run contrary to federal laws deemed null and void? These would include "medical" pot laws and so-called sanctuary city laws.
If it is a law described for the federal government, then yes, states can't run their own. If a state has the power, as is the case with employment, then yes, it can write its own rules.
AZ could have achieved the goal by writing the law within its authority, by using channels such as employment.
Which one of you believes in the constitution? I don't see ANY of you talking about the responsibilities of the state and of the federal governments as outlined in the constitution.
I fully expect states to file a lawsuit if federal government encroaches into its responsibilities. And I fully expect federal government to file a lawsuit against state government(s) if it encroaches.
Where does it encroach? It is not a severe as the federal laws.
Local police and law officials, enforce federal drug laws, do they not?
There is nothing in the 1986 Immigration act, that says local law enforcement can't enforce the laws?
Nothing in the Constitution says States cannot enforce federal laws.
Individual States can not make federal laws, but nothing stops them from enforcing or putting identical law on the State books.
Yes. It is federal responsibility to secure the borders and deal with international affairs. It is the law. States are secondary. They are not entitled to run a parallel law of their own.
If it is a law described for the federal government, then yes, states can't run their own. If a state has the power, as is the case with employment, then yes, it can write its own rules.
AZ could have achieved the goal by writing the law within its authority, by using channels such as employment.
By your position, the federal government has pre-empted states on employment law. EEO requirements are federal mandates, as such they may not be enforced by the states, according to your argument. And state and local law enforcement can not assist in or enforce federal laws on bank robbery, kidnapping and firearms violations. The states have no rights to make laws with respect to drugs.
You are ignoring the basics of the federal powers with respect to naturalization and citizenship. Only the federal government has the right to grant naturalizationship and citizenship. The AZ law doesn't violate this, AZ is not attempting to grant citizenship to anyone, or to deny it to anyone. This would clearly be in conflict with constitutional powers granded to the feds. However, that's not what this is about. They are simply arresting those that are in violation of existing federal laws. It's not clear to me where this "fits", IANAL. However common sense and a look at other state laws and enforcement activities where states assist in enforcement of federal laws would indicate that this is legal. Can't have it both ways.
First, Arizona is infringing on a federal power. This is clear because after Arizona exercises this law and identifies an illegal immigrant, they have to notify federal authorities. Immigration is regulated on the federal level, not state level.
No, the federal government once again is trying to step on States rights.
The major problem with this law is the requirement for someone to prove they are a citizen to a State official. State officials do not have the right to ask.
If I had to travel in Arizona I would be very glad I look like my German ancestors.
I heard an interesting perspective about Obama's stance on this issue. I forget who said this, but he was saying that for hispanic voters, they will tend to be a one-issue voting block (which Obama wants to capitalize upon), while the democrats are multi-issue voters. Even if he risks ticking off many dems, chances are their views on other issues will be in alignment with Obama's and they won't hold this issue against him come election day. Not sure if there's any truth to it, but I thought it sounded plausible. I hope though that the left kicks Obama to the curb like the rest of the country has.
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.
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.
