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.
You'll have to explain how this is precluded by the Supremacy Clause. There are three types of preemption via the Supremacy Clause--conflict, implied, and field. Conflict preemption occurs when it is impossible to comply with both federal and state law. A business is under no obligation to permit ICE's entry unless ICE gets warrant. Thus it is possible to comply with both state and federal law.
Implied preemption means what it says: is it implied that federal law preempts state law? One should not expect a court to find implied preemption here.
Field preemption means that there is such a complete system of federal regulation that the feds have occupied the field of regulation. There is no system of federal regulation for private business' cooperation with federal immigration. Hence, field preemption would not apply.
Even with these laws, ICE has options. They can get warrants. They can detain people on the street. What ICE wants to do is detain people in a law enforcement manner using administrative processes and state & local resources. The problem here is that the feds created a really stupid immigration system that they can't enforce. Immigration reform is the correct response.
Not sure what you mean by a stupid immigration system that the feds can't enforce. Could you explain? Reform is just a cute and erroneous word for amnesty. It will always be against the law to come here illegally so amnesty isn't reform.
I want that Oakland mayor to be thrown in jail for contempt and obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting criminals, perhaps also charge her for endangerment of law enforcement or something similar. 10 years in jail minimum.
You'll have to explain how this is precluded by the Supremacy Clause. There are three types of preemption via the Supremacy Clause--conflict, implied, and field. Conflict preemption occurs when it is impossible to comply with both federal and state law. A business is under no obligation to permit ICE's entry unless ICE gets warrant. Thus it is possible to comply with both state and federal law.
Implied preemption means what it says: is it implied that federal law preempts state law? One should not expect a court to find implied preemption here.
Field preemption means that there is such a complete system of federal regulation that the feds have occupied the field of regulation. There is no system of federal regulation for private business' cooperation with federal immigration. Hence, field preemption would not apply.
Even with these laws, ICE has options. They can get warrants. They can detain people on the street. What ICE wants to do is detain people in a law enforcement manner using administrative processes and state & local resources. The problem here is that the feds created a really stupid immigration system that they can't enforce. Immigration reform is the correct response.
Field preemption actually is the strongest argument and the one most likely to win the day in court . . . its what got Arizona in trouble with much of its so-called "papers please" law during the Obama years. They attempted to regulate too greatly in an area where the federal government has exclusive (unless the feds authorize states to take on some responsibility/oversight . . . even in such cases, state regulation would only be permissible to the extent allowed under federal law). Just like the Supreme Court held in Arizona v. United States in 2012, "States may not enter, in any respect, an area the Federal Government has reserved for itself." The Supreme Court also touched on, more generally, how "intrusion upon the federal scheme" is impermissible. Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...-182_OPINION_3
CA gets into trouble in that its laws encroach on the authority of the federal government in this uniquely federal issue by making it more difficult for federal law enforcement agents to do their jobs and arrest/deport aliens in the country illegally. Specifically, the federal government, in its wisdom in enacting immigration laws in areas that it has not ceded control to the states, has not made it a crime/illegal for private citizens and businesses to assist federal agents in enforcing the law. Nor has it put any other restrictions on private citizens and businesses. Thus, CA may not enact legislation to the contrary for reasons listed above and that go against the general scheme and purpose of the law in question. Whether or not the feds still "have options" is irrelevant to the legal analysis as the onus is on CA to not pass laws period that encroach in a manner as described above.
As I mentioned before, there is a weaker argument re: the CA law that limits police cooperation with the feds, but even that law is not sure to withstand this legal challenge.
Interestingly enough, it is exactly because the Obama administration sued AZ that this most recent and powerful Supreme Court precedent exists for the Trump administration to attack the CA laws in question.
Not sure what you mean by a stupid immigration system that the feds can't enforce. Could you explain? Reform is just a cute and erroneous word for amnesty. It will always be against the law to come here illegally so amnesty isn't reform.
What I mean is that they want to have a bunch of agents who have the powers of criminal law enforcement, but only need to meet administrative burdens to exercise their power, and they actually want States and localities to fund the real enforcement work by bringing in the people ICE wants to target.
This is an important point: unlawful presence in the United States is not a crime. It is a civil offense. That means the burden of proof is lower and the Due Process needs are less rigorous. So why do we have some 7,500 enforcement officials at ICE operating in a quasi-law enforcement role? Make unlawful presence a crime and hire law enforcement officers to engage in real investigation and prosecution. Or retain a civil designation and use ordinary administrative process. There is no justification for LEO raids for an administrative violation. Nor is there justification for prolonged custodial detention for an administrative violation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Field preemption actually is the strongest argument and the one most likely to win the day in court . . . its what got Arizona in trouble with much of its so-called "papers please" law during the Obama years. They attempted to regulate too greatly in an area where the federal government has exclusive (unless the feds authorize states to take on some responsibility/oversight . . . even in such cases, state regulation would only be permissible to the extent allowed under federal law). Just like the Supreme Court held in Arizona v. United States in 2012, "States may not enter, in any respect, an area the Federal Government has reserved for itself." The Supreme Court also touched on, more generally, how "intrusion upon the federal scheme" is impermissible. Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...-182_OPINION_3
CA gets into trouble in that its laws encroach on the authority of the federal government in this uniquely federal issue by making it more difficult for federal law enforcement agents to do their jobs and arrest/deport aliens in the country illegally. Specifically, the federal government, in its wisdom in enacting immigration laws in areas that it has not ceded control to the states, has not made it a crime/illegal for private citizens and businesses to assist federal agents in enforcing the law. Nor has it put any other restrictions on private citizens and businesses. Thus, CA may not enact legislation to the contrary for reasons listed above and that go against the general scheme and purpose of the law in question. Whether or not the feds still "have options" is irrelevant to the legal analysis as the onus is on CA to not pass laws period that encroach in a manner as described above.
As I mentioned before, there is a weaker argument re: the CA law that limits police cooperation with the feds, but even that law is not sure to withstand this legal challenge.
Interestingly enough, it is exactly because the Obama administration sued AZ that this most recent and powerful Supreme Court precedent exists for the Trump administration to attack the CA laws in question.
The difference between the Oakland laws & the Arizona law is that Oakland is not trying to enforce immigration law. Arizona was trying to do just that. You are over-reading the language in AZ v. US.
US immigration law does not make any attempt to occupy the field of regulating commercial trespass or customer/employee privacy. Federal administrative agents do not have an inherent right to conduct operations on the premises of private employers. They need a warrant to activate such a right.
There is not a good argument for preemption of the laws described here. The argument is even weaker for coerced police cooperation. Local police forces are under local authority. Absent obligatory legal process, local police forces are under no obligation to cooperate with federal administrative agencies.
Don’t bet on it. I’m amazed that the people here keep electing these morons that couldn’t care less about American citizens.
There are a lot of liberals in CA, which is why Hillary won big in CA. They are globalists. They do not see borders, and they treat these illegals like they were citizens.
I read an interesting piece yesterday that was published in Imprimis, the publication of Hillsdale College, adapted from a speech given by Tom Cotton at the college on September 18, 2017. In it, he mentions that President Obama called himself "a citizen of the world," revealing Obama's misunderstanding of what citizenship is. He points out that the word "citizen," and "city" come from the same Greek root word, and that "citizen" by definition means that you belong to a particular political community. Foreigners, illegal aliens, are not citizens not just because they came here illegally, but they do not "belong" to the American political community. Many of them refuse to assimilate into American culture, and therefore they remain outside. They do not "belong." They do not deserve the rights of citizenship, and therefore should not be protected as citizens.
But the liberal politicians in CA are protecting these illegals, and placing them in a higher class than the real citizens who elected them. This is wrong.
I get the sense from reading the local news stories that Governor Brown and state AG Becerra are under the impression that all Californians are solidly behind them in their fight to save the illegals from following Federal law.
But reading the hundreds of comments to the stores, it's seeming to lean towards support for the Feds. I wonder if Brown has even talked to the citizens to see what we think.
Who am I kidding? He still thinks we support his Bullet Train to Nowhere.
If it were true that "all" Californians were "solidly behind them," there would be no movement, which is growing in strength, to divide California, and those who want it divided would have the largest "chunk" of it, leaving most of the coastal big cities to the liberals. I've seen the map they have drawn.
Field preemption actually is the strongest argument and the one most likely to win the day in court . . . its what got Arizona in trouble with much of its so-called "papers please" law during the Obama years. They attempted to regulate too greatly in an area where the federal government has exclusive (unless the feds authorize states to take on some responsibility/oversight . . . even in such cases, state regulation would only be permissible to the extent allowed under federal law). Just like the Supreme Court held in Arizona v. United States in 2012, "States may not enter, in any respect, an area the Federal Government has reserved for itself." The Supreme Court also touched on, more generally, how "intrusion upon the federal scheme" is impermissible. Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...-182_OPINION_3
CA gets into trouble in that its laws encroach on the authority of the federal government in this uniquely federal issue by making it more difficult for federal law enforcement agents to do their jobs and arrest/deport aliens in the country illegally. Specifically, the federal government, in its wisdom in enacting immigration laws in areas that it has not ceded control to the states, has not made it a crime/illegal for private citizens and businesses to assist federal agents in enforcing the law. Nor has it put any other restrictions on private citizens and businesses. Thus, CA may not enact legislation to the contrary for reasons listed above and that go against the general scheme and purpose of the law in question. Whether or not the feds still "have options" is irrelevant to the legal analysis as the onus is on CA to not pass laws period that encroach in a manner as described above.
As I mentioned before, there is a weaker argument re: the CA law that limits police cooperation with the feds, but even that law is not sure to withstand this legal challenge.
Interestingly enough, it is exactly because the Obama administration sued AZ that this most recent and powerful Supreme Court precedent exists for the Trump administration to attack the CA laws in question.
Exactly, and Both Trump and Sessions know that.
California loses the lawsuit.
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.
