- Oct 17, 2009
- Reaction score
- San Francisco
- Political Leaning
The DoJ has now formally filed suit to overturn AZ's 1070:
I'm not a lawyer, but it looks to be a pretty clear cut case. The supreme court previously ruled that states cannot interfere with, extend, or adapt federal immigration policy in any way:The Justice Department on Tuesday weighed in on one of the most explosive issues in American politics, filing a lawsuit to overturn a tough new Arizona immigration law that has sharply divided people along partisan, ideological and ethnic lines.
It also asked the federal courts to grant an injunction to stop enforcement of the measure before it takes effect late this month.
Arizona's law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and allows police to question the residency status of people in the course of enforcing another law. It also targets businesses that hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.
Justice Department lawyers argued that the state statute should be declared invalid because it has improperly preempted federal law.
"In our constitutional system, the power to regulate immigration is exclusively vested in the federal government," the brief said. "The immigration framework set forth by Congress and administered by federal agencies reflects a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian concerns -- concerns that belong to the nation as a whole, not a single state."
Feds sue to overturn Arizona immigration law - CNN.com
So, my prediction is that the court will issue an injunction, the case will move it's way through a series of appeals, maybe even up to the supreme court, but the case will consistently be decided that 1070 is unconstitutional and it will never go into effect.the regulation of aliens is so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government that where it acts, and the state also acts on the same subject, the act of Congress or treaty is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it. And where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation…. states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.
HINES v. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52 (1941)