teamosil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,623
- Reaction score
- 2,226
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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
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)
I disagee. The law does not change fed law.
What about the other states with immigration laws?
ahh but I think federal law is silent on the issue regarding State LE.
So from another thread. Bank robbery is a federal crime. If local LE tries to catch a bank robber, they are stepping on Federal authority. So should local LE stop investigation that the FBI should do?
Your CA law 834 is in violation if Obhama is correct. Your CA law does about the same thing. After arrest LE can check status.
You are right the courts will decide the issue. It is a shame Obama and past admininstrations don't understand that it is illegal to enter into the US except in designation entry points.
speaking of those sanctuary cities; if Arizona is in the wrong for tweaking federal law and enforcing it, then why are they okay for blatantly disregarding it?
XI Amendment : The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
AKA - It is unconstitutional for the federal government to sue Arizona in the first place.
Local cops are under no obligation to go around trying to find violations of federal law, they just can't interfere with the feds enforcing it. Most sanctuary cities are just cities that chose to have a policy not to check the immigration status of people unless they commit a felony. The feds can still enforce immigration law there the same as anywhere else.
It does. Maybe most importantly because the federal government decided that Arpaio not be allowed to enforce immigration law, where this restores that power to him.
So MCSO arresting people who have used false/stolen ID's is ok?
I support what MCSO is doing. Not sure what Jall is up in arms about.
Probably the exact same issues with MCSO that you are supporting. Just a guess though.
Look, I am all about being hard on criminals. I am not about deviating from standard penal system practices to the point that the effort becomes more show and less fiscally responsible every year. Further, these deviations have given ammo to people who would hinder the criminal justice system over petty things...all they have to do is point to that idiot jackass with a badge and it almost lends legitimacy to any argument against stiffer penalties for law breakers. He is the scummy, slimey bottom of the slippery slope argument.
So in CA can local law overide State Law (834b)?
Interesting, so a city in CA can ignore state law. I don't believe it works that way in AZ. Once state law is implemented local LE are bound by it. So much for hiarchy, local,state,feds for laws. Why have state laws if locally they can choice to not enforce or override?No. A city can decide what they want to dedicate their law enforcement resources to though.
Could you be more clear on your opinion:mrgreen:
I feel the same about cities officials that pander to illegals. It is facinating that some say go after business that hire illegals, go after ID theft and when LE does, they are scum?
Noticed that the CA boycott of AZ only is affect when it doesn't inconvient officials. I see CA is buying tazers from AZ. Yes, CA didn't send a few LE to some meeting.
Are you in favor of illegal entry into the US?
Interesting, so a city in CA can ignore state law.
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:
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.
Apparently Obama's claim of racial profiling was nothing more than bull **** seeing how they are trying sue under the supremacy clause.
Now that the AZ house amended the bill it no longer officially authorizes racial profiling, so that wouldn't be grounds to reject the law. The racial profiling is about how they are likely to implement the law, so that would be charges against individual cops.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?