U.S. Sues to Block Arizona Immigration Law

[Tilted]

The federal government's suit has now been filed.

U.S. Sues to Block Arizona Immigration Law - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON—The Justice Department filed a lawsuit Tuesday attempting to block Arizona from enforcing an anti-immigration law on the grounds that the state "crossed a constitutional line" that interferes with the federal authority over immigration.

The law, which the state approved in April and was set to take effect later this month, makes illegal immigration a state crime and requires police to verify the immigration status of people stopped for other alleged crimes.

State lawmakers said they were acting because the federal government had failed to protect the state's border with Mexico from encroachment by illegal immigrants.

President Barack Obama criticized the law, calling it divisive and "ill conceived," and has used the law's passage to bolster his argument for a comprehensive overhaul of federal immigration laws.

The Justice Department's brief says that the Constitution and federal law do not allow "a patchwork of state and local immigration policies" around the country, which it says would disrupt federal immigration enforcement.

Attorney General Eric Holder said he understood that Arizonians are "frustrated with illegal immigration" but that "setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."

 

[EmptyTimCup]

The federal government's suit has now been

]U.S. Sues to Block Arizona Immigration Law - WSJ.com

I'd Counter Sue on Grounds involving the Commerce Clause



wetbacks are a drain on the economy ........

 

[Merlin99]

I'd Counter Sue on Grounds involving the Commerce Clause



wetbacks are a drain on the economy ........

I'd go with failure to perform

 

[Pushrod]

Attorney General Eric Holder said he understood that Arizonians are "frustrated with illegal immigration" but that "setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."

Two points I would like to touch on:
1. How is making a law that reflects the federal law exactly going to create a patchwork of laws in the States, and
2. If the Federal laws aren't being enforced, then it would seem to me that it would be up to the States to pick up the slack.

 

[Lenny]

2. If the Federal laws aren't being enforced, then it would seem to me that it would be up to the States to pick up the slack.

If the Federal authorities are not performing their duty, how is it possible for the State government to interfere with or hinder their non-performance?

 

[aps45819]

Two points I would like to touch on:
1. How is making a law that reflects the federal law exactly going to create a patchwork of laws in the States, and
2. If the Federal laws aren't being enforced, then it would seem to me that it would be up to the States to pick up the slack.

I'd support the AZ attorney general walking into court and announcing that as soon as the federal government enforces immigration law, AZ will repeal theirs.
Until then, F#ck off

 

[Toxick]

Attorney General Eric Holder said he understood that Arizonians are "frustrated with illegal immigration" but that "setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."

I wonder if Arizona can countersue the US for not living up to that responsibility.

 

[bcp]

I wonder if Arizona can countersue the US for not living up to that responsibility.

Im pretty sure that we are all going to find out over the next few months/years.

 

[Vince]

WASHINGTON—The Justice Department filed a lawsuit Tuesday attempting to block Arizona from enforcing an anti-immigration law on the grounds that the state "crossed a constitutional line" that interferes with the federal authority over immigration.

The law, which the state approved in April and was set to take effect later this month, makes illegal immigration a state crime and requires police to verify the immigration status of people stopped for other alleged crimes.

State lawmakers said they were acting because the federal government had failed to protect the state's border with Mexico from encroachment by illegal immigrants.

President Barack Obama criticized the law, calling it divisive and "ill conceived," and has used the law's passage to bolster his argument for a comprehensive overhaul of federal immigration laws.
The Justice Department's brief says that the Constitution and federal law do not allow "a patchwork of state and local immigration policies" around the country, which it says would disrupt federal immigration enforcement.

Attorney General Eric Holder said he understood that Arizonians are "frustrated with illegal immigration" but that "setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."

Only reason obama's not for it is because it interfere's with his plans for his "comprehensive overhaul" (amnesty) so he can get more voters for his re-election.

 

[Tilted]

Two points I would like to touch on:
1. How is making a law that reflects the federal law exactly going to create a patchwork of laws in the States, and
2. If the Federal laws aren't being enforced, then it would seem to me that it would be up to the States to pick up the slack.

As to (1), the Arizona law doesn't reflect federal law exactly. It is different in a number of regards, in practical and meaningful ways as well as in ways that are mostly technical in nature.

As to (2), the Arizona law is obviously motivated by frustration over a lack of sufficiently rigorous enforcement of federal immigration laws and/or ineffective federal immigration policy generally. That's largely a political issue though, and I think this is Arizona's way of pushing it - it is using this law, the court battles to come, and the attention and emotion it will draw to the issue, to try to put political pressure on the federal government to be more aggressive about illegal immigration. I don't fault that tactic.

The bottom line is this - if enough people care enough about this matter to make it a politically losing position, for enough politicians, to continue relatively lax illegal immigration policies, those policies will be replaced by more aggressive ones. As things have been for a while, there was probably more to lose politically by being too aggressive than by being too lax.

 

[Tilted]

I wonder if Arizona can countersue the US for not living up to that responsibility.

It might be able to make out a colorable claim under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

 

[libertytyranny]

I need a little help understanding all of this. reading another article they were talking about how state law can not prempt federal law, and that is the basis for the suit? But how in the world can a law that backs up the federal law, be considered as such? I am a bit confused...it doesn't make sense that they would have a problem with a law that merely reiterates what is already federal law..help me :shrug:

 

[Tilted]

I need a little help understanding all of this. reading another article they were talking about how state law can not prempt federal law, and that is the basis for the suit? But how in the world can a law that backs up the federal law, be considered as such? I am a bit confused...it doesn't make sense that they would have a problem with a law that merely reiterates what is already federal law..help me :shrug:

Well, for one thing, it doesn't merely reiterate what is already in federal law, it goes beyond it to some extent. And, it certainly doesn't just reiterate federal immigration policy (e.g. with regard to enforcement priorities), though it is far from clear whether or not that matters with regard to the question of preemption. This case is likely to make new law on that point, i.e. whether state law can be preempted not just by federal law as written, but also by federal enforcement policy.

Additionally, questions of preemption don't necessarily hinge on whether there is conflict between the state law and federal law. They can hinge on the intent of Congress. That is to say, on whether Congress intended for states to be able to regulate in certain areas or in certain ways.

What that means is this. If Congress has the authority to regulate something, and it doesn't want states to also regulate that something, then any state regulation of that something is preempted - even if the state regulation does not conflict with the federal regulation. Congressional intent to this effect can be either implicit or explicit. A large part of these suits will be concerned with whether or not Congress intended that states be allowed to pass laws such as the Arizona law. The answer to that will likely weigh on the outcomes of the suits, and the answer may not be a simple yes or no - it may be different with regard to different parts of the Arizona law.

 

[libertytyranny]

Well, for one thing, it doesn't merely reiterate what is already in federal law, it goes beyond it to some extent. And, it certainly doesn't just reiterate federal immigration policy (e.g. with regard to enforcement priorities), though it is far from clear whether or not that matters with regard to the question of preemption. This case is likely to make new law on that point, i.e. whether state law can be preempted not just by federal law as written, but also by federal enforcement policy.

Additionally, questions of preemption don't necessarily hinge on whether there is conflict between the state law and federal law. They can hinge on the intent of Congress. That is to say, on whether Congress intended for states to be able to regulate in certain areas or in certain ways.

What that means is this. If Congress has the authority to regulate something, and it doesn't want states to also regulate that something, then any state regulation of that something is preempted - even if the state regulation does not conflict with the federal regulation. Congressional intent to this effect can be either implicit or explicit. A large part of these suits will be concerned with whether or not Congress intended that states be allowed to pass laws such as the Arizona law. The answer to that will likely weigh on the outcomes of the suits, and the answer may not be a simple yes or no - it may be different with regard to different parts of the Arizona law.

I see. But I still FEEL confused.. The law says that if the police has a reason to believe someone is illegal..they can ask them their status and proof of.. that to me anyway doesn't exactly seem like more regulation..rather a way to enforce the law more easily? Just seems strange to me they would protest this much.

 

[Tilted]

Arizona Law Needs U.S. Cooperation - WSJ.com

Arizona authorities battling the Obama administration over the state's new immigration law may face an unforeseen obstacle in enforcing the measure: While local police can arrest illegal immigrants, only the federal government can deport them.

Because the federal immigration-enforcement agency has suggested it won't necessarily cooperate in helping meet the law's goal, local police could be forced to choose between holding detainees in their own jails or releasing them.

The Arizona law, which takes effect Thursday, makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and requires police who stop people for such routine infractions as speeding to check their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" they are here unlawfully. The police can detain them while clarifying their status, but deportation can only be conducted by federal authorities.

On Tuesday, Matthew Chandler, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Securtity—which houses U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement—said the priorities for federal enforcement apply to recent border crossers, felony re-entry cases and serious criminals who pose a public-safety risk.

Police officers in Arizona and across the U.S. currently have the capability to contact ICE to verify the immigration status of people they stop. The agency then confirms whether a person is deportable. If the person doesn't fall into a priority category, they might be issued a notice to appear before an immigration judge but wouldn't be detained by the federal government. That means the individual could remain in the country for months or years while they fight their removal.

So, what do Arizona law enforcement personnel do if ICE doesn't cooperate or refuses to take custody of potential illegals that they've detained?

Also, I thought this was interesting:

A record 387,790 people were deported from the U.S. in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30. ICE removed 81,429 in Arizona, including 23,550 criminals.

 

[foodcritic]

Arizona Law Needs U.S. Cooperation - WSJ.com



So, what do Arizona law enforcement personnel do if ICE doesn't cooperate or refuses to take custody of potential illegals that they've detained?

Also, I thought this was interesting:

I like the analogy of gun laws. For instance the Lautenburg Amendment. States enforcing federal law.