Feds to file suit against AZ imigration law

[Ddrak]

You're actually reading an old version of the law. The one in force is here: http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF

In any case, it shows my point that AZ is creating an immigration policy independent of the Feds - if the Feds decline to act on an unlawful alien for whatever reason then AZ has no constitutional right to act independently on the matter.

Dd

[Kulaf]

And if they were trying to deport people you might be right. But they aren't. They have every right to enforce a tresspass law.

[Lurker]

I thought they were trying to force the federal government to deport people.

[Kulaf]

I do not see that anwhere in their law.

[Ddrak]

And if they were trying to deport people you might be right. But they aren't. They have every right to enforce a tresspass law.

I think a court would very quickly call it a defacto immigration law, given the sole criteria is immigration status.

Dd

[Kulaf]

And if they were trying to deport people you might be right. But they aren't. They have every right to enforce a tresspass law.

I think a court would very quickly call it a defacto immigration law, given the sole criteria is immigration status.

Dd

It's not the sole criteria. The main criteria is their presense in AZ. The secondary cirteria is their breaking of Federal law by not carrying residency papers or applying for same. But nonetheless they are not stepping on the Federal governments toes at all. What about all of the sections about employers not being able to employ illegals? Why aren't the Feds complaining about those sections? Isn't that also an "immigration status" question?

[Ddrak]

It's not the sole criteria. The main criteria is their presense in AZ. The secondary cirteria is their breaking of Federal law by not carrying residency papers or applying for same. But nonetheless they are not stepping on the Federal governments toes at all. What about all of the sections about employers not being able to employ illegals? Why aren't the Feds complaining about those sections? Isn't that also an "immigration status" question?

Presence in AZ is required anyway for state law to apply, so that's not really what I'd call a "criteria" at all. Like I said - they are stepping on the Feds toes by establishing a de-facto immigration policy, as stated in the intent of the bill.

I'm guessing the parts about employment apply to US citizens, which makes a difference in the state/federal balance?

Dd

[Kulaf]

The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens ... unlawfully present in the
United States.

AZ can only deter the presense of unlawful aliens if:

1) They are unlawfully present in the U.S. as defined and determined by Federal Imigration laws and agencies.
2) They are present in the state of AZ.

AZ is not trying to influence the Federal government and tell them what to do with unlawful aliens. They are not trying to deport them to their country of origin. What they ARE trying to do is keep them out of the state of AZ. Which they have every right to do just as they try to keep other people who break the law out of their state through cooperative enforcement of their own and Federal laws.

[Lurker]

You still aren't getting it.

What action does the Arizona law mandate when they arrest someone under this law?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Doesn't matter Lurker.

the basis for the Feds lawsuit is pre-emption. They maintain no state law can supersed Federal law, and they would be correct. Where the argument lies is if the Arizona law supercedes Federal law, and hte drafters of the law took pains to make sure it doesn't make anyhting illegal that already is illegal under Federal law (for the most part.. they added some things that aren't covered under Federal immigration law, but could be argued that they don't reach to the Federal level any.. like making it a crime to stop and hire people on the street). This will turn on whther or not case law encompasses immigration policy versus immigration law. THe Feds have to show that immigration "policy" should be considered when applying the pre-emption defense. That's the hill they have to climb, because if they don't make that argument, they lose, since the actual law itself closely follows federal law for the most part.

What I'm getting at, is that the Feds are put in a very sticky position, since they'll have to argue that selective enforcement of Federal immigration law is their perogative and policy. Does pre-emption apply to policy? Or only to the letter of the law? That's going to be the argument.

That said, its a crappy law.

[Lurker]

Pre-emption is not the basis of the DoJ lawsuit.

The federal case relies on a Supremacy Clause argument. It doesn't matter for the lawsuit if the Arizona law is stronger, weaker, or exactly the same as federal law. Arizona has no right to enact legislation in areas where the federal government was granted sole authority that attempts to dictate how to exercise that authority or what priorities should be set in regards to enforcing federal law.

[Kulaf]

You still aren't getting it.

What action does the Arizona law mandate when they arrest someone under this law?

They mandate that which the Federal government by LAW is REQUIRED to provide already. The status of suspected illegals is already requested by law enforcement agencies around the country.

[Kulaf]

Pre-emption is not the basis of the DoJ lawsuit.

The federal case relies on a Supremacy Clause argument. It doesn't matter for the lawsuit if the Arizona law is stronger, weaker, or exactly the same as federal law. Arizona has no right to enact legislation in areas where the federal government was granted sole authority that attempts to dictate how to exercise that authority or what priorities should be set in regards to enforcing federal law.

They aren't exacting any law other than a tresspass law. If you can find something else then cite it. You've had more than enough opportunity to and the fact you didn't even realize that the AZ law is not attempting to deport people speaks to your lack of understanding of the AZ law as written. I cannot comprehend how you can continue to argue the point when you apprently haven't read anything other than the governments brief.

[Lurker]

Heh. Kulaf is all riled up now! Watch out everyone. I'm assuming that's directed at Ddrak as well?

Anyways, can you answer my question? What action does the Arizona law mandate when they arrest someone under this law? You've said it multiple times but don't seem to comprehend how that factors in to the DoJ cause of action.

edit: And I never said the Arizona law was trying to deport people; It's trying to force the federal government to deport people.

[Kulaf]

Heh. Kulaf is all riled up now! Watch out everyone. I'm assuming that's directed at Ddrak as well?

Anyways, can you answer my question? What action does the Arizona law mandate when they arrest someone under this law? You've said it multiple times but don't seem to comprehend how that factors in to the DoJ cause of action.

edit: And I never said the Arizona law was trying to deport people; It's trying to force the federal government to deport people.

No it's not. Cite where in the AZ law it is attempting to force the Federal government to do anything. And if you want me to jump through a hoop......well, jump first.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Pre-emption is not the basis of the DoJ lawsuit.

The federal case relies on a Supremacy Clause argument. It doesn't matter for the lawsuit if the Arizona law is stronger, weaker, or exactly the same as federal law. Arizona has no right to enact legislation in areas where the federal government was granted sole authority that attempts to dictate how to exercise that authority or what priorities should be set in regards to enforcing federal law.

Pre-emption is the doctrine which derives from the Supremacy clause. It is one of the grounds for the the lawsuit, as you just can't cite a clause in Constitution and be done with it. You have to show how the Supremacy clause applies, which you do by showing how the doctrine of pre-emption, whihc evolved from the Supremacy clause, is applicable in this case. To do so, you cite other similar published cases, other relevant historical information that supports the pre-emption doctrine, etc.

In fact, the DoJ lawsuit has three casues of action: the Supremacy clause, the doctrine of pre-emption, and the commerce clause. The DoJ is relying most heavily on the pre-emption argument to suport its motion for a preliminary injunction.

Its better explained here... but as you can see, the DoJ is not merely relying on the Supremacy clause.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw ... cy_clause/

[Ddrak]

The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens ... unlawfully present in the
United States.

AZ can only deter the presense of unlawful aliens if:

1) They are unlawfully present in the U.S. as defined and determined by Federal Imigration laws and agencies.
2) They are present in the state of AZ.

AZ is not trying to influence the Federal government and tell them what to do with unlawful aliens. They are not trying to deport them to their country of origin. What they ARE trying to do is keep them out of the state of AZ. Which they have every right to do just as they try to keep other people who break the law out of their state through cooperative enforcement of their own and Federal laws.

Why did you only quote that sentence from the introduction? The sentences prior clearly say it is establishing a policy for immigration within the state of AZ. This is blatantly unconstitutional as the Federal Government has the exclusive power to establish a Uniform rule (Sec 8, US Constitution). That's the core of the entire case - the states have no right to treat aliens (lawful or not) differently from each other given that Congress has acted on its right to create a single uniform policy on the matter.

Note also that the powers of the states are explicitly given in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c, which only grants them the right to detain aliens if they are convicted felons. Supremacy completely blows AZ law out of the water there.

I've already dealt with the "it's only a trespass law" issue - it's not, and AZ have never tried to dress it up as such. It deals directly with immigration and aliens from the top to the bottom. It doesn't contain the word "trespass" anywhere and titles every section with very immigration specific headings.

I did some more research on why the employment sections are ok - the district circuit courts have previously ruled on other AZ laws that employer/employee regulation is within the domain of state powers and so the states can regulate against employers that employ unlawful aliens (note the target is the employer, not the alien).

Dd

[Lurker]

Pre-emption is the doctrine which derives from the Supremacy clause.

Yeah, I was wrong. I stand behind the rest of my post minus that first sentence.

======

No it's not. Cite where in the AZ law it is attempting to force the Federal government to do anything. And if you want me to jump through a hoop......well, jump first.

I'm not trying to make you jump through hoops, I'm trying to make you look at the from a different angle because you seem completely blind to the fact that the federal government has the sole right to decide how or even if to apply the law on this issue. You've said multiple times that the law requires that Arizona apply federal law to the maximum and that all illegals must be turned over to the federal government. You also said that once someone is turned over, the federal government would be bound by federal law to determine residency status and deport the person if they aren't here legally. It takes an amazing amount of cognitive dissonance to make those assertions while also claiming that the law doesn't force the federal government to do anything.

[Kulaf]

The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens ... unlawfully present in the
United States.

AZ can only deter the presense of unlawful aliens if:

1) They are unlawfully present in the U.S. as defined and determined by Federal Imigration laws and agencies.
2) They are present in the state of AZ.

AZ is not trying to influence the Federal government and tell them what to do with unlawful aliens. They are not trying to deport them to their country of origin. What they ARE trying to do is keep them out of the state of AZ. Which they have every right to do just as they try to keep other people who break the law out of their state through cooperative enforcement of their own and Federal laws.

Why did you only quote that sentence from the introduction? The sentences prior clearly say it is establishing a policy for immigration within the state of AZ. This is blatantly unconstitutional as the Federal Government has the exclusive power to establish a Uniform rule (Sec 8, US Constitution). That's the core of the entire case - the states have no right to treat aliens (lawful or not) differently from each other given that Congress has acted on its right to create a single uniform policy on the matter.

Note also that the powers of the states are explicitly given in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c, which only grants them the right to detain aliens if they are convicted felons. Supremacy completely blows AZ law out of the water there.

I've already dealt with the "it's only a trespass law" issue - it's not, and AZ have never tried to dress it up as such. It deals directly with immigration and aliens from the top to the bottom. It doesn't contain the word "trespass" anywhere and titles every section with very immigration specific headings.

I did some more research on why the employment sections are ok - the district circuit courts have previously ruled on other AZ laws that employer/employee regulation is within the domain of state powers and so the states can regulate against employers that employ unlawful aliens (note the target is the employer, not the alien).

Dd

So you are trying to argue that any illegal in this country cannot be arrested for any crime by State officials unless they are already a convicted felon?

[Ddrak]

So you are trying to argue that any illegal in this country cannot be arrested for any crime by State officials unless they are already a convicted felon?

No, of course not. I'm arguing that 8 U.S.C. says that a State official can't detain them for being unlawfully in the country if they are a convicted felon, which the AZ law directly contravenes by mandating State officials prosecute any unlawful alien to the maximum extent that Federal law allows (and allows them to be fined if they don't).

Chy Lung v. Freeman is interesting case law if you're interested...

Dd