Arizona "your papers please" immigration law

[venepe]

badgenome said:

venepe said:

@badgenome

Sorry to burst your bubble but the Supremacy Clause argument for this law is not in the context of conflict, it is rather in the issue of preemption (and the injuction to the law was made on this point).  Especifically, implied preemption, which states that where Congress has a occupied the subject area to the preclusion of state laws because of the nature of the federal interest or the pervasiveness of the federal regulatory scheme.

Now, if you want to debate this issues with me you are welcome to do it.  Although I will disclose to you that I am an immigration attorney practicing in California.

Congress can't really be said to occupy the field in this case for a number of reasons, and especially not when the feds rely so heavily on states to help them enforce immigration law. And again, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to make laws in regard to immigration status, as in De Canas v. Bica.

De Canas v. Bica, decide in 1976, decided that a specific California statute was not in conflict with the federal law and the law was not traditionally occupied by the feds.  In that case, the CA law prohibited employers from knowingly employing persons not authorized to work.  Back then there was no Federal statute regarding such penalties, as the employer sanctions law was not acted until 1986.  Now De Canas did lay out a 3 prong-test to check whether or not a state law is preempted.  the Arizona Law does not pass the test, espcifically the second prong of the test.

Now whether the feds are being efficient at their job is another argument. But is irrelevant to the legal issue.  And the feds reliance on the states in this case it is actually because the federal government partnered with state agencies as it is within the feds power to do so.  Congress can grant the state police the power to check immigration status if it wants to.  But the state cannot do it on its own.