venepe said:
TheRealMafoo said:
venepe said:
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.
|
Let me put this in simple terms, and see if I understand.
If the feds don't have a law about something, it's ok for the state to make a law, but if the feds then make a law about something and chose to never enforce it, the states can't make the same law and enforce it?
So for example, if the feds want to allow everyone the ability to get away with statutory rape, they can just make a federal law saying sex under the age of 18 is illegal, and never prosecute anyone for it? Thus tying the hands of the states in the matter?
|
I know the law lacks common sense sometimes, but that is the way things are when it comes to constitutional issues.
See, the constitution was made in such a way that it creates a federal government but at the same time gives the states certain freedoms. So in essence it creates a limited federal government. Now, the constitution makes sure that the limited federal government has some powers over the states so that the union is maintained. Those are often called the "enumerated powers" listed in Article I of the constitution. Among those powers, one of them is the power over immigration matters. Now the scope of such power has been defined over 200 years by the US Supreme Court.
So the problem now with the Arizona Law (and the reason it has been blocked) is that the Federal Government has made laws over the matter and that law covers a lot of aspects of immigration. When that happens it "preempts" any state law that tries to cover the same aspects even though they may have the same purpose.
Like I said, it seems to lack certain common sense, but that is the way it works. Over 200 years over the Constitution there has always been a struggle between Federal and State Powers, I mean there even was a Civil War over it!
|
Sorry, but I don't think this is right.
I have been looking for the quote, but lack the experience to find it. Anyway, as I understand it, a law can be created in a state that covers the same issue as the federal law, as long as it does not conflict with the will of congress.
This law does not conflict with the will of congress. This law enforced the will of congress. (meaning it mirrors the same law, and does not impose and additional punishment).
The federal government, even if this law is enacted, could make the worse thing that could happen to someone who is stopped, is they are taken to an immigration office and released.
There is no enforcement in this law. It's still up to the federal government.
