By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Arizona "your papers please" immigration law

thranx on 29 July 2010
venepe said:

It is funny how many people call on the Constitution to actually defend the Arizona Law.  The law is unconstitutional as in it is in violation of what the Constitution states.  Article 1 of the constitution grants Congress with exclusive powers over Immigration in various forms. Then it also grants implied powers throught the Necessary and Proper Clause.  And then the Constitution expresly provides with a Supremacy Clause.

So, no matter what good intentions or reasons Arizona may have, it is still agaisnt the Constitution of the United States to make such a law.

I read some arguments here that in "other countries you have to..." but you need to keed in mind that the US is not your typical Republic where there is a single government.  No, the US is a federation, so there are many governments working together.  So while Federal law says that if you are an alien you have to carry your passport or permit at all times, a state police officer has no right to demand it; only a federal officer can.  Sounds dumb, but that is just the nature of having two separate governments.  Just like state governments don't like the federal one to interfere in its affairs, so does the federal government.  The constitution gives it some powers and it is not going to allow the States to usurp it.

The whole argument about "well the Feds are not doing it so we have to..." is also invalid.  The reason we have elections is to have the power as a people to vote for officials that represent the views and opinions of the people.  So if you believe your opinion is in the mayority then the elective body should represent that opinion; but if it is not the mayority then you lost.  So the solution to that argument is to vote out the persons currently in power and vote in person who will actually do something about the problem.

Just for my knowledge can you qoute the exact parts of the constitution that forbade a state to enforce laws? All this arizona lawdoes is allow arizona peace offers to turn illegals over to the immigration office. It does not in any way restrict current fedral laws to make it harder to be a citizen.



Around the Network
venepe on 29 July 2010
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! 



"¿Por qué justo a mí tenía que tocarme ser yo?"

venepe on 29 July 2010
thranx said:
venepe said:

It is funny how many people call on the Constitution to actually defend the Arizona Law.  The law is unconstitutional as in it is in violation of what the Constitution states.  Article 1 of the constitution grants Congress with exclusive powers over Immigration in various forms. Then it also grants implied powers throught the Necessary and Proper Clause.  And then the Constitution expresly provides with a Supremacy Clause.

So, no matter what good intentions or reasons Arizona may have, it is still agaisnt the Constitution of the United States to make such a law.

I read some arguments here that in "other countries you have to..." but you need to keed in mind that the US is not your typical Republic where there is a single government.  No, the US is a federation, so there are many governments working together.  So while Federal law says that if you are an alien you have to carry your passport or permit at all times, a state police officer has no right to demand it; only a federal officer can.  Sounds dumb, but that is just the nature of having two separate governments.  Just like state governments don't like the federal one to interfere in its affairs, so does the federal government.  The constitution gives it some powers and it is not going to allow the States to usurp it.

The whole argument about "well the Feds are not doing it so we have to..." is also invalid.  The reason we have elections is to have the power as a people to vote for officials that represent the views and opinions of the people.  So if you believe your opinion is in the mayority then the elective body should represent that opinion; but if it is not the mayority then you lost.  So the solution to that argument is to vote out the persons currently in power and vote in person who will actually do something about the problem.

Just for my knowledge can you qoute the exact parts of the constitution that forbade a state to enforce laws? All this arizona lawdoes is allow arizona peace offers to turn illegals over to the immigration office. It does not in any way restrict current fedral laws to make it harder to be a citizen.

well, let me see if I can explain it.  States have their own laws.  The Federal Government has its own laws. When a state police officer arrests you and charges you it can only be with a state law.  Same with the Feds, if the FBI arrests you it can only charge you with a violation of a federal law.  That is the nature of a federal government.  Most countries only have a single government for everyone thus only one law.

Now Article I of the Constitution enumerates certain powers for Congress.  Very general in the Constitution but by doing so it lets congress make laws to exercise those powers.  Those laws are only enforceable by the Feds.  Now if congress wants to allow the States to also enforce them it can, but it has to be written into the law itself.  So, Congress could amend the current immigration law and permit states to enforce it.  But as it is written now, only the Attorney general can enforce them, and he does so throught the Department of Homeland Security, which in turns uses the Immigration and Customs enforcement agency. 

That is the way is structured.  That is why the Law was blocked by the judge.  It has nothing to do whether the Feds are efficient at their job or whether Arizona has good intentions.  It is just a matter of technical constitutional issues.  but like I said before, this struggles over power has existed since the declaration of independence.  the United States almost never happened because the founders couldn't agree on the separation of state and federal power. 



"¿Por qué justo a mí tenía que tocarme ser yo?"

thranx on 29 July 2010

I see what your saying, but by what I understood from the law, all they will be doing is handing them over to imigration (feds). So they really aren't enforcing it per se, they are just handing them over to the feds, wich as far as I know is ok to do. If some commits a federal crime and a state crime at the same time they may be handed over to the feds. Am I right on  that? If so since they can only question someone who is already violating a law is that not a similar case? You also said that imigration law has been shaped by the courts, doesn't that mean there is a possibility that this can be constitutional so long as the highest courts say so? Would that not just be a contuation of the courts shaping laws not in the constitution? Sorry for all of the questions, I just want to get this right



Kasz216 on 29 July 2010
MrBubbles said:
Kasz216 said:
MrBubbles said:
Kasz216 said:
MrBubbles said:

what happens if you are just visiting and get pulled over for something? 

You show them your drivers liscense and your fine? 

and an illegal person couldnt do that? 


An illegal person shouldn't have a drivers liscense... except maybe from California.


but they could have one from mexico just as i would have one from canada.

Then they should have their passport on them?



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 29 July 2010
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
MrBubbles said:
Kasz216 said:
MrBubbles said:

what happens if you are just visiting and get pulled over for something? 

You show them your drivers liscense and your fine? 

and an illegal person couldnt do that? 


An illegal person shouldn't have a drivers liscense... except maybe from California.

If they have a car, chances are, they have a license. Unless they drove a car through the border fence or something.

Exactly my point?

You have to be here legally to have a drivers liscense.



Kasz216 on 29 July 2010
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
MrBubbles said:

what happens if you are just visiting and get pulled over for something? 

You show them your drivers liscense and your fine?   Really, I wasn't a fan of this law at first... looking at it though, I don't see anything that shouldn't arleady be done. 

 I mean, if someone comits a crime that has a penalty you should need to confirm their identity... so you make sure they pay the price.

And if it turns out they are an illegal alien... they should be turned over to immigration.

I mean, there isn't anything reall controversial about it.

They should just remove the "If there is reasonable suspison" part since it might lead to illegal candadians, british etc from slipping through the cracks.

So you want a police officer to say the following.

"Excuse me, sir, you were going 5 miles an hour over the speed limit. Can I see your green card please?"

Also, why the hell would anyone from Canada or Britain go to Arizona of all places? Both are among the wealthiest countries per capita in the world. Hell, Canada has a higher development index than the United States, and Britain is 0.009 points lower.

Or just... you know.  There Driver's liscense.  Once they run your Drivers liscense they'll know everything about you.

As for your second question.  The Weather. 

As for Development index... eh, it's not even worth getting into it.   I'll just say, take a good look at what makes up the development index.

Edit: eh what the heck... we'll go into it a little.

A) One reason Canada beats the US and the UK is close?  Infant Mortality rate.

Why does the US have such a high Infant mortality rate...?   Because we report it differently from the rest of the world.  Any baby born alive that dies is considered a death. 

AIn the rest of the world like the UK and Canada... they have to fit "standards" to be considered alive.   Babies that are below a certain height or weight aren't counted in other countries because there was "no chance" to save them.

When you account for this... Life Expectancy doesn't matter.  So a wash.

 

B)  The second part is the education Index... This really isn't going to effect anybody who would move to the US, since the big laggard here for the US is literacy rate... which if your worried about your kids... it'd be easy for you to teach them to read.

 

C)  Per Capita income adjusted for PPP.   The US actually wins in this.   It's also basically the only stat that would effect an immigrant.   Coming here to make more money, keep more of it, and it being able to buy more seems like a pretty good reason.



Kantor on 29 July 2010
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
MrBubbles said:

what happens if you are just visiting and get pulled over for something? 

You show them your drivers liscense and your fine?   Really, I wasn't a fan of this law at first... looking at it though, I don't see anything that shouldn't arleady be done. 

 I mean, if someone comits a crime that has a penalty you should need to confirm their identity... so you make sure they pay the price.

And if it turns out they are an illegal alien... they should be turned over to immigration.

I mean, there isn't anything reall controversial about it.

They should just remove the "If there is reasonable suspison" part since it might lead to illegal candadians, british etc from slipping through the cracks.

So you want a police officer to say the following.

"Excuse me, sir, you were going 5 miles an hour over the speed limit. Can I see your green card please?"

Also, why the hell would anyone from Canada or Britain go to Arizona of all places? Both are among the wealthiest countries per capita in the world. Hell, Canada has a higher development index than the United States, and Britain is 0.009 points lower.

Or just... you know.  There Driver's liscense.  Once they run your Drivers liscense they'll know everything about you.

As for your second question.  The Weather. 

As for Development index... eh, it's not even worth getting into it.   I'll just say, take a good look at what makes up the development index.

Edit: eh what the heck... we'll go into it a little.

A) One reason Canada beats the US and the UK is close?  Infant Mortality rate.

Why does the US have such a high Infant mortality rate...?   Because we report it differently from the rest of the world.  Any baby born alive that dies is considered a death. 

AIn the rest of the world like the UK and Canada... they have to fit "standards" to be considered alive.   Babies that are below a certain height or weight aren't counted in other countries because there was "no chance" to save them.

When you account for this... Life Expectancy doesn't matter.  So a wash.

 

B)  The second part is the education Index... This really isn't going to effect anybody who would move to the US, since the big laggard here for the US is literacy rate... which if your worried about your kids... it'd be easy for you to teach them to read.

 

C)  Per Capita income adjusted for PPP.   The US actually wins in this.   It's also basically the only stat that would effect an immigrant.   Coming here to make more money, keep more of it, and it being able to buy more seems like a pretty good reason.

I could grant you that, in some respects, the US is a nicer country than the UK or Canada, but:

a) If I was moving to the US, Arizona would hardly be the first state I would consider. New York, California, Florida, all of these would probably come to mind first. Since I'd need a plane, anyway, it wouldn't make much difference.

b) The difference isn't significant enough to illegally immigrate. Compare Mexico to the USA. One is impoverished and full of starvation and crime. The other isn't. Compare Canada, the UK, and the USA. None of them are impoverished, none has particularly high crime, all are among the best places in the world to live (not counting those cheating Central European countries with no tax).



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

TheRealMafoo on 29 July 2010
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.



Moren on 29 July 2010

To be honest, this law is totally nonsense.

Any resident, tourist, or anone just won't fell safe since they'll have to take their papers everywhere, the an forget them, they're likely to lose them, and inmigrants are people too. And they dont affect america in any way. The only reason this law was made is because the arizona goverment are racists