A Practical Question About the AZ Law

[Katzndogz]

The Supreme Court is likely to uphold the Arizona law. It is not looking too good for obama.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thanks for that, Valerie. I appreciate the synthesis of the argument.

My question though may be more practical than legalistic. I want to know, in terms of cost, in terms of response requirements, what the US Govt is supposed to do every time AZ picks up an allegegd illegal?

AZ can't have deporation hearings.

AZ can't deport.

So then what?

Don't you think it's the duty of the Federal authorities to enforce Federal law and thus to deport illegal alliens?

I don't think it's the place of any state to tell the Federal Government what to do.

The Constitution agrees.

I'll direct your attention to the supremacy clause.

The Supremacy clause does not give the federal Government the right nor the power to refuse to enforce their own laws. Nor does it stop the States from enforcing Federal Law.

What right does the federal Government have to claim the power then refuse to use it or enforce it?

 

[jillian]

Don't you think it's the duty of the Federal authorities to enforce Federal law and thus to deport illegal alliens?

I don't think it's the place of any state to tell the Federal Government what to do.

The Constitution agrees.

I'll direct your attention to the supremacy clause.

The Supremacy clause does not give the federal Government the right nor the power to refuse to enforce their own laws. Nor does it stop the States from enforcing Federal Law.

What right does the federal Government have to claim the power then refuse to use it or enforce it?

I agree with your first sentence. However, States cannot pass laws to force the Federal government to do anything. There are already procedures which exist if one needs to compel the Federal Government to do something.

And in the same way that prosecutors have prosecutorial discretion and can decide what cases they pursue and which they don't, the Federal government can make the same choice in determining how they enforce their laws and expend resources.

I'll also point out that enforcement of immigration laws has been way up over the past three years. That's irrelevant to this inquiry as well, though.

 

[Artevelde]

I don't think it's the place of any state to tell the Federal Government what to do.

The Constitution agrees.

I'll direct your attention to the supremacy clause.

The Supremacy clause does not give the federal Government the right nor the power to refuse to enforce their own laws. Nor does it stop the States from enforcing Federal Law.

What right does the federal Government have to claim the power then refuse to use it or enforce it?

I agree with your first sentence. However, States cannot pass laws to force the Federal government to do anything. There are already procedures which exist if one needs to compel the Federal Government to do something.

And in the same way that prosecutors have prosecutorial discretion and can decide what cases they pursue and which they don't, the Federal government can make the same choice in determining how they enforce their laws.

I'll also point out that enforcement of immigration laws has been way up over the past three years. That's irrelevant to this inquiry as well, though.

Again you never point out where the Arizona law forces the Federal government to do anything.

 

[jillian]

From what I understand, the fed has been enforcing immigration laws all along. So I'm not really sure what AZ is trying to accomplish.

This could go two ways. One, the fed will start being at the beck and call of Arizona, channeling limited resources away from other states.

Or two, AZ will end up with quite a few Gitmos of its own and they will have to foot the bill for imprisoning those that have violated immigration policy.

A more serious approach would be to raise taxes to hire more ICE agents....

They have been enforcing immigration laws all along. This is just a way to harass people who "look like immigrants" and that's really how the Court should have looked at it. But I don't expect much from this particular Court anymore.

I think the latter will be the result.

At which point there will be lawsuts against AZ for unlawfully detaining people.

 

[Artevelde]

From what I understand, the fed has been enforcing immigration laws all along. So I'm not really sure what AZ is trying to accomplish.

This could go two ways. One, the fed will start being at the beck and call of Arizona, channeling limited resources away from other states.

Or two, AZ will end up with quite a few Gitmos of its own and they will have to foot the bill for imprisoning those that have violated immigration policy.

A more serious approach would be to raise taxes to hire more ICE agents....

They have been enforcing immigration laws all along. This is just a way to harass people who "look like immigrants" and that's really how the Court should have looked at it. But I don't expect much from this particular Court anymore.

I think the latter will be the result.

At which point there will be lawsuts against AZ for unlawfully detaining people.

Clearly it's not the question of the constitutionality of the Arizona law that concerns you, but the fact that it will make it harder for illegal immigrants to continue to flock to Arizona.

 

[GHook93]

Some of the judicial inquiry before the Supreme Court yesterday focused on the question of what happens once a State stops and detains someone under the "papers, please" provisions of the AZ law. Since, ostensibly, the law is supposed to effectuate Federal Law, what obligation does the Federal Government have to respond to the State and deal with the people in custody?

I don't think a State can compel the Feds to do anything.... which gives rise to teh question,

ok... you have the law... then what?

I truly don't know the answer to this. I don't think Justice Breyer had an answer for it either. But it's the right question to ask

You know what, next time I get pulled over on suspicion of speeding I am telling them it's against my constitutional right to ask for my licenses and registrations! Let's see how far that gets me. Or if I forget my wallet am I not subject to arrest?

If you are a legal resident of the country there is a VERY simple way to void arrest and detention. (1) Get a Driver's License or (2) Get a state ID! Problem solved, now the legal resident of the US can go drinking with his/her new driver's license or State ID card they they got!

 

[jillian]

Some of the judicial inquiry before the Supreme Court yesterday focused on the question of what happens once a State stops and detains someone under the "papers, please" provisions of the AZ law. Since, ostensibly, the law is supposed to effectuate Federal Law, what obligation does the Federal Government have to respond to the State and deal with the people in custody?

I don't think a State can compel the Feds to do anything.... which gives rise to teh question,

ok... you have the law... then what?

I truly don't know the answer to this. I don't think Justice Breyer had an answer for it either. But it's the right question to ask

You know what, next time I get pulled over on suspicion of speeding I am telling them it's against my constitutional right to ask for my licenses and registrations! Let's see how far that gets me. Or if I forget my wallet am I not subject to arrest?

If you are a legal resident of the country there is a VERY simple way to void arrest and detention. (1) Get a Driver's License or (2) Get a state ID! Problem solved, now the legal resident of the US can go drinking with his/her new driver's license or State ID card they they got!

this isn't actually a discussion about legal vs illegal immigrants or what you think of the 'papers please' provisions. i mean, i could discuss that because the papers please laws don't have anything to do with what you're required to carry when you drive.

but how about this, "hey, you look jewish. show us your papers" or better "why aren't you wearing your yellow star"?

fahrshteit?

anyway, my question concerns what the state can compel the feds to do, if anything...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some of the judicial inquiry before the Supreme Court yesterday focused on the question of what happens once a State stops and detains someone under the "papers, please" provisions of the AZ law. Since, ostensibly, the law is supposed to effectuate Federal Law, what obligation does the Federal Government have to respond to the State and deal with the people in custody?

I don't think a State can compel the Feds to do anything.... which gives rise to teh question,

ok... you have the law... then what?

I truly don't know the answer to this. I don't think Justice Breyer had an answer for it either. But it's the right question to ask

The Queen Mother of Useful Idiots appears yet again, to interject her ignorance and partisan bigotrty into a conversation meant for adults - rather than consider such impossiibly simple things, shouldn't you get back to your usual slog of emptying garbage bins and vacuuming hallways?

The executive branch is compelled by the Preident's oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. The obligation you seek lies there. If a state, in good faith, informs the relevant federal agency that federal law had been violated and said agency does nothing with it, then that federal agency isn't doing the job required of it by the Constitution, and those responsible need to be held accountable.

 

[kwc57]

From what I understand, the fed has been enforcing immigration laws all along. So I'm not really sure what AZ is trying to accomplish.

This could go two ways. One, the fed will start being at the beck and call of Arizona, channeling limited resources away from other states.

Or two, AZ will end up with quite a few Gitmos of its own and they will have to foot the bill for imprisoning those that have violated immigration policy.

A more serious approach would be to raise taxes to hire more ICE agents....

They have been enforcing immigration laws all along. This is just a way to harass people who "look like immigrants" and that's really how the Court should have looked at it. But I don't expect much from this particular Court anymore.

I think the latter will be the result.

At which point there will be lawsuts against AZ for unlawfully detaining people.

Bullshit. It's a way to deal with people who are in the country illegally and draining public resources in a strained economy. Evidently you don't live in or near a border state, because it is a problem for us. As far as how you think the court should look at it, it appears they don't agree with you.

 

[kwc57]

Some of the judicial inquiry before the Supreme Court yesterday focused on the question of what happens once a State stops and detains someone under the "papers, please" provisions of the AZ law. Since, ostensibly, the law is supposed to effectuate Federal Law, what obligation does the Federal Government have to respond to the State and deal with the people in custody?

I don't think a State can compel the Feds to do anything.... which gives rise to teh question,

ok... you have the law... then what?

I truly don't know the answer to this. I don't think Justice Breyer had an answer for it either. But it's the right question to ask

You know what, next time I get pulled over on suspicion of speeding I am telling them it's against my constitutional right to ask for my licenses and registrations! Let's see how far that gets me. Or if I forget my wallet am I not subject to arrest?

If you are a legal resident of the country there is a VERY simple way to void arrest and detention. (1) Get a Driver's License or (2) Get a state ID! Problem solved, now the legal resident of the US can go drinking with his/her new driver's license or State ID card they they got!

this isn't actually a discussion about legal vs illegal immigrants or what you think of the 'papers please' provisions. i mean, i could discuss that because the papers please laws don't have anything to do with what you're required to carry when you drive.

but how about this, "hey, you look jewish. show us your papers" or better "why aren't you wearing your yellow star"?

fahrshteit?

anyway, my question concerns what the state can compel the feds to do, if anything...

Well, it's your thread and I guess you can make it about what you want. But when your topic is invalid, expect to get called on it. The argument that the Arizona law is trying to tell the federal government what they have to do is false and invalid. So you can join the discussion of the real issues being brought up or not. Your choice.

 

[Artevelde]

Some of the judicial inquiry before the Supreme Court yesterday focused on the question of what happens once a State stops and detains someone under the "papers, please" provisions of the AZ law. Since, ostensibly, the law is supposed to effectuate Federal Law, what obligation does the Federal Government have to respond to the State and deal with the people in custody?

I don't think a State can compel the Feds to do anything.... which gives rise to teh question,

ok... you have the law... then what?

I truly don't know the answer to this. I don't think Justice Breyer had an answer for it either. But it's the right question to ask

You know what, next time I get pulled over on suspicion of speeding I am telling them it's against my constitutional right to ask for my licenses and registrations! Let's see how far that gets me. Or if I forget my wallet am I not subject to arrest?

If you are a legal resident of the country there is a VERY simple way to void arrest and detention. (1) Get a Driver's License or (2) Get a state ID! Problem solved, now the legal resident of the US can go drinking with his/her new driver's license or State ID card they they got!

this isn't actually a discussion about legal vs illegal immigrants or what you think of the 'papers please' provisions. i mean, i could discuss that because the papers please laws don't have anything to do with what you're required to carry when you drive.

but how about this, "hey, you look jewish. show us your papers" or better "why aren't you wearing your yellow star"?

fahrshteit?

anyway, my question concerns what the state can compel the feds to do, if anything...

Really very weak and pathetic to start dragging things like a star of david into this. You have no arguments, so this is what you resort to?

 

[jillian]

Some of the judicial inquiry before the Supreme Court yesterday focused on the question of what happens once a State stops and detains someone under the "papers, please" provisions of the AZ law. Since, ostensibly, the law is supposed to effectuate Federal Law, what obligation does the Federal Government have to respond to the State and deal with the people in custody?

I don't think a State can compel the Feds to do anything.... which gives rise to teh question,

ok... you have the law... then what?

I truly don't know the answer to this. I don't think Justice Breyer had an answer for it either. But it's the right question to ask

The Queen Mother of Useful Idiots appears yet again, to interject her ignorance and partisan bigotrty into a conversation meant for adults - rather than consider such impossiibly simple things, shouldn't you get back to your usual slog of emptying garbage bins and vacuuming hallways?

The executive branch is compelled by the Preident's oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. The obligation you seek lies there. If a state, in good faith, informs the relevant federal agency that federal law had been violated and said agency does nothing with it, then that federal agency isn't doing the job required of it by the Constitution, and those responsible need to be held accountable.

Thank you once again for a total lack of knowlege or insight.

There really should be a button that says "thank you for this useless post".

I suspect you'd get that a lot.

 

[jillian]

You know what, next time I get pulled over on suspicion of speeding I am telling them it's against my constitutional right to ask for my licenses and registrations! Let's see how far that gets me. Or if I forget my wallet am I not subject to arrest?

If you are a legal resident of the country there is a VERY simple way to void arrest and detention. (1) Get a Driver's License or (2) Get a state ID! Problem solved, now the legal resident of the US can go drinking with his/her new driver's license or State ID card they they got!

this isn't actually a discussion about legal vs illegal immigrants or what you think of the 'papers please' provisions. i mean, i could discuss that because the papers please laws don't have anything to do with what you're required to carry when you drive.

but how about this, "hey, you look jewish. show us your papers" or better "why aren't you wearing your yellow star"?

fahrshteit?

anyway, my question concerns what the state can compel the feds to do, if anything...

Really very weak and pathetic to start dragging things like a star of david into this. You have no arguments, so this is what you resort to?

i'm sure you're terribly concerned by the star of david thing... i've seen your posts.

thanks.

 

[Artevelde]

this isn't actually a discussion about legal vs illegal immigrants or what you think of the 'papers please' provisions. i mean, i could discuss that because the papers please laws don't have anything to do with what you're required to carry when you drive.

but how about this, "hey, you look jewish. show us your papers" or better "why aren't you wearing your yellow star"?

fahrshteit?

anyway, my question concerns what the state can compel the feds to do, if anything...

Really very weak and pathetic to start dragging things like a star of david into this. You have no arguments, so this is what you resort to?

i'm sure you're terribly concerned by the star of david thing... i've seen your posts.

thanks.

You really are very weak and ignorant.

 

[jillian]

Really very weak and pathetic to start dragging things like a star of david into this. You have no arguments, so this is what you resort to?

i'm sure you're terribly concerned by the star of david thing... i've seen your posts.

thanks.

You really are very weak and ignorant.

stop projecting.

you tried to troll the thread with your buddy.

you failed.

get over it and move on.

 

[Artevelde]

i'm sure you're terribly concerned by the star of david thing... i've seen your posts.

thanks.

You really are very weak and ignorant.

stop projecting.

you tried to troll the thread with your buddy.

you failed.

get over it and move on.

I simply exposed that you have no arguments and that you have a problem with the Federal government enforcing existing Federal law. Your problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some of the judicial inquiry before the Supreme Court yesterday focused on the question of what happens once a State stops and detains someone under the "papers, please" provisions of the AZ law. Since, ostensibly, the law is supposed to effectuate Federal Law, what obligation does the Federal Government have to respond to the State and deal with the people in custody?

I don't think a State can compel the Feds to do anything.... which gives rise to teh question,

ok... you have the law... then what?

I truly don't know the answer to this. I don't think Justice Breyer had an answer for it either. But it's the right question to ask

The Queen Mother of Useful Idiots appears yet again, to interject her ignorance and partisan bigotrty into a conversation meant for adults - rather than consider such impossiibly simple things, shouldn't you get back to your usual slog of emptying garbage bins and vacuuming hallways?

The executive branch is compelled by the Preident's oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. The obligation you seek lies there. If a state, in good faith, informs the relevant federal agency that federal law had been violated and said agency does nothing with it, then that federal agency isn't doing the job required of it by the Constitution, and those responsible need to be held accountable.

Thank you once again for a total lack of knowlege or insight.
There really should be a button that says "thank you for this useless post".
I suspect you'd get that a lot.

Just as I thought!

You aren't interested in the actual answer to your question, you sinply want to show us how unashamed you are of your bigotry and ignorance.
In that, you're doing your usual SUPERB job.

BTW: you did a -terrible- job on the uninals. Better go back and take care of them before your supervisor see it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You really are very weak and ignorant.

stop projecting.
you tried to troll the thread with your buddy.
you failed.
get over it and move on.

I simply exposed that you have no arguments and that you have a problem with the Federal government enforcing existing Federal law. Your problem.

Given her abject failure to effectively respond to my post, this is quite clearly the case.

 

[Valerie]

i'm sure you're terribly concerned by the star of david thing... i've seen your posts.

thanks.

You really are very weak and ignorant.

stop projecting.

you tried to troll the thread with your buddy.

you failed.

get over it and move on.

They're not smart enough to understand the difference between an argument and a discussion apparently... And lol @ the shmucks who think they know more than you do.