Nic_Driver
Active Member
- Mar 25, 2011
- 868
- 76
- 28
- Thread starter
- #81
PHOENIX A federal appeals court on Monday refused to lift a stay blocking major parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect and said the federal government is likely to be able to prove the controversial law is unconstitutional.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down an appeal filed by Gov. Jan Brewer. She had asked the appeals court to lift an injunction imposed by a federal judge in Phoenix the day before the law was to take effect on July 29, 2010.
The U.S Justice Department sued to block the law, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution because enforcing immigration law is a federal issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
Enforcement
State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient. Immigration officers and police must have a valid warrant or valid employer's consent to enter workplaces or residences. Any vehicle used to transport or harbor illegal aliens, or used as a substantial part of an activity that encourages illegal aliens to come to or reside in the U.S. may be seized by an immigration officer and is subject to forfeiture. The forfeiture power covers any conveyances used within the U.S.
What part of SB1070 differs from this?
Odd that you can use Google to find this blog opinion piece but fail to find the verbiage from courts ruling...oh well, no matter...
By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal governments authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement. . . As a result, Section 2(B) interferes with Congress delegation of discretion to the Executive branch in enforcing the INA. Where the federal government has called for discretion, many of SB 1070s provisions are mandatory, and therefore clearly in conflict with the INA. States are allowed to participate in immigration enforcement only under the close supervision of the Attorney General.
More here http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/04/11/10-16645.pdf