A Practical Question About the AZ Law

[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

 

[Valerie]

Wednesday’s argument, the last of the term, was a rematch between the main lawyers in the health care case. Paul D. Clement, who argued for the 26 states challenging the health care law, represented Arizona. Mr. Verrilli again represented the federal government. In an unusual move, Chief Justice Roberts allowed the argument to go 20 minutes longer than the usual hour.

The two lawyers presented sharply contrasting accounts of what the Arizona law meant to achieve.

Mr. Clement said the state was making an effort to address a crisis by passing a law that complemented federal immigration policy. “Arizona borrowed the federal standards as its own,” he said, adding that the state was simply being more assertive in enforcing federal law than the federal government. Mr. Verrilli countered that Arizona’s approach was in conflict with the federal efforts. “The Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government,” he said.

Mr. Verrilli, whose performance in the health care case was sometimes halting and unfocused, seemed on Wednesday occasionally to frustrate justices who might have seemed likely allies. At one point Justice Sotomayor, addressing Mr. Verrilli by his title, said: “General, I’m terribly confused by your answer. O.K.? And I don’t know that you’re focusing in on what I believe my colleagues are trying to get to.”

The Arizona law advances what it calls a policy of “attrition through enforcement.” The Obama administration sued to block the law, saying it could not be reconciled with federal laws and policies. In legal terms, the case is about whether federal law “pre-empts,” or displaces, the challenged state law.

As a general matter, federal laws trump conflicting state laws under the Constitution’s supremacy clause. But no federal law bars the challenged provisions of the Arizona in so many words, and the question for the justices is whether federal and state laws are in such conflict that the state law must yield.

Last year, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, blocked four provisions of the law on those grounds.

Most of the argument on Wednesday concerned the part of the law requiring state officials to check immigration status. Several justices said states were entitled to enact such provisions, which make mandatory inquiries to federal authorities from local police officers that are already commonplace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/u...aw-justices-are-again-in-political-storm.html

 

[jillian]

Wednesday’s argument, the last of the term, was a rematch between the main lawyers in the health care case. Paul D. Clement, who argued for the 26 states challenging the health care law, represented Arizona. Mr. Verrilli again represented the federal government. In an unusual move, Chief Justice Roberts allowed the argument to go 20 minutes longer than the usual hour.

The two lawyers presented sharply contrasting accounts of what the Arizona law meant to achieve.

Mr. Clement said the state was making an effort to address a crisis by passing a law that complemented federal immigration policy. “Arizona borrowed the federal standards as its own,” he said, adding that the state was simply being more assertive in enforcing federal law than the federal government. Mr. Verrilli countered that Arizona’s approach was in conflict with the federal efforts. “The Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government,” he said.

Mr. Verrilli, whose performance in the health care case was sometimes halting and unfocused, seemed on Wednesday occasionally to frustrate justices who might have seemed likely allies. At one point Justice Sotomayor, addressing Mr. Verrilli by his title, said: “General, I’m terribly confused by your answer. O.K.? And I don’t know that you’re focusing in on what I believe my colleagues are trying to get to.”

The Arizona law advances what it calls a policy of “attrition through enforcement.” The Obama administration sued to block the law, saying it could not be reconciled with federal laws and policies. In legal terms, the case is about whether federal law “pre-empts,” or displaces, the challenged state law.

As a general matter, federal laws trump conflicting state laws under the Constitution’s supremacy clause. But no federal law bars the challenged provisions of the Arizona in so many words, and the question for the justices is whether federal and state laws are in such conflict that the state law must yield.

Last year, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, blocked four provisions of the law on those grounds.

Most of the argument on Wednesday concerned the part of the law requiring state officials to check immigration status. Several justices said states were entitled to enact such provisions, which make mandatory inquiries to federal authorities from local police officers that are already commonplace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/u...aw-justices-are-again-in-political-storm.html

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?

 

[Artevelde]

Wednesday’s argument, the last of the term, was a rematch between the main lawyers in the health care case. Paul D. Clement, who argued for the 26 states challenging the health care law, represented Arizona. Mr. Verrilli again represented the federal government. In an unusual move, Chief Justice Roberts allowed the argument to go 20 minutes longer than the usual hour.

The two lawyers presented sharply contrasting accounts of what the Arizona law meant to achieve.

Mr. Clement said the state was making an effort to address a crisis by passing a law that complemented federal immigration policy. “Arizona borrowed the federal standards as its own,” he said, adding that the state was simply being more assertive in enforcing federal law than the federal government. Mr. Verrilli countered that Arizona’s approach was in conflict with the federal efforts. “The Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government,” he said.

Mr. Verrilli, whose performance in the health care case was sometimes halting and unfocused, seemed on Wednesday occasionally to frustrate justices who might have seemed likely allies. At one point Justice Sotomayor, addressing Mr. Verrilli by his title, said: “General, I’m terribly confused by your answer. O.K.? And I don’t know that you’re focusing in on what I believe my colleagues are trying to get to.”

The Arizona law advances what it calls a policy of “attrition through enforcement.” The Obama administration sued to block the law, saying it could not be reconciled with federal laws and policies. In legal terms, the case is about whether federal law “pre-empts,” or displaces, the challenged state law.

As a general matter, federal laws trump conflicting state laws under the Constitution’s supremacy clause. But no federal law bars the challenged provisions of the Arizona in so many words, and the question for the justices is whether federal and state laws are in such conflict that the state law must yield.

Last year, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, blocked four provisions of the law on those grounds.

Most of the argument on Wednesday concerned the part of the law requiring state officials to check immigration status. Several justices said states were entitled to enact such provisions, which make mandatory inquiries to federal authorities from local police officers that are already commonplace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/u...aw-justices-are-again-in-political-storm.html

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?

 

[Katzndogz]

Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama's immigration law claim - Washington Times
“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

 

[jillian]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/u...aw-justices-are-again-in-political-storm.html

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.

 

[Valerie]

Wednesday’s argument, the last of the term, was a rematch between the main lawyers in the health care case. Paul D. Clement, who argued for the 26 states challenging the health care law, represented Arizona. Mr. Verrilli again represented the federal government. In an unusual move, Chief Justice Roberts allowed the argument to go 20 minutes longer than the usual hour.

The two lawyers presented sharply contrasting accounts of what the Arizona law meant to achieve.

Mr. Clement said the state was making an effort to address a crisis by passing a law that complemented federal immigration policy. “Arizona borrowed the federal standards as its own,” he said, adding that the state was simply being more assertive in enforcing federal law than the federal government. Mr. Verrilli countered that Arizona’s approach was in conflict with the federal efforts. “The Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government,” he said.

Mr. Verrilli, whose performance in the health care case was sometimes halting and unfocused, seemed on Wednesday occasionally to frustrate justices who might have seemed likely allies. At one point Justice Sotomayor, addressing Mr. Verrilli by his title, said: “General, I’m terribly confused by your answer. O.K.? And I don’t know that you’re focusing in on what I believe my colleagues are trying to get to.”

The Arizona law advances what it calls a policy of “attrition through enforcement.” The Obama administration sued to block the law, saying it could not be reconciled with federal laws and policies. In legal terms, the case is about whether federal law “pre-empts,” or displaces, the challenged state law.

As a general matter, federal laws trump conflicting state laws under the Constitution’s supremacy clause. But no federal law bars the challenged provisions of the Arizona in so many words, and the question for the justices is whether federal and state laws are in such conflict that the state law must yield.

Last year, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, blocked four provisions of the law on those grounds.

Most of the argument on Wednesday concerned the part of the law requiring state officials to check immigration status. Several justices said states were entitled to enact such provisions, which make mandatory inquiries to federal authorities from local police officers that are already commonplace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/u...aw-justices-are-again-in-political-storm.html

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?

I dunno...you mean President Obama doesn't have a proper solution...???



Immigration

 

[jillian]

Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama's immigration law claim - Washington Times
“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

Sorry, I'm not interested in hack pieces from Rev Moon's wacko world.

I'm interested in the opinion of thinking people.

 

[jillian]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/u...aw-justices-are-again-in-political-storm.html

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?

I dunno...you mean President Obama doesn't have a proper solution...???



Immigration

That isn't my question. My question is a logistical and practical one.

 

[Artevelde]

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.

Where in the Arizona law does the State of Arizona tell the Federal authorities what to do. The only thing the law does is facilitate the enforcement of Federal law. How is that against the supremacy clause?

I also notice you didn't answer my question.

 

[Valerie]

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?

I dunno...you mean President Obama doesn't have a proper solution...???



Immigration

That isn't my question. My question is a logistical and practical one.

Just teasin'

 

[jillian]

I dunno...you mean President Obama doesn't have a proper solution...???



Immigration

That isn't my question. My question is a logistical and practical one.

Just teasin'

I hear ya...

But I'm serious about this question. It's clear that AZ can't compel the Feds to spend dollar one.... It's clear that AZ can't determine how the Feds enforce laws; Its clear that if 50 states pass 50 different immigration laws, the Feds won't have to do anything for any of them.

so I'm not quite sure what the entire point of not striking down this nonsense would be from a purely logistal pov.

 

[Artevelde]

Can somebody explain what the compelling interest is of the Federal Government to oppose measures taken by a State government in support of the enforcement of Federal law?

 

[Artevelde]

That isn't my question. My question is a logistical and practical one.

Just teasin'

I hear ya...

But I'm serious about this question. It's clear that AZ can't compel the Feds to spend dollar one.... It's clear that AZ can't determine how the Feds enforce laws; Its clear that if 50 states pass 50 different immigration laws, the Feds won't have to do anything for any of them.

so I'm not quite sure what the entire point of not striking down this nonsense would be from a purely logistal pov.

The Arizona law doesn't change Federal immigration law. What you write is completely beside the point. The question is why the Federal government wouldn't want to enforce its own laws.

 

[jillian]

Just teasin'

I hear ya...

But I'm serious about this question. It's clear that AZ can't compel the Feds to spend dollar one.... It's clear that AZ can't determine how the Feds enforce laws; Its clear that if 50 states pass 50 different immigration laws, the Feds won't have to do anything for any of them.

so I'm not quite sure what the entire point of not striking down this nonsense would be from a purely logistal pov.

The Arizona law doesn't change Federal immigration law. What you write is completely beside the point. The question is why the Federal government wouldn't want to enforce its own laws.

No. You're the one missing the point. We're talking not about what the Fed WANTS to do, but what the state can FORCE it to do.

Try again.

 

[jillian]

Can somebody explain what the compelling interest is of the Federal Government to oppose measures taken by a State government in support of the enforcement of Federal law?

That's not the standard in this instance. In fact, it's irrelevant from a legal perspective.

 

[Artevelde]

I hear ya...

But I'm serious about this question. It's clear that AZ can't compel the Feds to spend dollar one.... It's clear that AZ can't determine how the Feds enforce laws; Its clear that if 50 states pass 50 different immigration laws, the Feds won't have to do anything for any of them.

so I'm not quite sure what the entire point of not striking down this nonsense would be from a purely logistal pov.

The Arizona law doesn't change Federal immigration law. What you write is completely beside the point. The question is why the Federal government wouldn't want to enforce its own laws.

Where in the Arizona law does it force the Federal government to do anything that it isn't forced to do by existing Federal law?

No. You're the one missing the point. We're talking not about what the Fed WANTS to do, but what the state can FORCE it to do.

Try again.

Where in the Arizona law is the Federal government forced to do anything? How does this law force the Federal government to do anything it isn't forced to do by existing federal law?

 

[Artevelde]

Can somebody explain what the compelling interest is of the Federal Government to oppose measures taken by a State government in support of the enforcement of Federal law?

That's not the standard in this instance. In fact, it's irrelevant from a legal perspective.

It's tough having to wriggle yourself out of this hypocrisy isn't it?

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Jillian, I do not think that the Federal Government would be required to do anything if Arizona picks up a person that is in the state unlawfully.

However, that precepitates another view point. If Arizona has a law which says that you must be a citizen of the United States OR a lawful alien, then the person who is in Arizona unlawfully could be arrested for violating the STATE law. In other words, the enforcement of immigration laws would not be specifically the sole jurisdiction of Federal agencies or courts. Since the Arizona law mirrors federal immigration law (that is simply not enforced) Arizona could enforce it's own at the state level.

So, all of those illegal aliens could be arrested and sent to jail. But here is another question. The state of Arizona is a sovereign state within the United States. The relationship between the states and the United States federal government is a complex one. Could Arizona legally 'deport' someone? It wouldn't necessarily mean back across the border with Mexico. Might they be able to 'deport' someone to Texas, New Mexico, or Colorado? I doubt it, but I don't know why.

All I know is that the Federal Government has abdicated it's right to claim sole jurisdiction in the matters of immigration. If it will not even enforce the laws on the books now, then it is up to the states themselves to look out for their citizens. Every President since the first Bush is culpable in this fiasco, not just Barry.

 

[Ravi]

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....