A Practical Question About the AZ Law

[bigrebnc1775]

No disrespect intended, but your wall of words post does not address a single thing I said.

Just answer the question. Be specific. Tell me what provision of the AZ law conflicts with ANY provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

I don't think you can point to even one portion of it that does. But if you can, that provision should then fall. Severability would save the balance of the Act.

Wasn't Arizona's immigration law written almost word for word of the Federal law?

Honestly, I don't think so. I have had the misfortune to try to decipher the gibberish of big portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It's on par with the ******* Tax code.

The Arizona law is only 16 pages long.

But its own words reveal that the Arizona lawmakers were intent on adhering to Federal law. They know they can't go further than the Federal law, since the Feds have presumptively pre-empted that field of law. But they can make sure that they forbid the political subdivisions of the State from making any laws or rules that don't go as FAR as the Federal Act. And that's what they start off with:

S.B. 1070
- 1 -
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Intent
3 The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the
4 cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of
5 Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
7 government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to
8 work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of
9 aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United
10 States.
11 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
12 adding article 8, to read:
13 ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
15 immigration laws; indemnification
16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

-- http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Let me correct myself. What I meant was, isn't the main portion of the Arizona law the same as the Federal law? The part obama is trying to get removed?

 

[Liability]

Wasn't Arizona's immigration law written almost word for word of the Federal law?

Honestly, I don't think so. I have had the misfortune to try to decipher the gibberish of big portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It's on par with the ******* Tax code.

The Arizona law is only 16 pages long.

But its own words reveal that the Arizona lawmakers were intent on adhering to Federal law. They know they can't go further than the Federal law, since the Feds have presumptively pre-empted that field of law. But they can make sure that they forbid the political subdivisions of the State from making any laws or rules that don't go as FAR as the Federal Act. And that's what they start off with:

S.B. 1070
- 1 -
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Intent
3 The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the
4 cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of
5 Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
7 government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to
8 work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of
9 aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United
10 States.
11 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
12 adding article 8, to read:
13 ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
15 immigration laws; indemnification
16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

-- http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Let me correct myself. What I meant was, isn't the main portion of the Arizona law the same as the Federal law? The part obama is trying to get removed?

It is unclear what the Administration's "basis" is to attack the law.

If they pretend to be worried about the principle of Federal preemption, then it would be incumbent on them to show how the AZ law transgresses anything in the Immigration and Nationality Act. But they can't do that.

In section after section and clause after clause, the AZ law makes it CLEAR that Arizona lawmakers recognize that the Federal role on the topic is the guiding role due to the supremacy clause. They CITE the FEDERAL LAW in the STATE LAW.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Article 8, Section 11- 1051 http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

And time and time again they make explicit reference to the FEDERAL Immigration authorities:

27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
3 STATE.
4 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
5 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL
6 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
7 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER
10 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Combine what the law actually says with the correct interpretation of the law as set forth in the Landmark Legal Amicus brief, and the result is clear.

The Arizona Law does not conflict with the Federal Immigration Laws. There is no violation of the Supremacy clause. There is no valid reason for the Administration's efforts to void the AZ law.

This pandering and overly-politicized Administration is engaging in cheap political theater, but at the cost of sound public policy.

 

[Navy1960]

Congress has legislated that state
and local officers may undertake federal immigration officer functions
only under the strict supervision and
control of federal agencies. Arizona ignores these limits,
demonstrated by the fact that Sections 2(B) and 6 of S.B.
1070 authorize Arizona offi cers to perform immigrationoffi
cer functions, subject to state oversight only.

SB1070 Sec 2B

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).



Additionally, Congress has created a comprehensive
national immigrant registration scheme and repeatedly
rejected proposals to criminalize mere unlawful presence.
Arizona distorts this scheme by adding its own alien
registration penalties in Section 3 of S.B. 1070 that, in
effect, criminalize unlawful presence in Arizona.

SB1070 Sec 3

42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:

44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization
has long been remarked as a fault in our system,
and as laying a foundation for intricate and
delicate questions . . . . The new Constitution
has accordingly, with great propriety, made
provision against [adverse consequences
resulting from such dissimilarity] . . . by
authorizing the general government to establish
a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the
United States. James Madison

Representative Christopher Cox of California, one
of the principal co-authors of Section 1357(g), responded:
I note in response to my colleague from
California’s concerns that the Attorney General
will enter into agreements with States requiring
ongoing Federal supervision of these efforts so
that everything will be conducted under the
watch of the INS and the Attorney General in
conformity with Federal standards.

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Grijalva SB 1070 Amicus Brief.pdf

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

8 USC 1357

(5)With respect to each officer or employee of a State or political subdivision who is authorized to perform a function under this subsection, the specific powers and duties that may be, or are required to be, exercised or performed by the individual, the duration of the authority of the individual, and the position of the agency of the Attorney General who is required to supervise and direct the individual, shall be set forth in a written agreement between the Attorney General and the State or political subdivision.

Again, it's real clear that ANY agreement as it applies to authority given to a State official is done so under the authority of the Attorney General and not by a law that preempts that agreement. You asked for specifics I gave you more than specifics. One more thing, anyone can file a brief to this case so I would wait for a decision before I would start using the words Landmark in association with any brief filed by one party or the other. While it's very hard to understand by some that when a state sets up a co-equal scheme of legal enforcement that is actually preemptive of Federal Law , especially if that area of the law is spelled out clearly in the constitution and Immigration is one of those things. There is also that legal standard I mentioned above "occupies the field" in which a state sets up a scheme in which the laws they pass occupy the same established field that Federal Law do and in this case that is clear as well. The 9th while not always right, and in many cases I tend to disagree with them in this case they made a proper decision to hold that Sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6 of S.B. 1070 are preempted
by federal law. Again as I said before I tend to think however based on the sheer bumbling of the Govt. in this case before the Court, all more most of this law will likely be upheld.

 

[jillian]

so now that the decision has come down, and many of the major provisions have been struck down, what is the reality of enforcement of the remaining 'papers please' provision?

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whit- ing, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88, 115. Intent can be in- ferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Con- gress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. San- ta Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. Pp. 7–8.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182.pdf