....nor shall ANY STATE deprive ANY PERSON

[Foxfyre]

I pronounce this thread interesting.

 

[Liability]

You all know, of course, that what we are kicking around in great (and most interesting) detail on this thread - illegal detention under the new AZ law - is not the issue that is going to bring this law into the appellate courts.

That issue is: the AZ law usurps Federal law.

But this other stuff is so much more fun to yak about . . .

The Az law doesn't "usurp" anything.

You do realize, don't you, that the states and local enforcement have a concomitant right to pass laws regarding the enforcement of laws?I mean, properly and technically speaking, the Constitution DOES grant to the FEDERAL Government the power over Naturalization, but it doesn't mention IMMIGRATION at all. Furthermore, all powers and authority not grantted explicitly to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and/or to the People, respectively.

If Arizona had pretended to pass a law legalizing any illegal immigrant from Mexico, THAT would be prohibited since Congress under the Constitution was granted the authority to legislate on matters of naturalization.

Article 1,Section 8:
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization

But you overlook the legal concept known as "concurrent enforcement." In brief, that legal concept holds that, provided that the State law doesn't CONFLICT with Federal enactments on the matter, the States retain their own sovereign authority over immigration matters. And we need only worry about that if the power of Immigration matters is deemed an inherent component of the sovereign Federal Government authority related to Naturalization.

The authority of the STATES to legislate over matters of immigrants is recognized IN Federal Law. See, for example:

§ 1251. Original jurisdiction

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

In fact, upon reflecting on the topic a bit more fully, I'd like to know the basis for the claim that the States are somehow barred from exercising their own (retained) sovereign power in this area?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You do realize, don't you, that the states and local enforcement have a concomitant right to pass laws regarding the enforcement of laws?I mean, properly and technically speaking, the Constitution DOES grant to the FEDERAL Government the power over Naturalization, but it doesn't mention IMMIGRATION at all. Furthermore, all powers and authority not grantted explicitly to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and/or to the People, respectively.

Yeah - but the crime in this case is one that occurs at the point of entry. It is not illegal to reside here without papers, only illegal to enter. Does the federal government not exercise exclusive jurisdiction over our borders?

 

[Liability]

Who cares what you have some alleged "feeling" about?

Since you are responding to my statement, I would guess, you, for one.

You have guessed incorrectly. I was using the rhetorical tool of sarcasm. Translated into something simple enough for you to grasp, it becomes: "you are entitled to your erroneous, ignorant and vapid opinions."

A frivolous lawsuit is one with no VALID underlying legal basis.

You wouldn't understand that.

Its not hard to understand. My wife explained it to me her first year in law school.

Then you are unduly confused about it now for some reason. Probably just because you don't much care for the fact that some suits ARE frivolous even if you do root for the Plaintiff for improper partisan political reasons.

 

[Liability]

You do realize, don't you, that the states and local enforcement have a concomitant right to pass laws regarding the enforcement of laws?I mean, properly and technically speaking, the Constitution DOES grant to the FEDERAL Government the power over Naturalization, but it doesn't mention IMMIGRATION at all. Furthermore, all powers and authority not grantted explicitly to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and/or to the People, respectively.

Yeah - but the crime in this case is one that occurs at the point of entry. It is not illegal to reside here without papers, only illegal to enter. Does the federal government not exercise exclusive jurisdiction over our borders?

Do you have some rational basis for believing that the Federal Government has some exclusive jurisdiction over who may live in the State of Arizona?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I was using the rhetorical tool of sarcasm.

How ironic.

 

[Liability]

I was using the rhetorical tool of sarcasm.

How ironic.

It isn't "irony" just because you are too feeble to grasp it. That's just S.O.P.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Do you have some rational basis for believing that the Federal Government has some exclusive jurisdiction over who may live in the State of Arizona?

Is it against state law in Arizona to reside without properly documentation? Because if it isn't, I don't see how the jurisdiction doesn't go to the border itself. Excepting in the case where someone who has previously been deported is residing illegal (which is a felony), its not a crime to reside in the U.S. without papers - so if its not a state crime either, then I don't see where their jurisdiction comes from.



If the states have jurisdiction over their borders with other nations - then why doesn't the Texas state police bust American citizens coming over the border with prescription narcotics? It is against state law in Texas to possess controlled substances even if they have a prescription from a doctor in Mexico. It is not a federal crime to do this however. So when you go through the border, you can declare your prescription narcotics, and they will allow you to enter without arrest. if you are caught by Texas state police, however, you will wind up in jail.

So why doesn't the Texas state police just set up shop right on the border with the feds?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I was using the rhetorical tool of sarcasm.

How ironic.

It isn't "irony" just because you are too feeble to grasp it. That's just S.O.P.

Are you a law student?

 

[Liability]

Do you have some rational basis for believing that the Federal Government has some exclusive jurisdiction over who may live in the State of Arizona?

Is it against state law in Arizona to reside without properly documentation? Because if it isn't, I don't see how the jurisdiction doesn't go to the border itself. Excepting in the case where someone who has previously been deported is residing illegal (which is a felony), its not a crime to reside in the U.S. without papers - so if its not a state crime either, then I don't see where their jurisdiction comes from.



If the states have jurisdiction over their borders with other nations - then why doesn't the Texas state police bust American citizens coming over the border with prescription narcotics? It is against state law in Texas to possess controlled substances even if they have a prescription from a doctor in Mexico. It is not a federal crime to do this however. So when you go through the border, you can declare your prescription narcotics, and they will allow you to enter without arrest. if you are caught by Texas state police, however, you will wind up in jail.

So why doesn't the Texas state police just set up shop right on the border with the feds?

First of all, it is a FEDERAL responsibility to protect the people from alien invasions. If they are failing to do so, because they couldn't be bothered with the challenge of actually protecting our national borders, then the sovereign States still RETAIN their own sovereign responsibility to protect the people.

Secondly people are citizens of the United States (assuming they are citizens in the first place, that is) AND OF THE STATES IN WHICH THEY RESIDE. The rights of citizens to have their respective sovereigns perform their respective duties shouldn't be so cavalierly dismissed by your petulant little arguments.

Thirdly, if a person's first act in the United States is to violate the law, then their very presence here remains an ongoing crime. By what conceivable theory of governance can you pretend that the States who would then have to have these law-breakers residing within their borders have no authority with regard to those law-breakers? Arizona or Texas or California may not be able to ship an illegal off to another land (that matter BEING actually pre-empted already by existing Federal Law). But they SHOULD be able to ship them over to the FEDS! And that's all the Arizona law does.

Let us say for the sake of discussion that some dufus known as Spiderman Booba is an illegal alien. Because he entered illegally into the USA, and is residing illegally IN the USA (and in, say, Arizona), he naturally has no fucking "papers" such as a visa. Nobody ever asks Spiderman Booba to produce any such papers, either. So he continuously gets away with his behavior and likes it that way. But one day, because he drove his car like an asshole, the police pull his illegal alien ass over. During the police/"motorist" encounter, the police take note of Spiderman Booba's odd alien accent. And being an illegal alien, he has no valid Az driver's license and never bothered to register his car or get any motor vehicle insurance. These things suggest -- reasonably -- to the officers that Spiderman Booba might be here illegally. SO they demand his visa or green card. Of course, being here illegally, Spiderman Booba can't produce what he had never had.

Question: what "right" of Spiderman Booba's has allegedly been "violated" in that scenario?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

First of all, it is a FEDERAL responsibility to protect the people from alien invasions.

Sure, but isn't that more NASA and the Air Force's job? I mean I'm sure Arizona cops are bad ass any everything, but I doubt they'd be any match for a fleet of Cylon base ships.

If they are failing to do so, because they couldn't be bothered with the challenge of actually protecting our national borders, then the sovereign States still RETAIN their own sovereign responsibility to protect the people.

Case law? Or is this new ground?

Thirdly, if a person's first act in the United States is to violate the law, then their very presence here remains an ongoing crime.

I don't see how that follows. If my first act in the morning is to wake up and buy a crack rock and smoke it, does that mean I'm participating in an ongoing criminal act for the rest of my life?

By what conceivable theory of governance can you pretend that the States who would then have to have these law-breakers residing within their borders have no authority with regard to those law-breakers?

I've already told you. Because the crime took place on the border, within federal jurisdiction.

Arizona or Texas or California may not be able to ship an illegal off to another land (that matter BEING actually pre-empted already by existing Federal Law). But they SHOULD be able to ship them over to the FEDS! And that's all the Arizona law does.

Are the feds under a legal obligation to accept any prisoner Arizona give them?

Because he entered illegally into the USA, and is residing illegally IN the USA (and in, say, Arizona),

Please show me the law that makes it a crime to reside here without papers. Thank you.



P.S. how many more years do you have left in law school?

 

[Liability]

First of all, it is a FEDERAL responsibility to protect the people from alien invasions.

Sure, but isn't that more NASA and the Air Force's job? I mean I'm sure Arizona cops are bad ass any everything, but I doubt they'd be any match for a fleet of Cylon base ships.

Oh. I get it. Alien. Good one.

But ET and Mexican are not the same kind of alien. And when we have been invaded by millions of human aliens, we can worry later-on about extra-terrestrials.

If they are failing to do so, because they couldn't be bothered with the challenge of actually protecting our national borders, then the sovereign States still RETAIN their own sovereign responsibility to protect the people.

Case law? Or is this new ground?

It's the Constitution. That's okay, kid. Again, I wouldn't expect you to track the conversation.

I don't see how that follows. If my first act in the morning is to wake up and buy a crack rock and smoke it, does that mean I'm participating in an ongoing criminal act for the rest of my life?

No but each day you do that your first act of the day does constitute a criminal act. YOur "comparison" is silly. A better comparison would be filing your tax return. If you made 200,000.00 last year, all other things being equal, you probably should have paid taxes. IF you didn't, you will have had a real bad day when you finally filed your Tax Return. What's that you say? You didn't bother to file your tax return when you know you owe money? Wow. That's an ONGOING criminal act. Every day you fail to file is a continuation of the original failure to file. You could be picked up at any time. No statute of limitations to save you, either. Poor you. So, tell me how THAT is substantively different than entering here and remaining here illegally from Mexico?

I've already told you. Because the crime took place on the border, within federal jurisdiction.

The original ENTRY crime took place there. The ongoing presence HERE inside the USA takes place continuously AWAY from the border. Try to keep up.

Arizona or Texas or California may not be able to ship an illegal off to another land (that matter BEING actually pre-empted already by existing Federal Law). But they SHOULD be able to ship them over to the FEDS! And that's all the Arizona law does.

Are the feds under a legal obligation to accept any prisoner Arizona give them?

Are the Feds obligated to comply with their own laws, you mean? Hm. Real poser. "The Attorney General SHALL take into custody any alien who --
(A) is inadmissible by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) of this title,
(B) is deportable by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 1227(1)(2)(A)(ii), (A)(ii),(B),(C), or (D) of this title,
(C) is deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) of this title on the basis of an offense for which the alien has been sentence[d] to a term of impisionment of at least 1 year, or
(D) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(3)(B) of this title or deportable under section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title, when * * * *"

So the Feds do assume under their own law the duty to take SOME individuals into custody from Arizona or elsewhere, but it does not appear that they have a duty to do so in ALL cases.

Because he entered illegally into the USA, and is residing illegally IN the USA (and in, say, Arizona),

Please show me the law that makes it a crime to reside here without papers. Thank you.

The crime was committed, as you noted earlier, upon entry. So if BEING present here is not itself a crime (it should be, but let's stipulate that it's not a law they ever put on the books except, now, in Arizona), then it is still true that the person is a law-breaker and may be subject to arrest or detention, accordingly, even if mere illegal presence is not itself actionable.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's the Constitution.

Where?

No but each day you do that your first act of the day does constitute a criminal act. YOur "comparison" is silly. A better comparison would be filing your tax return. If you made 200,000.00 last year, all other things being equal, you probably should have paid taxes. IF you didn't, you will have had a real bad day when you finally filed your Tax Return. What's that you say? You didn't bother to file your tax return when you know you owe money? Wow. That's an ONGOING criminal act. Every day you fail to file is a continuation of the original failure to file. You could be picked up at any time. No statute of limitations to save you, either. Poor you. So, tell me how THAT is substantively different than entering here and remaining here illegally from Mexico?

Are you seriously claiming it qualifies as an ongoing criminal act based on an analogy you've come up with? As a law student, you should know this won't fly, especially when there is already case law on the matter.

Our interpretation is strengthened by reading § 1325 in conjunction with the other immigration laws. The language in the second clause, eluding "examination or inspection," has specific reference to immigration procedures conducted at the time of entry. This is made clear by sections 1224 and 1225 of 8 U.S.C. which provide for a medical examination and physical inspection of each entering alien. Because these examinations and inspections are to take place at the time of entry, a fixed point in time, this suggests that the offense described by § 1325(2) is consummated at the time an alien gains entry through an unlawful point and does not submit to these examinations.

See U.S. v. Rincon-Jimenez from the 9th Circuit.

Its only an appeals court, if you've got anything from the Supreme Court or another circuit on the matter I'd love to see it.

In this case the district court was ordered to dismiss the indictment on the basis the statue of limitations had run out - Jimenez had been here for 9 years, the limitation was 5.

 

[George Costanza]

You all know, of course, that what we are kicking around in great (and most interesting) detail on this thread - illegal detention under the new AZ law - is not the issue that is going to bring this law into the appellate courts.

That issue is: the AZ law usurps Federal law.

But this other stuff is so much more fun to yak about . . .

The Az law doesn't "usurp" anything.

You do realize, don't you, that the states and local enforcement have a concomitant right to pass laws regarding the enforcement of laws?I mean, properly and technically speaking, the Constitution DOES grant to the FEDERAL Government the power over Naturalization, but it doesn't mention IMMIGRATION at all. Furthermore, all powers and authority not grantted explicitly to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and/or to the People, respectively.

If Arizona had pretended to pass a law legalizing any illegal immigrant from Mexico, THAT would be prohibited since Congress under the Constitution was granted the authority to legislate on matters of naturalization.

Article 1,Section 8:
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization

But you overlook the legal concept known as "concurrent enforcement." In brief, that legal concept holds that, provided that the State law doesn't CONFLICT with Federal enactments on the matter, the States retain their own sovereign authority over immigration matters. And we need only worry about that if the power of Immigration matters is deemed an inherent component of the sovereign Federal Government authority related to Naturalization.

The authority of the STATES to legislate over matters of immigrants is recognized IN Federal Law. See, for example:

§ 1251. Original jurisdiction

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

In fact, upon reflecting on the topic a bit more fully, I'd like to know the basis for the claim that the States are somehow barred from exercising their own (retained) sovereign power in this area?

I hate to interrupt you while you are being publically embarrassed by Spiderman Tuba, but I think you need to be aware of the following:

First Lawsuit Filed to Challenge Arizona Immigration Law

The federal lawsuit, filed by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, alleged that the law improperly intruded into the federal government's ability to regulate immigration. The complaint seeks an injunction to keep the law, signed last week by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, from going into effect this summer.

The key legal issue, according to lawyers on both sides, will be one that also was at the center of the court fight over Proposition 187 in California — whether the state law interferes with the federal government's duty to handle immigration.

Arizona, illegal immigrants, law, lawsuit challenge - latimes.com

Possibly you did not understand the meaning of "usurp." Please do carry on.

 

[Contumacious]

Washington (CNN) -- Congressional Democrats made an impassioned plea on the steps of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday for Arizona's new immigration law to be overturned, citing constitutional concerns and other implications for the country.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

The liquor store reported that a masked black guy just held them up. A black guy, seeing the cops coming, ducks into an alley. They pursue and detain him for questioning.
Racial profiling? Or legitimate police work?

*****************************************

The farm truck has outdated tags or commits some other minor infraction. The highway patrol signals it to pull over. Some Hispanic looking guys in the back of the truck immediately bail out and dash into the bushes. The cop pursues them with intent to detain and question.

Racial profiling? Or legitimate police work?

******************************************

The lady reports that a young white guy just snatched her purse. The police look over all the young white guys in the vicinity and question any who seem the least bit evasive.

Racial profiling? Or legitimate police work?

******************************************

When I've found myself in the vicinity of a crime I've been stopped at checkpoints and have been asked to show my driver's license, registration, and sometimes insurance certificate. It is annoying if I happen to be in a hurry, but I would much rather suffer a bit of inconvenience rather than have bad guys go free. I have never felt that my rights were violated in any way - not even the night at 2 am when the highway patrol asked me to exit the car while he determined that I had not stolen my husband's leased company car that I was driving.

What constitutes unlawful search or detainment?

How much can be tie the hands of law enforcement to protect our rights before we lose other rights to those who intend to do violence to our persons or property?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The liquor store reported that a masked black guy just held them up. A black guy, seeing the cops coming, ducks into an alley. They pursue and detain him for questioning.
Racial profiling? Or legitimate police work?

*****************************************

The farm truck has outdated tags or commits some other minor infraction. The highway patrol signals it to pull over. Some Hispanic looking guys in the back of the truck immediately bail out and dash into the bushes. The cop pursues them with intent to detain and question.

Racial profiling? Or legitimate police work?

******************************************

The lady reports that a young white guy just snatched her purse. The police look over all the young white guys in the vicinity and question any who seem the least bit evasive.

Racial profiling? Or legitimate police work?

******************************************

When I've found myself in the vicinity of a crime I've been stopped at checkpoints and have been asked to show my driver's license, registration, and sometimes insurance certificate. It is annoying if I happen to be in a hurry, but I would much rather suffer a bit of inconvenience rather than have bad guys go free. I have never felt that my rights were violated in any way - not even the night at 2 am when the highway patrol asked me to exit the car while he determined that I had not stolen my husband's leased company car that I was driving.

What constitutes unlawful search or detainment?

How much can be tie the hands of law enforcement to protect our rights before we lose other rights to those who intend to do violence to our persons or property?

The cops have lawful jurisdiction in all these cases. Arizona cops do not have jurisdiction to enforce federal laws broken on their international border with Mexico - that's a federal area.

 

[rightwinger]

Even Karl Rove recognizes the unintended consequences of this law.

However, as a Democrat, go, boys, go. And use your most bigoted cops to enforce the law. Many Texas Republicans will lose the next election.

This should be fun...

The GOP was looking to do well in the 2010 elections

Hold out foot.........take aim..........FIRE!!

 

[George Costanza]

When I've found myself in the vicinity of a crime I've been stopped at checkpoints and have been asked to show my driver's license, registration, and sometimes insurance certificate. It is annoying if I happen to be in a hurry, but I would much rather suffer a bit of inconvenience rather than have bad guys go free.

I see - "Since I obey the law, I have nothing to fear." Not quite what the framers of the
4th Amendment had in mind, I'm afraid.

Of course you, as a law abiding citizen, aren't offended by check points - well, at least you don't mind them because you know they are designed to "do good." But suppose, just suppose, that you got stopped at a checkpoint with a small baggie of cocaine sticking out from your glove box. But for being stopped at a checkpoint, you would be on your way home or whatever. Instead, you are on your way to state prison.

I don't think you would feel quite the same about "checkpoints" were that the situation.

"But I am not a lawbreaker - I wouldn't possess cocaine." All well and good. But the cops don't know that as they pull your car over into a checkpoint. The whole point behind the
4th Amendment is that, before you can be detained, there has to be probable cause to do so. Checkpoints are detentions without probable cause that can (and often do) result in arrests, convictions and jail/prison time.

I am as much in favor of catching bad guys as anyone else - but not at the expense of the Constitution (you sweet thing . . . ).

 

[Foxfyre]

When I've found myself in the vicinity of a crime I've been stopped at checkpoints and have been asked to show my driver's license, registration, and sometimes insurance certificate. It is annoying if I happen to be in a hurry, but I would much rather suffer a bit of inconvenience rather than have bad guys go free.

I see - "Since I obey the law, I have nothing to fear." Not quite what the framers of the
4th Amendment had in mind, I'm afraid.

Of course you, as a law abiding citizen, aren't offended by check points - well, at least you don't mind them because you know they are designed to "do good." But suppose, just suppose, that you got stopped at a checkpoint with a small baggie of cocaine sticking out from your glove box. But for being stopped at a checkpoint, you would be on your way home or whatever. Instead, you are on your way to state prison.

I don't think you would feel quite the same about "checkpoints" were that the situation.

"But I am not a lawbreaker - I wouldn't possess cocaine." All well and good. But the cops don't know that as they pull your car over into a checkpoint. The whole point behind the
4th Amendment is that, before you can be detained, there has to be probable cause to do so. Checkpoints are detentions without probable cause that can (and often do) result in arrests, convictions and jail/prison time.

I am as much in favor of catching bad guys as anyone else - but not at the expense of the Constitution (you sweet thing . . . ).

Of course not, you handsome devil.

Those who don't like our laws and don't want to follow them will never look at law enforcement in the same way as those who accept the laws and don't intentionally break them. Bad or irresponsible people resent having the law enforced. Good or responsible people work to change bad law.

I have seen far more injustice, heartbreak, mayhem, and violence done to the innocent by those who don't obey the law than I've witnessed any problems for folks just minding their own business who inadvertently got caught up in the process. Is it worth fines, jail, prison in order to have that dime bag or a couple of joints? If so, the person might have worse problems than over zealous law enforcement.

I am the first to get my back up and demand justice and retribution when the police clearly absue their powers. And that does happen. But I also think the honest, dedicated cop who makes a mistake or suffers a lapse in judgment deserves a whole lot of leeway too.