Violation of Arizona law to be illegally in the US!

[Coito ergo sum]

Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.

This is going to be subject, for sure, to federal court litigation because the federal government, I believe, claims that it "preempts the field" of legislation regarding immigration.

This is a thorny issue, however, because a "little known fact" (as Cliff Clavin used to say) is that there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives the federal government the authority, let alone the sole authority, to regulate immigration. Here's the Constitution - check for yourself - http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution - most people, left and right and center alike, assume that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to make laws about immigration - but, it's not in there. Not a peep about it.

The Supreme Court of the US weighed in in 1889 in Chae Chan Ping v. United States, where the SCOTUS said that the Congress had the inherent power to exclude aliens if it wanted to, because the preservation of US independence and security were the highest duties of the federal government, all other things being subordinate. The exclusion of aliens falls within this ambit. But, again, that's just what the Supreme Court said - it had no Constitutional basis for it. But, it also did not rule that states could also not make it illegal under state law to be in a State illegally.

So, what's the deal here - can Arizona make it an offense under Arizona law, and arrest people, who are not lawfully present in the State of Arizona?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Strict interpretation" vs. "Loose interpretation". Old news.

[Coito ergo sum]

"Strict interpretation" vs. "Loose interpretation". Old news.

No no....not at all....it's not that simple.

Many "strict constructionists" would say that the federal government has the power to regulate immigration, even though the Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about it! And, strict constructionists would normally say that the 10th Amendment leaves any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and to the people. A true strict constructionist would need to say that it is the STATES that have the right to regulate immigration! Yet, it's the strict constructionist conservatives who tend to want a strong, pervasive FEDERAL regulation of immigration - like federal walls -- federal criminal prosecutions and deportations, etc.

A "loose constructionist" is required in order to vest the federal government with the power to regulate immigration. We have to examine "inherent powers" of a national government, and combine provisions in the Constitution to "interpret" them to include various powers like immigration regulation.

A loose constructionist may or may not, however, conclude that State governments do not have the power to regulate immigration into their state from outside the country. Why can't Arizona have its own immigration law, for example?

This is a far more thorny and complex issue than a standard "conservatives/strict construction" vs. "liberal/living document" polarity.

[Coito ergo sum]

"Strict interpretation" vs. "Loose interpretation". Old news.

Which side do you come down on and why?

Does the federal government have the Constitutional authority to regulate immigration? If so, where does it get that power?

Does Arizona have the power to make it illegal for a person to be in Arizona while not lawfully in the US? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Strict interpretation" vs. "Loose interpretation". Old news.

No no....not at all....it's not that simple.

Many "strict constructionists" would say that the federal government has the power to regulate immigration, even though the Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about it! And, strict constructionists would normally say that the 10th Amendment leaves any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and to the people. A true strict constructionist would need to say that it is the STATES that have the right to regulate immigration! Yet, it's the strict constructionist conservatives who tend to want a strong, pervasive FEDERAL regulation of immigration - like federal walls -- federal criminal prosecutions and deportations, etc.

A "loose constructionist" is required in order to vest the federal government with the power to regulate immigration. We have to examine "inherent powers" of a national government, and combine provisions in the Constitution to "interpret" them to include various powers like immigration regulation.

A loose constructionist may or may not, however, conclude that State governments do not have the power to regulate immigration into their state from outside the country. Why can't Arizona have its own immigration law, for example?

This is a far more thorny and complex issue than a standard "conservatives/strict construction" vs. "liberal/living document" polarity.

What makes you think strict vs. loose is at all simple? It puts food on the table for legions of bloodsuckers lawyers.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Strict interpretation" vs. "Loose interpretation". Old news.

Which side do you come down on and why?

Does the federal government have the Constitutional authority to regulate immigration? If so, where does it get that power?

Does Arizona have the power to make it illegal for a person to be in Arizona while not lawfully in the US? If so, why? If not, why not?

Actually, I'm in the give-a-fuck group. Constitutional law is too esoteric for simple old me. And I plan to keep it that way.

[Coito ergo sum]

"Strict interpretation" vs. "Loose interpretation". Old news.

No no....not at all....it's not that simple.

Many "strict constructionists" would say that the federal government has the power to regulate immigration, even though the Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about it! And, strict constructionists would normally say that the 10th Amendment leaves any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and to the people. A true strict constructionist would need to say that it is the STATES that have the right to regulate immigration! Yet, it's the strict constructionist conservatives who tend to want a strong, pervasive FEDERAL regulation of immigration - like federal walls -- federal criminal prosecutions and deportations, etc.

A "loose constructionist" is required in order to vest the federal government with the power to regulate immigration. We have to examine "inherent powers" of a national government, and combine provisions in the Constitution to "interpret" them to include various powers like immigration regulation.

A loose constructionist may or may not, however, conclude that State governments do not have the power to regulate immigration into their state from outside the country. Why can't Arizona have its own immigration law, for example?

This is a far more thorny and complex issue than a standard "conservatives/strict construction" vs. "liberal/living document" polarity.

What makes you think strict vs. loose is at all simple?

I think I just got through stating that it was not that simple....

It puts food on the table for legions of bloodsuckers lawyers.

Damn lawyers!!!

[Martok]

I assume this will be challenged in court.

Didn't a similar law get struck down by the courts a couple years ago?

[Coito ergo sum]

I assume this will be challenged in court.

Didn't a similar law get struck down by the courts a couple years ago?

I think this is different. As I recall there were other laws that dealt with witholding benefits from those illegally in the US. I think they are generally struck down on equal protection grounds unless the State can demonstrate that it's reasonably related to an important governmental interest.

[mozg]

What about the damages done on ranches in Arizona when people illegally crossing the border actually make it across? They're in the middle of nowhere, and they start cutting irrigation lines to get water, leaving trash and dirty diapers everywhere, and causing financial damage by destroying the property of the people who own the ranches.

The federal government doesn't do much of anything about it, so perhaps the Arizona laws will help Arizona authorities catch people illegally crossing the border and prevent them from causing all manner of destruction.

[Coito ergo sum]

What about the damages done on ranches in Arizona when people illegally crossing the border actually make it across? They're in the middle of nowhere, and they start cutting irrigation lines to get water, leaving trash and dirty diapers everywhere, and causing financial damage by destroying the property of the people who own the ranches.

The federal government doesn't do much of anything about it, so perhaps the Arizona laws will help Arizona authorities catch people illegally crossing the border and prevent them from causing all manner of destruction.

They should abide by the law and not cross.

I really have no understanding of the "pro illegal immigrant" position. We have reasonable immigration laws, looser than many countries actually, and very lax enforcement, and yet somehow we are the bad guys in wanting to keep out people who are knowingly breaking the law. I don't get it.

I couldn't be more pro-immigrant. I am a child of immigrants. I have a sibling who is an immigrant. I have uncles and cousins who are immigrants. I am going to marry an immigrant. But, if people are here illegally, I think they should go home and apply through the regular process like everyone else has to.

Calling an opposition to illegal immigration "racism" and all that rot is fucking insulting. I don't care if my cousin or uncle came here illegally - if they did, I'd say - "guess you gotta go back home for a while, until you can come here legally."

[NineOneFour]

Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.

This is going to be subject, for sure, to federal court litigation because the federal government, I believe, claims that it "preempts the field" of legislation regarding immigration.

This is a thorny issue, however, because a "little known fact" (as Cliff Clavin used to say) is that there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives the federal government the authority, let alone the sole authority, to regulate immigration. Here's the Constitution - check for yourself - http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution - most people, left and right and center alike, assume that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to make laws about immigration - but, it's not in there. Not a peep about it.

The Supreme Court of the US weighed in in 1889 in Chae Chan Ping v. United States, where the SCOTUS said that the Congress had the inherent power to exclude aliens if it wanted to, because the preservation of US independence and security were the highest duties of the federal government, all other things being subordinate. The exclusion of aliens falls within this ambit. But, again, that's just what the Supreme Court said - it had no Constitutional basis for it. But, it also did not rule that states could also not make it illegal under state law to be in a State illegally.

So, what's the deal here - can Arizona make it an offense under Arizona law, and arrest people, who are not lawfully present in the State of Arizona?

No, all they did was pass feel-good legislation to gin up the racist idiots and act like they give a shit about regular folks who are concerned about immigration.

There is only one thing in the Arizona law that isn't in federal law. It's total bullshit.

They think they can have police officers check for immigration status and pull people over for no reason. It's called "driving while brown" and it's not going to fly in an actual court of law, which resides in reality, unlike most politicians, most conservatives, and most Arizonans.

Glad I got out of that damn hellhole.

[Trolldor]

"guess you gotta go back home for a while, until you can come here legally."

Yeah, because every illegal immigrant can just 'go back'. Totally not like there's going to be any danger.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I hereby formally object to the illegal immigrants who landed in "New England" in the 16th and 17th Centuries. The buggers ought to go home NOW!

And don't get me started on the Siberian Land Bridge.

[Coito ergo sum]

"guess you gotta go back home for a while, until you can come here legally."

Yeah, because every illegal immigrant can just 'go back'. Totally not like there's going to be any danger.

There are asylum procedures for that.

I never said every illegal immigrant can just "go back." But, the vast majority can go back.