California is to CARB as Arizona is to Immigration? Discuss

[Fenixgoon]

There was a recent autoblog article (http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/25/epa-dot-california-all-agree-on-timeframe-for-new-cafe-standar/) that discussed the implications of California's CARB, the EPA, and some other federal agency reaching a consensus on fuel economy and emissions standards, allowing for any vehicle to be sold in all 50 states (currently CA and MA, I believe, have additional equipment required to meet CARB standards).


Many people in the comments section argued that as long as California meets the federal government's standards, it can impose standards stricter than what the EPA regulates.

Seeing as this is the actual case - the existence of CARB and its own emission standards - why can't Arizona legislate immigration law within its borders so long as it complies with federal immigration law?

If you argue that immigration falls under federal purview, then clearly california is violating EPA mandates because emissions are governed through the EPA, which is a federal agency, and its standards should supersede any state-level legislation.

so is CARB illegitimate, or does AZ in fact have a right to legislate its own immigration law so long as it complies with federal law? or is there another option?

discuss.

 

[Patranus]

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/26/california-eyes-new-arizona-style-immigration-law

 

[Steeplerot]

The California GOP might as well pack up and move to Tennessee or Kansas. They are making themselves more and more irrelevant and reactionary daily with this talk radio cult propaganda. Soon they shall be a party of a few cowardly bitter old white true believers huddling around a bomb shelter in the woods of Kentucky listening to the radio wondering why everyone else are such "sheep".

 

[Fenixgoon]

The California GOP might as well pack up and move to Tennessee or Kansas. They are making themselves more and more irrelevant and reactionary daily with this talk radio cult propaganda. Soon they shall be a party of a few cowardly bitter old white true believers huddling around a bomb shelter in the woods of Kentucky listening to the radio wondering why everyone else are such "sheep".

edit: my bad, thought you were responding to my OP, not patranus' link

 

[sandorski]

How can Arizona have tougher Immigration Laws than the Feds? Are they going to reject Legal Green Card Carriers/Immigrants who don't/won't meet their Standard if they arrive from another State?

RE California: As far as I'm aware, the stricter emissions standards only apply to Products(Autos mainly)being Sold in the State. People entering from other States with Autos not meeting the standard are not forced to abandon their vehicles at the Border.

 

[CycloWizard]

How can Arizona have tougher Immigration Laws than the Feds? Are they going to reject Legal Green Card Carriers/Immigrants who don't/won't meet their Standard if they arrive from another State?

Enforcement.

 

[bfdd]

How can Arizona have tougher Immigration Laws than the Feds? Are they going to reject Legal Green Card Carriers/Immigrants who don't/won't meet their Standard if they arrive from another State?

RE California: As far as I'm aware, the stricter emissions standards only apply to Products(Autos mainly)being Sold in the State. People entering from other States with Autos not meeting the standard are not forced to abandon their vehicles at the Border.

This is true, but it allows California to be in a unique position. Since our economy is so strong and our market so big it allows us to force environmental standards on the rest of the country.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Because one has direct ties to the Constitution and the other is a local regulation that doesn't?

 

[Wreckem]

There was a recent autoblog article (http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/25/epa-dot-california-all-agree-on-timeframe-for-new-cafe-standar/) that discussed the implications of California's CARB, the EPA, and some other federal agency reaching a consensus on fuel economy and emissions standards, allowing for any vehicle to be sold in all 50 states (currently CA and MA, I believe, have additional equipment required to meet CARB standards).


Many people in the comments section argued that as long as California meets the federal government's standards, it can impose standards stricter than what the EPA regulates.

Seeing as this is the actual case - the existence of CARB and its own emission standards - why can't Arizona legislate immigration law within its borders so long as it complies with federal immigration law?

If you argue that immigration falls under federal purview, then clearly california is violating EPA mandates because emissions are governed through the EPA, which is a federal agency, and its standards should supersede any state-level legislation.

so is CARB illegitimate, or does AZ in fact have a right to legislate its own immigration law so long as it complies with federal law? or is there another option?

discuss.

CAFE is national legislation done under the commerce clause. Immigration is an enumerated power granted explicitly to the Feds.

States have to meet the minimum guidelines for federal legislation(think minimum wage). They can always go above and beyond the guidelines. States can never pass legislation the constitution explicitly, exclusively, grants to the Feds. They can enforce federal law to the extent the US enforces it.

 

[Wreckem]

Enforcement.

They can enforce it. But only to the extent the US enforces it. IE: They have to hand anyone over to INS, if INS chooses not to do something.They are SOL.

They cannot pass tougher immigration laws.

 

[chucky2]

If they can't pass tougher immigration laws, then why are they allowed to pass tougher environmental laws?

Seems the same thing to me. If Federal overrides state, then state should be passing no laws that are tougher or hit earlier than Federal laws.

You agree right?

Chuck

 

[Wreckem]

If they can't pass tougher immigration laws, then why are they allowed to pass tougher environmental laws?

Seems the same thing to me. If Federal overrides state, then state should be passing no laws that are tougher or hit earlier than Federal laws.

You agree right?

Chuck

Again, one is federal legislation, which states can pass higher standards(ala minimum wage, environmental standard, etc etc.) The other is a constitutional power limited SOLELY to the federal government.

 

[chucky2]

Sounds like the states need to start working together for some Amendments...call it the 21st Century Amendment Revitalization Evolution for the Constitution.

Who couldn't CARE about the Constitution?

P.S. I'm all for states rights, however, a state making up their own air quality standards like CARB does for national products being sold there is pretty F'ing stupid IMO. Essentially what we have, is CARB deciding what product the entire rest of the country will get. Not a good thing....

 

[Uhtrinity]

At the rise of air pollution via cars who had it the worst? They have one of the largest states with the largest cities, it is a state issue. States Rights unless I disagree with politics?

 

[chucky2]

And yet they let all those super green container ships sail right on into port...amazing...

 

[sactoking]

Again, one is federal legislation, which states can pass higher standards(ala minimum wage, environmental standard, etc etc.) The other is a constitutional power limited SOLELY to the federal government.

That's not technically correct.

One is Federal legislation derived from implied authority granted by the Commerce Clause, the other is Federal legislation derived from implied authority granted by the Naturalization Clause.

Technically the Constitution only enumerates the Federal government's ability to set citizenship standards and naturalization standards. The Fed's ability to set immigration standards (which differ materially from naturalization standards) is assumed to be contained in the Naturalization Clause, since it would not make sense for individual states to set baseline immigration standards that made it impossible for someone to meet the requirements for naturalization. However, immigration is not a truly enumerated power removed from the States.

OP's question (contention?) then is technically correct; any individual state should be allowed to set immigration standards tougher than those set by the Federal government but only to the extent that said standards do not interfere with an immigrant's ability to meet the requirements for naturalization.

I may be mistaken, but I'm under the belief that current naturalization law generally requires the applicant to be a legal immigrant. If the AZ law requires that an applicant carry their paperwork that would not generally impinge their naturalization 'rights'. If a legal immigrant failed to carry their paperwork and was arrested, and said arrest disqualified their naturalization candidacy, then the law would impinge upon their naturalization 'rights' and would be unconstitutional. If an immigrant were here illegally I have to assume they would not be naturalization candidates and so the law would not impinge their naturalization 'rights' and would pass muster.

Of course, this doesn't begin to touch upon the civil culture created by a law requiring an individual to always have their 'papers' on them. The thought of that conjures images from history and the media of some of the worst autocratic/authoritarian regimes in modern history.

 

[Harvey]

There was a recent autoblog article (http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/25/epa-dot-california-all-agree-on-timeframe-for-new-cafe-standar/) that discussed the implications of California's CARB, the EPA, and some other federal agency reaching a consensus on fuel economy and emissions standards, allowing for any vehicle to be sold in all 50 states (currently CA and MA, I believe, have additional equipment required to meet CARB standards).


Many people in the comments section argued that as long as California meets the federal government's standards, it can impose standards stricter than what the EPA regulates.

Seeing as this is the actual case - the existence of CARB and its own emission standards - why can't Arizona legislate immigration law within its borders so long as it complies with federal immigration law?

If you argue that immigration falls under federal purview, then clearly california is violating EPA mandates because emissions are governed through the EPA, which is a federal agency, and its standards should supersede any state-level legislation.

so is CARB illegitimate, or does AZ in fact have a right to legislate its own immigration law so long as it complies with federal law? or is there another option?

discuss.

What a crock of shit! How in hell can you pretend that California, or any state, controlling sources of deadly air pollution is in any way the equivalent of the issues involved in how Arizona deals with the Constitutional rights of human beings of a given ethnicity?

Of course, as a California native, I would support arresting and shipping all air pollution out of my home state to some backwater state or country that enjoys killing themselves with toxic crap produced by their under-engineered, machines and industrial processes.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/26/california-eyes-new-arizona-style-immigration-law

WTF??? How is that relevant to the OP's topic?

To clarify, it's a Faux Noise spin headline, "California Eyes New Arizona-Style Immigration Law."

Get a clue. This proposal from a minority Republican California legislator stands about as much chance of being "eyed" seriously as the proverbial snowball in hell... or even the non-hellish weather here, today, in the mid-70's.

 

[bfdd]

What a crock of shit! How in hell can you pretend that California, or any state, controlling sources of deadly air pollution is in any way the equivalent of the issues involved in how Arizona deals with the Constitutional rights of human beings of a given ethnicity?

Of course, as a California native, I would support arresting and shipping all air pollution out of my home state to some backwater state or country that enjoys killing themselves with toxic crap produced by their under-engineered, machines and industrial processes.



WTF??? How is that relevant to the OP's topic?

To clarify, it's a Faux Noise spin headline, "California Eyes New Arizona-Style Immigration Law."

Get a clue. This proposal from a minority Republican California legislator stands about as much chance of being "eyed" seriously as the proverbial snowball in hell... or even the non-hellish weather here, today, in the mid-70's.

if that was the only thing they had control over do you think people would be as noisy or are you one of those CO2 is a pollutant people?

 

[sandorski]

if that was the only thing they had control over do you think people would be as noisy or are you one of those CO2 is a pollutant people?

Excess CO2 is a pollutant, sorry.

 

[bfdd]

Excess CO2 is a pollutant, sorry.

Excess anything is a pollutant. God your post was stupid.

 

[sandorski]

Excess anything is a pollutant. God your post was stupid.

Negative, sorry.

 

[Fenixgoon]

What a crock of shit! How in hell can you pretend that California, or any state, controlling sources of deadly air pollution is in any way the equivalent of the issues involved in how Arizona deals with the Constitutional rights of human beings of a given ethnicity?

Of course, as a California native, I would support arresting and shipping all air pollution out of my home state to some backwater state or country that enjoys killing themselves with toxic crap produced by their under-engineered, machines and industrial processes.



WTF??? How is that relevant to the OP's topic?

To clarify, it's a Faux Noise spin headline, "California Eyes New Arizona-Style Immigration Law."

Get a clue. This proposal from a minority Republican California legislator stands about as much chance of being "eyed" seriously as the proverbial snowball in hell... or even the non-hellish weather here, today, in the mid-70's.

it is clear you missed the analogy. by setting its own emission standards, california state law supersedes what is set by the EPA (federal agency). this is deemed acceptable. therefore, in a similar capacity, why can't arizona enact its own immigration law so long as it complies with federal law?

 

[CycloWizard]

They can enforce it. But only to the extent the US enforces it. IE: They have to hand anyone over to INS, if INS chooses not to do something.They are SOL.

They cannot pass tougher immigration laws.

Is Arizona deporting people? I don't think so. I think they're tossing people caught via their new law to INS. Unless the cars sold in California are all produced there (which they aren't), regulations governing the sale of cars to California is interstate commerce.

 

[Harvey]

it is clear you missed the analogy. by setting its own emission standards, california state law supersedes what is set by the EPA (federal agency). this is deemed acceptable. therefore, in a similar capacity, why can't arizona enact its own immigration law so long as it complies with federal law?

I didn't miss the analogy. I just don't think it's valid. If I understand the immigration laws correctly, Federal law supersedes all state laws on the subject. The question is whether Federal law similarly supersedes state anti-pollution laws or whether California can impose stricter standards regarding pollution within its borders. Caifornia applied to the EPA to be allowed to impose stronger standards, and the matter was litigated. California has been granted an exemption from the federal government to promulgate its own automobile emissions standards.

USA

In the United States, emissions standards are managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The state of California has special dispensation to promulgate more stringent vehicle emissions standards, and other states may choose to follow either the national or California standards.

California's emissions standards are set by the California Air Resources Board, known locally by its acronym "CARB". Given that California's automotive market is one of the largest in the world, CARB wields enormous influence over the emissions requirements that major automakers must meet if they wish to sell into that market. In addition, several other U.S. states also choose to follow the CARB standards, so their rulemaking has broader implications within the U.S. How Stuff Works: CARB lists 16 other states adopting CARB rules as of mid 2009. CARB's policies have also influenced EU emissions standards.

Federal (National) "Tier 1" regulations went into effect starting in 1994, and "Tier 2" standards are being phased in from 2004 to 2009. Automobiles and light trucks (SUVs, pickup trucks, and minivans) are treated differently under certain standards.

California is attempting to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, but faces a court challenge from the federal government. The states are also attempting to compel the federal EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which as of 2007 it has declined to do. On May 19, 2009 news reports indicate that the Federal EPA will largely adopt California's standards on greenhouse gas emissions.

California and several other western states have passed bills requiring performance-based regulation of greenhouse gases from electricity generation.

In an effort to decrease emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines faster, the California Air Resources Board's Carl Moyer Program funds upgrades that are in advance of regulations.

The EPA has separate regulations for small engines, such as groundskeeping equipment. The states must also promulgate miscellaneous emissions regulations in order to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

We must be doing something right because other states have followed California's lead and applied for similar permission.

Motor vehicles

Due to its preexisting standards and particularly severe motor vehicle air pollution problems in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, the U.S. state of California has special dispensation from the federal government to promulgate its own automobile emissions standards. Other states may choose to follow either the national standard or the stricter California standards. States following the California standards include Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona (as well as the District of Columbia and Bernalillo County, New Mexico) and are frequently referred to as "CARB states" in automotive discussions since the regulations are defined by the California Air Resources Board.

Conversely, the Federal govenment has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration laws. Arizona can challenge that in court, but to date, there is no statute, Constitutional provision or judicial decision that would legitimize individual legislation on the subject by Arizona or any other state.

if that was the only thing they had control over do you think people would be as noisy or are you one of those CO2 is a pollutant people?

If you had any knowledge on the subject, you might not be as noisy. Are you just one of those idiots who deny that excess CO2 is contributing to climate change, or are you just a vegetable that breathes CO2?

 

[Zebo]

What does what California AQ have to do with federal citizenship? Or are you one of those state citizenship guys? I knew a guy like that, said he was a state citizen, IRS took all his assets and gave him a 2 year cool off period.