US tries to block states' immigration laws

[Darwin333]

Because the INA specifically states that state law enforcement and resources operate in immigration related actions under the supervision and direction of the federal Attorney General. In these cases, state officials are acting under a separate state authority outside of the Attorney General, and that runs afoul of federal law.

Can a state sue the Federal government for any and all economic harm that the Federal governments lack of enforcement, along with its restriction of States enforcing, these laws?

Seems to me that if they demand all the responsibility that they should own it especially considering that they are actively trying to prevent states from remedying the situation themselves.

 

[Jaskalas]

Nothing happened to state sovereignty, immigration policy is a federal issue, not a state one. The states are attempting to execute a power grab and exceed those powers authorized to them under the Constitution, and it is quite likely they will be slapped down for it.

The "power grab" is needed because the Feds REFUSE to enforce their own laws.

Their laws? The protection of our home from foreign invasion is a natural law. Refusal to enforce the sovereignty of the national border will force others to do it in their stead. Attack people defending their homes, and you will have a revolution.

 

[Kadarin]

This won't ever be fixed, sadly. The Democrats crave the Hispanic vote, and the Republicans are sucking the dicks of business interests that like having an exploitable class of near slave labor.

 

[fskimospy]

Can a state sue the Federal government for any and all economic harm that the Federal governments lack of enforcement, along with its restriction of States enforcing, these laws?

Seems to me that if they demand all the responsibility that they should own it especially considering that they are actively trying to prevent states from remedying the situation themselves.

I genuinely have no idea. I've read the court decisions on this and so I know the legal issues that were ruled on in relation to these cases, but I'm not a lawyer so I have no clue about these wider issues. I know states can sue the feds in order to make them follow the law, but I'm not sure if any federal actions in relation to immigration actually don't uphold a portion of a law.

 

[Lithium381]

Fair enough, are you aware of any Federal law or statute that implores the elected officials or representatives of the United States of America to enforce federal law? Are there any requirements in the INA that the law actually be applied? What I'm seeing here is "no the states can't do that" "no thats illegal, the states can't do that" but where who has the responsibility to actually enforce these laws, and why are they not doing them? Who has dropped the ball?

I understand that it MAY be unconstitutional for the States to enforce immigration, based solely on the fact that it is up to the Federal government to enforce immigration. If there is overlap why have we run into this problem ?

again.... someone answer this question.....

 

[Lithium381]

Can a state sue the Federal government for any and all economic harm that the Federal governments lack of enforcement, along with its restriction of States enforcing, these laws?

Seems to me that if they demand all the responsibility that they should own it especially considering that they are actively trying to prevent states from remedying the situation themselves.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/arizona-plans-to-sue-federal-government/

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...-federal-government-over-border-security.html

http://www.immivasion.us/art4sect4/art4sect4.html
that last one, the USSC claimed that the Fed wasn't responsible for costs relating to immigration. . . . .sad

 

[Jaskalas]

again.... someone answer this question.....

Dropping the ball might reflect the notion that they ever intended to protect the border, which is just plain wrong. Open borders is a policy being enforced.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I wonder how many people here arguing against states rights on this issue are in favor of states like California allowing medicinal MJ in opposition to federal law.

 

[Darwin333]

I genuinely have no idea. I've read the court decisions on this and so I know the legal issues that were ruled on in relation to these cases, but I'm not a lawyer so I have no clue about these wider issues. I know states can sue the feds in order to make them follow the law, but I'm not sure if any federal actions in relation to immigration actually don't uphold a portion of a law.

I appreciate the genuine answer which is very rare these days. Continuing that:

Wouldn't one or the other have to apply? If the Feds want it their way then fine, they can pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it they "should" (not must, such is law) allow the states to handle it.

Obviously something has to give here and it won't be the partisan politics. If a State deems that illegals are costing them money that they don't have then either A. they should be able to do something about it themselves or B. the Feds should be legally bound to do something about it for them since they are denying them the ability to do it themselves.

 

[Darwin333]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/arizona-plans-to-sue-federal-government/

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...-federal-government-over-border-security.html

http://www.immivasion.us/art4sect4/art4sect4.html
that last one, the USSC claimed that the Fed wasn't responsible for costs relating to immigration. . . . .sad

Serious question, is it illegal for a state to simply refuse to (or mitigate) paying for illegals?

If an illegal commits a crime and the state, by force, puts them on a way way trip to D.C. so that federal prosecutors can deal with them (if they so wish)?

Same thing with anything that is even close to something a state pays for, if you can not prove that you are legal then you don't get a dime (I have to do this every year for my daughter and she, nor I, receive a red cent from the state)?

As I said in a previous post, the way to really combat this is to cut it off at the knees and go after the people that employ them but the sad reality is that the very same people "employ" the politicians as well.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

The "power grab" is needed because the Feds REFUSE to enforce their own laws.

This. It's really a bizarre situation. The Feds refuse to enforce Federal law then sue the states for enacting reasonable laws to fill the gap. The Feds may be correct as a matter of law but I don't know how their lawyers go to court with a straight face when everyone knows they are willfully ignoring their own laws on daily basis.

 

[Lithium381]

I appreciate the genuine answer which is very rare these days. Continuing that:

Wouldn't one or the other have to apply? If the Feds want it their way then fine, they can pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it they "should" (not must, such is law) allow the states to handle it.

Obviously something has to give here and it won't be the partisan politics. If a State deems that illegals are costing them money that they don't have then either A. they should be able to do something about it themselves or B. the Feds should be legally bound to do something about it for them since they are denying them the ability to do it themselves.

Exactly the point i'm trying to make.... The Feds are legally obligated to take care of this but they are not, which is why the states are stepping up in the matter... then the Feds get sand in their collective vaginas and cry.

 

[Wreckem]

The "power grab" is needed because the Feds REFUSE to enforce their own laws.

Actually, thats not quite accurate. They deport people. I believe Obama has deported more than Bush did.

The problem is its impossible to deport every illegal and they have different priorities when deporting people because of that. The executive has discretion on how it prioritizes and carries out the laws.

Also, people don't really understand all the resources involved in deporting someone. The Feds in charge of immigration don't have the money nor the man power, or the time. Deporting someone requires hearings, this does not mean full hearing or trials, and probably not full due process(side note: fuck you admin law, you make no sense, oh and fuck you whales, dolphins, and porpie), they none the less take time, money, and man power. IIRC it takes 8 months from start to finish if the deportee isn't contesting it. If the deportee is contesting it or appeals, and after agency appeal files suit in US Federal Court, it takes years. The system we have cannot even efficiently handle the amount of deportations we have now, let alone if there were mass deportations.

Should they devise a way to secure the border. Yeah, and they have tried(half heartedly).

 

[pcgeek11]

Its not politically correct to kick trespassers off your land.

Fuck politically correct.

 

[Lithium381]

Actually, thats not quite accurate. They deport people. I believe Obama has deported more than Bush did.

The problem is its impossible to deport every illegal and they have different priorities when deporting people because of that. The executive has discretion on how it prioritizes and carries out the laws.

Also, people don't really understand all the resources involved in deporting someone. The Feds in charge of immigration don't have the money nor the man power, or the time. Deporting someone requires hearings, this does not mean full hearing or trials, and probably not full due process(side note: fuck you admin law, you make no sense, oh and fuck you whales, dolphins, and porpie), they none the less take time, money, and man power. IIRC it takes 8 months from start to finish if the deportee isn't contesting it. If the deportee is contesting it or appeals, and after agency appeal files suit in US Federal Court, it takes years. The system we have cannot even efficiently handle the amount of deportations we have now, let alone if there were mass deportations.

Should they devise a way to secure the border. Yeah, and they have tried(half heartedly).

Why the red tape? It seems to be a pretty clear cut decision. Are you here legally? ie. you are a citizen or green card holder, or are here on a student visa or work visa etc. Then NO PROBLEM YOU CAN STAY. Can't take more than a week to verify everything is in order. If you have someone in custody that can't prove that they are allowed to be here, put them on the next plane out.
Although i'm hearing of countries that won't accept their own escapees back... so we just release them back into the populace.... wtf is up with that.

 

[fskimospy]

I appreciate the genuine answer which is very rare these days. Continuing that:

Wouldn't one or the other have to apply? If the Feds want it their way then fine, they can pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it they "should" (not must, such is law) allow the states to handle it.

Obviously something has to give here and it won't be the partisan politics. If a State deems that illegals are costing them money that they don't have then either A. they should be able to do something about it themselves or B. the Feds should be legally bound to do something about it for them since they are denying them the ability to do it themselves.

I think your answer presupposes that there is some problem that the US is legally required to fix, and I'm not sure that's true. I don't currently have a problem with immigration levels, but I certainly can understand how someone else might, but our disagreements sound like policy problems, not arguments over how the feds need to enforce current law.

Long story short, I'm not sure that any law requires the feds to do something they aren't already doing. You might not think that they are doing a good enough job, but that's a legislative/policy problem, not some sort of legal issue of negligence.

 

[fskimospy]

I wonder how many people here arguing against states rights on this issue are in favor of states like California allowing medicinal MJ in opposition to federal law.

You are really fat.

 

[chucky2]

This. It's really a bizarre situation. The Feds refuse to enforce Federal law then sue the states for enacting reasonable laws to fill the gap. The Feds may be correct as a matter of law but I don't know how their lawyers go to court with a straight face when everyone knows they are willfully ignoring their own laws on daily basis.

Seriously? You want lawyers to be honest and/or take into account anything other than their case, even if it'd make them not take the case or lose it?

You're talking about lawyers here, not humans...

 

[Wreckem]

Why the red tape? It seems to be a pretty clear cut decision. Are you here legally? ie. you are a citizen or green card holder, or are here on a student visa or work visa etc. Then NO PROBLEM YOU CAN STAY. Can't take more than a week to verify everything is in order. If you have someone in custody that can't prove that they are allowed to be here, put them on the next plane out.
Although i'm hearing of countries that won't accept their own escapees back... so we just release them back into the populace.... wtf is up with that.

But that is not how things work.

Administrative law(which immigration law and deportations fall under) is a shitty complex and confusing subject.

More or less, all administrative adjudications require some sort of process. How much or how little depends on a number of things. Mainly the Constitution, the APA, and the statutes passed by Congress. Process in an administrative adjudicatory hearing can range from having everything on paper(i.e.: no actual hearing, no cross examination of witnesses etc), to a full blown hearing that is very trial like. As it turns out because of our laws, immigration rules, and our constitution, immigration hearings require a lot of process. More or less there is a liberty interest at stake in an immigration hearing, and that requires due process.

 

[xBiffx]

None of the discussion here has addressed how checking a suspect's immigration status is a violation of federal immigration law. That is all the Alabama law was empowering its troopers to do. Should they have someone in custody that they suspected might be here illegally, this law would give them power to check their immigration status. I guess that means that any employer, anywhere in the country is breaking federal law when they do the same thing?

 

[fskimospy]

None of the discussion here has addressed how checking a suspect's immigration status is a violation of federal immigration law. That is all the Alabama law was empowering its troopers to do. Should they have someone in custody that they suspected might be here illegally, this law would give them power to check their immigration status. I guess that means that any employer, anywhere in the country is breaking federal law when they do the same thing?

Uhmm, that's basically been the entire discussion.

 

[xBiffx]

Uhmm, that's basically been the entire discussion.

From what I read, its been a back and forth on what the states can do when the federal government refuses to do its job. There was some discussion on the supremacy clause and immigration law but again how does that apply to a state trooper verifying a suspect's immigration status. How is that any different than and employer doing the same?

 

[Wreckem]

None of the discussion here has addressed how checking a suspect's immigration status is a violation of federal immigration law. That is all the Alabama law was empowering its troopers to do. Should they have someone in custody that they suspected might be here illegally, this law would give them power to check their immigration status. I guess that means that any employer, anywhere in the country is breaking federal law when they do the same thing?

Have you been following the rulings?

The Appellate court didn't strike down law enforcements ability to check someones immigration status if they were stopped for other reasons. They still can. They can check, they just cannot enforce. They can notify Immigration, but thats about it.

What they have blocked, pending a full appeal, are the parts requiring school children to show proof of citizenship, requiring every alien to carry proof they are in the US legally, and creating a state misdemeanor charge of unlawfully present alien for people who do not show their papers.

 

[xBiffx]

Have you been following the rulings?

The Appellate court didn't strike down law enforcements ability to check someones immigration status if they were stopped for other reasons. They still can. They can check, they just cannot enforce. They can notify Immigration, but thats about it.

What they have blocked, pending a full appeal, are the parts requiring school children to show proof of citizenship, requiring every alien to carry proof they are in the US legally, and creating a state misdemeanor charge of unlawfully present alien for people who do not show their papers.

I read it as the entire decision as temporary depending on the full appeal. It still looks like the allowed parts of the law were still in question. Guess they wouldn't go back and change the unblocked parts though.

 

[chucky2]

Have you been following the rulings?

The Appellate court didn't strike down law enforcements ability to check someones immigration status if they were stopped for other reasons. They still can. They can check, they just cannot enforce. They can notify Immigration, but thats about it.

snip

Question:

You're telling me the law is that the police can check on immigration status, find and illegal, and then are not able to detain them, they have to let them go?!?!!?

This must be wrong...not even Progressives are that F'ing stupid, I just refuse to believe that is the law.

Chuck