Then please explain to me California, Oklahoma, and other states that have laws against illegals? Should not the Feds be going after them also? Better yet, guess its time the State of Arizona sue the Federal Govt. for failing to enforce the federal law regarding illegal entry?
It will be up to the courts to decide: However, I think Az may be ok.
Abundant Case Law. There is abundant case law on this point. Even though Congress has never authorized state police officers to make arrest for federal offenses without an arrest warrant, such arrests occur routinely; and the Supreme Court has recognized that state law controls the validity of such an arrest. As the Court concluded in United States v. Di Re, "No act of Congress lays down a general federal rule for arrest without warrant for federal offenses. None purports to supersede state law. And none applies to this arrest which, while for a federal offense, was made by a state officer accompanied by federal officers who had no power of arrest. Therefore the New York statute provides the standard by which this arrest must stand or fall." 332 U.S. 581, 591 (1948). The Court’s conclusion presupposes that state officers possess the inherent authority to make warrantless arrests for federal offenses. The same assumption guided the Court in Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "[state] officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests." U.S. v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, they may initiate an arrest on the basis of probable cause to think that an individual has committed a federal crime. Id.
The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have expressed this understanding in the immigration context specifically. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983). The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations," United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws," United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that "state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions ‘to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.’" United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295). None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable. Rather, the inherent arrest authority extends generally to both categories of federal immigration law violations.
Last edited by mike2810; 06-19-10 at 06:47 PM.
"I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"
The Federal government doesn't have the right to sue a state for enforcing the Federal government's own laws. That's idiotic.
Obama & company have yet to define what is specifically *misguided* about the AZ SB 1070 bill. They may wait for someone else (ACLU perhaps) to file, then file a *friend of the court* motion. Basically hitching a ride on the original filers (whomever they may be) coat tails.
Yes, there is an abundance of case law both at the State & Federal levels. Besides the ones you quotes there are others as well. United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.....United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, 2005: D.C. No. 98-40116-02-RDR Dist. Kan.) United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.....Gray v City of Valley Park, 2008: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.....Astrid G. Estrada....February 10, 2010; United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.Mike2810: Abundant Case Law. There is abundant case law on this point.
AZ is well covered with case law.
ICE setup a training program for state and local LE agencies.
Their website is here Partners Many AZ officers took the training. Gov. Brewer had mentioned a training agenda for other officers as well. This has been well thought out and is quite evident most officers will be knowledgeable as what to look for.Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g)
Immigration and Nationality Act
A Law Enforcement Partnership
ICE ACCESS (Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security) provides local law enforcement agencies an opportunity to team with ICE to combat specific challenges in their communities. (snippet)
So you list a bunch of cases that have nothing to do with the grounds that the Arizona law is going to be challenged under. This is supposed to prove something?
You have a point there. Something along the lines of *Failing to secure our borders from foreign invaders*.Mike2810: Better yet, guess its time the State of Arizona sue the Federal Govt. for failing to enforce the federal law regarding illegal entry?