Thread: Conservative SCOTUS judges to become billionaires over immigration case

Originally Posted by Oozlefinch

Did I say anything about a Constitutional Ammendment?

Yes. You wanted states to enforce federal laws (see below), and in the AZ case in a manner that conflicts with federal law (local authorities are not empowered to enforce federal law, nor make federal arrests). What you were pining for would require a constitutional amendment (see the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2)).

That you did not realize it would is irrelevant to the facts of the matter.

Originally Posted by Oozlefinch, previously

[...] When the Federal Government shows no interest in administering it's own laws, then it should be the right of the states to do it for them. [...]

Originally Posted by Oozlefinch

[...] I am not Arbo, so that does not apply to me. Unless you are commenting on my name.

You seemed unfamiliar with the proper use of the term "straw man". I was simply pointing out an example.

There was no charge for the lesson

Originally Posted by Karl

Yes. You wanted states to enforce federal laws (see below), and in the AZ case in a manner that conflicts with federal law (local authorities are not empowered to enforce federal law, nor make federal arrests). What you were pining for would require a constitutional amendment (see the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2)).

That you did not realize it would is irrelevant to the facts of the matter.

Time will tell if AZ is in conflict with Federal laws. We should know this summer when the SC rules on the issue.

State LE can arrest under federal laws if they have a signed agreement with the Feds.
Mutual aid would/does not require a change in the Constitution.

As far as the AZ law (SB1070) there was only a couple of areas the SC had issue with. One is where Az has it a criminal crime instead of civil for first time illegal entry into the State/US. That can easily be modified

Originally Posted by Karl

Yes. You wanted states to enforce federal laws (see below), and in the AZ case in a manner that conflicts with federal law (local authorities are not empowered to enforce federal law, nor make federal arrests). What you were pining for would require a constitutional amendment (see the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2)).

That you did not realize it would is irrelevant to the facts of the matter.

States are allowed to detain people in violation of federal law in order to turn them in to federal authority without causing undue risk to the populace. The supremacy clause is in no danger as the Arizona law was constructed to work within the confines of already authored federal law. In fact the SCOTUS was derisive of the solicitors argument that the Arizona law violated the supremacy clause specifically because it works within federal law guidelines.

The problem is the fed has not been enforcing its own mandates effectively and states are now stepping up in order to protect their own borders with a foreign country as they have every right to do so in the event of the failure of the fed. Further, they are doing so in a way that reinforces the authority of the fed because they are only increasing the ability to indentify illegals who are already in violation of the federal law. They are not creating new law that places their authority above the fed.

Originally Posted by mike2810

Time will tell if AZ is in conflict with Federal laws. We should know this summer when the SC rules on the issue.

State LE can arrest under federal laws if they have a signed agreement with the Feds.
Mutual aid would/does not require a change in the Constitution.

As far as the AZ law (SB1070) there was only a couple of areas the SC had issue with. One is where Az has it a criminal crime instead of civil for first time illegal entry into the State/US. That can easily be modified

Illegal entry is already a crime.So that shouldn't be a problem. Anything that is punishable with incarceration is a crime. It is a misdemeanor (a year or less in jail)for the first offense and felony(more than a year in jail or prison) for the second offense.

Illegal Immigration IS A CRIME!
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

• Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
• Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
• Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.


8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien
a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Originally Posted by OpportunityCost, replying to Karl

States are allowed to detain people in violation of federal law [...]

No, they are not. Unless they have a prior agreement/arrangement with the feds.

I did not read your post beyond that sentence. Sorry; didn't seem to be any point.

Fact Sheet: Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act

Originally Posted by Karl

No, they are not. Unless they have a prior agreement/arrangement with the feds.

I did not read your post beyond that sentence. Sorry; didn't seem to be any point.

and there is no point to what you post, because many States have a 287g agreement with ICE.

Fact Sheet: Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act

It is not uncommon for the different federal agencies to enter into mutual aid / reciprical assistance agreement at the State, County and Local level when it comes to law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency situations.

Originally Posted by Karl

No, they are not. Unless they have a prior agreement/arrangement with the feds.

I did not read your post beyond that sentence. Sorry; didn't seem to be any point.

This is without a doubt, the stupidest thing I have ever seen posted. If a federal crime is committed, only the feds are allowed to detain?

Here is the list of things you think state authorities cannot detain people for committing: Organization and Functions Manual 10. Partial List of Federal Matters Investigated by the FBI

GTF outta here with that nonsense.

Originally Posted by Karl

Yes. You wanted states to enforce federal laws (see below), and in the AZ case in a manner that conflicts with federal law (local authorities are not empowered to enforce federal law, nor make federal arrests). What you were pining for would require a constitutional amendment (see the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2)).

That you did not realize it would is irrelevant to the facts of the matter.

Let me say this again:

I would rather the Federal Government do it's job so nobody else has to do it for them.

So unless you are claiming that it takes a Constitutional Ammendment dor the US Government to do it's job, then you are not listening to what I am saying obviously.

And no, you are wrong. State and Local officials can in fact enforce Federal Laws. Otherwise, no County Sheriff or Local Police Officer could arrest a Federal Fugitive. If what you are saying is right, then Warren Jeffs should have never been arrested, because he was not arrested by Federal Law Enforcement.

Laws are laws, and every lever of law enforcement is authorized to enforce them. Federal, State, County, and City. As far as I am aware, there is no limit saying "This is Federal, nobody else can do this".

If there is, I would love to find out what it is. As would thousands of individuals right now serving time where they were arrested by a different level of law enforcement.

Originally Posted by Karl

No, they are not. Unless they have a prior agreement/arrangement with the feds.

I did not read your post beyond that sentence. Sorry; didn't seem to be any point.

Can you give us an example of a single instance where this does not exist? That the State of Arizona does not already have an agreement already with the Federal Government to arrest people on it's behalf?

Look, we can make this simple. Arizona arrests them, turns them over to the Federal Government. Then the Feds can turn around and simply make them citizens and turn them loose.

Look, it is obvious you love illegal immigration. That is fine, love it all you want. But I think you will find most of us are law and order types, that want to see it end.

If you love it so much, I invite you to go live in El Paso. Or better yet, go and visit the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.

Wait, you can't visit there. It has been closed since 2006, because of illegal immigration.

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges...Fs/Closure.pdf

When large portions of US National lands are closed off because of violence from illegal immigrants, I say we have a huge problem.