- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The problem is she is ignoring legal precident for states to write their own laws against illegals
Gonzales v. City of Peoria, There is nothing inherent in that specific enforcement activity that conflicts with federal regulatory interests. Federal and local enforcement have identical purposes--the prevention of the misdemeanor or felony of illegal entry. The subject matter of the regulation thus does not require us to find that state enforcement is preempted....""A state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations. Moreover, the trooper's question about the green card was reasonable under the circumstances, and thus lawful."
United States v. Vasquez- Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294. 1999: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
"In particular, the United States observes this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.
United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
"We noted just recently that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit "have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,"
United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola
Rodriguez does not have Fourth Amendment rights to assert because he was an illegal alien.
Muehler v. Mena
The court also held the officers had the right to question her citizenship status: "Mena’s detention was, under Summers, plainly permissible. [1]An officer's authority to detain incident to a search is categorical; it does not depend on the “quantum of proof justifying detention or the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure.” Id., at 705, n. 19. Thus, Mena’s detention for the duration of the search was reasonable under Summers because a warrant existed to search 1363 Patricia Avenue and she was an occupant of that address at the time of the search."
And those are just a few. She ignored all of this legal precedence and became a political activist instead an interpreter of the law.
None of those cases is a 9th Circuit case, and the sole Supreme Court case there isn't on point (though it does say that asking about immigration status doesn't violate the 4th Amendment). So, she wasn't ignoring anything she was bound to follow.