” As my opinion describes in more detail, however, most of the provisions challenged here do not even impose additional penalties or consequences for violation of federal immigration laws; they merely apply stricter enforcement. The federal government would have us believe (and the Court today agrees) that even that is forbidden. “
Scalia nails it.
” As my opinion describes in more detail, however, most of the provisions challenged here do not even impose additional penalties or consequences for violation of federal immigration laws; they merely apply stricter enforcement. The federal government would have us believe (and the Court today agrees) that even that is forbidden. “
Scalia nails it.
“The federal government would have us believe (and the Court today agrees) that even that is forbidden.”
If the federal government were to remove habeaus corpus because it enabled ‘stricter enforcement’, would that be considered ok? Just because it’s stricter doesn’t make it any less unconstitutional. AZ can enforce the federal law - no more or no less. They do not have the authority to alter the federal law however they see fit.