Posted on 03/13/2018 4:46:15 PM PDT by SpeedyInTexas
In a sense, this was settled a few years ago when SCOTUS struck down Arizona’s immigration law. Justice Kennedy, of all people, said the states do not have the right to supercede federal law. If that was true in Arizona, it should be true in California, Colorado, Texas and other places that claimed to be “sanctuary cities”.
We knew that the Obama Administration was never going to lift a finger to challenge them but the Trump Administration is a different animal and it would seem they would be contradicting themselves to let sanctuary cities/states stand after forcing Arizona to stand down.
“The potential for this state is unimaginable.”
Mrs. L born and raised in CA, Sonoma County to be exact. It’s hard to imagine a more beautiful place. Her parents live n Placer County, which is equally beautiful.
I’ve long said that the only thing wrong with California is that it’s chock full of Californians.
L
https://arb.ca.gov/newsrel/newsrelease.php?id=933
Do not know what is going on, using the () to post link and when I preview, my link has vanished...
They will be welcome in CA
Winning
>>>It’s amazing how drooling idiots be elected, then proclaim they won’t follow a law because they don’t want to.<<<
Didn’t they learn that from Barry?
Those in Austin are deeply saddened...but they’re not paying attention today as someone is trying to blow them all up with package bombs!
Here’s an idea - force your elected officials to Stop Importing Trouble to your communities. The nuts that are already here are out of control as it is.
Just sayin’.
Where in the law you cited does it give states the ability to ignore federal immigration Law? it doesn’t period.
Additionally you you said “As I underlined, this section of federal code expressly authorizes states to pass laws to support § 1252c.”
SUPPORT yes IGNORE no. And even that was struck down.
>>The Court held that “the Federal Government has occupied the field of alien registration,” meaning that all state action, “even complementary state regulation is impermissible.”<<
Here is the rest of the decision and the dissent opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States
On June 25, 2012, the Court struck down three of the four provisions of S.B. 1070. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor.Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each concurred in part and dissented in part in separate opinions joined by no other justice.
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion held that Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 were preempted by federal law. The three provisions struck down: required legal immigrants to carry registration documents at all times; allowed state police to arrest any individual for suspicion of being an illegal immigrant; and made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to search for a job (or to hold one) in the state.
All justices agreed to uphold the provision of the law allowing Arizona state police to investigate the immigration status of an individual stopped, detained, or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that individual is in the country illegally. However, Justice Kennedy specified in the majority opinion that state police may not detain the individual for a prolonged amount of time for not carrying immigration documents; and that cases of racial profiling are allowed to proceed through the courts, if such cases happen to arise later on.
Majority opinion
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion identified the question before the Court as “whether federal law preempts and renders invalid four separate provisions of the state law.” The four provisions in question were:
Section 3 of S.B. 1070, which made it a state crime to be unlawfully present in the United States and failing to register with the federal government;
Section 5, which made it a misdemeanor state crime to seek work or to work without authorization to do so;
Section 2, which in some circumstances required Arizona state and local officers to verify the citizenship or alien status of people arrested, stopped, or detained; and
Section 6, which authorized warrantless arrests of aliens believed to be removable from the United States based on probable cause.
Kennedy’s opinion embraced an expansive view of the United States Government’s authority to regulate immigration and aliens, describing it as “broad” and “undoubted.” That authority derived from the legislative power of Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” enumerated in the Constitution, as well as the long-standing interpretation of federal sovereignty in areas pertaining to the control and conduct of relations with foreign nations. In this context, federal discretion as to whether or how immigration laws are enforced is an important component of Congressional authority. At the same time, Justice Kennedy’s opinion acknowledged the serious concerns experienced by Arizona citizens and officials in dealing with illegal immigration, noting that signs along highways south of Phoenix, Arizona discourage travel by the public due to dangerous smuggling activities.
The majority opinion analyzed the four provisions in question within the framework of preemption, derived from the Supremacy Clause, requiring that federal law will prevail when state and federal laws conflict. The Court held that “the Federal Government has occupied the field of alien registration,” meaning that all state action, “even complementary state regulation is impermissible.” Therefore, the registration provisions of Section 3 were preempted by federal law. In contrast to Section 3, the criminal provisions of Section 5 had no direct counterpart under federal law, leading the Court to apply the “ordinary principles of preemption” rather than the doctrine of field preemption. Under those principles, Section 5 stood as an obstacle to the objectives of Congress of not imposing “criminal penalties on aliens who seek or engage in unauthorized employment.” Therefore, Section 5 was also preempted by federal law.
Section 6 of S.B. 1070 was also found to be preempted by federal law on the basis that it created an “obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” The Court noted that it is not generally a crime for a removable alien to be present in the United States, and that Section 6 would give state officers “even greater authority to arrest aliens on the basis of possible removability than Congress has given to trained federal immigration officers.” Furthermore, the removal process is “entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government.”
The majority upheld Section 2, but did so by reading it in a more restrictive manner. The provisions at issue required Arizona officers to make a “reasonable attempt” to determine the immigration status of any person stopped, detained, or arrested on a legitimate basis if “reasonable suspicion” existed that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States. Additionally, any arrestee’s immigration status would have to have been determined before they could be released. Status checks would have been made through Immigration and Customs Enforcement and their databases. Listing several examples, Justice Kennedy wrote that Section 2(B) “likely would survive preemption” if it is interpreted only to require state officers to conduct a status check “during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released.” Underlining the cautious approach that the majority took to Section 2(B) were Justice Kennedy’s final words on the section: “This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”
Dissents
Justice Scalia dissented and said that he would have upheld all four provisions as a valid exercise of concurrent state sovereignty over immigration. Justice Scalia argued that the statute was valid because, “As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty.” To support his position, Justice Scalia reviewed several cases from the early history of the Supreme Court’s Immigration jurisprudence.
Justice Thomas likewise would uphold the entire law as not preempted by federal law, but for different reasons. Justice Thomas concluded that none of the challenged sections presented an actual conflict with federal law, so preemption doctrine did not apply.
Justice Alito agreed with Justices Scalia and Thomas regarding Sections 5(C) and 6, but joined with the majority in finding Section 3 preempted and that Section 2(B) was not preempted. With respect to Section 5(C) Justice Alito argued that “[t]he Court’s holding on §5(C) is inconsistent with De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351 (1976), which held that employment regulation, even of aliens unlawfully present in the country, is an area of traditional state concern.” He also argued that Section 6 was not preempted because, “[l]ike §2(B), §6 adds virtually nothing to the authority that Arizona law enforcement officers already exercise. And whatever little authority they have gained is consistent with federal law.”
Legacy
The Solicitor General of the United States Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. said in an 2016 interview while it was a high-profile case in 2012, but that the consequences of that were not fully appreciated. In his view the problem was not so much the “show me your papers” provision of the law at issue, “but that the states are trying to supplant the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, and we can’t have fifty different immigration policies.” After the Supreme Court announced its decision this decision helped to deter other states from establishing and enforcing its own immigration policies. Virrilli concluded the Court’s decision was “a very consequential decision” which meant that an incipient anti-immigrant movement “got stopped dead in its tracks.” In addition, this decision could hamper California’s attempts to undermine federal law under President Trump.
I wonder how long it would take for the Hollywood elite to fund a wall around California separating it from the rest of the US.
Of course that’s what they are doing with all their pronouncements that they refuse to uphold the rule of law, and demand illegal criminals be protected.
>
I hope that’s a joke, and that you’re not seriously accusing a fellow Freeper of harboring liberal tendencies.
>
I would HOPE liberal tendencies were the *NORM* around here....It’s those w/ Leftist tendencies we should be planting a size 13 in their @sses.
IOW, *never* give up the war on language and NEVER begin w/ Leftists presumptions/talking-points.
Absolutely agree!!! On SOOO many levels we have potential. (Btw Santa Barbara is getting their desalination plant up and running. I just watched a documentary on the rise of the Nazis and the ultimate destruction of Germany as a result. It reminded me of California and the extreme, mind boggling, toxic destructive liberalism we see in this state. At least in Germany they world took the Nazis out. We aren’t so lucky here in this state. It is a bunch of brainwashed, fascists easily led any which way the commies and socialists decide to lead them.
I understand, but the word, ‘liberal’, was lost to the left a long time ago.
We’ve got a long war ahead to reclaim the language.
You have that right. Not enough taxes to build a wall but it wouldn't stop them from trying and those "elite" would have armed guards and such while probably millions not just hundreds of thousands will be homeless and dying...think Venezuela. It's sickening what the state government is doing to us but they just keep steamrolling and destroying a once great state for their progressive/communist ideologies.
"But this socialism will be better because we learned from the past." How many times have I heard such a quote?
Wellllll, yes and no.
It’s got more than it’s share of foreign nationals, Leftists, unions, and Democrats to be sure. (redundancy accepted)
Things aren’t all rosy, but it sure baffles me how well the state’s GDP holds up.
Yes, I agree. Glad to hear Santa Barbara has pushed the desalinization plant.
The coast should be lined with them, particularly in Southern California.
That is a truly thought provoking video, about the mouse experiment. I’ve been wondering for a long time if some of the insanity we have been witnessing is due to population level effects. That video suggests that it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.