>Thanks Obama, LOL!!!
Irony: Obama DOJ’s Immigration Suit Against AZ Laid Foundation For Trump’s Suit Against CA
In 2010, then Attorney General Eric Holder sued Arizona over state law S.B. 1070
“Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,” Holder stated at the time regarding his decision to sue Arizona over the law. “Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.”
>The Supreme Court Agreed
Supreme Court Sides With Feds on Immigration
So it was a good day for the feds. Three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s law were invalidated outright by the Supreme Court as excessive state intrusion upon core federal immigration powers.
>The Supreme Court Agreed
Here is why I think this sentiment is wrong, and why I believe that the federal courts ruled incorrectly on Arizona's SB 1070.
§ 1252c. Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens(a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who—
(1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and(b) Cooperation The Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials.(2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.
As I underlined, this section of federal code expressly authorizes states to pass laws to support § 1252c.
Obama's DoJ sued Arizona on the grounds that ONLY Congress has the authority to make immigration law. This is not entirely true; Congress has plenary power, but they can delegate that power, and § 1252c is where Congress explicitly gives states a limited power to make supporting law, which Arizona did.
The federal court ruling against Arizona SB 1070 further found that the President has a discretionary power to not enforce a federal law, and so Arizona encroached on that Presidential power by enacting its own law. I argue that not enforcing a federal law that grants a power to a state does not disqualify that state from enforcing that law itself, because the state got its authority from Congress, not the President.
In the case of § 1252c (a)(2), a state is limited to apprehending previously convicted felons who were deported and reentered, and only for as long as it takes federal law enforcement to verify and take custody of the individual. § 1252c (b) compels the Attorney General to make this information available to state and local officials. Furthermore, 8 U.S. Code § 1226 - Apprehension and detention of aliens (d) Identification of criminal aliens authorizes the Attorney General to devise and implement an information system.
I would argue that if the Department of Justice refuses to cooperate with a state via § 1252c (b), then the state is in its rights to hold the individual until such time as the Attorney General cooperates. A defiant Attorney General does not nullify a state's power to act under § 1252c (a).
Based on the above analysis, the question now is whether § 1252c (a) gives California the authority to pass a law FORBIDDING cooperation with federal immigration arrests?
-PJ