[wiggen]

If the state cannot enforce federal regualtions then why would they ever arrest a person for whom there is a federal warrant outstanding?
Why uphold any federal law using state resources?

[antiRepublicrat]

The administration actually thinks that sanctuary cities do not preempt or interfere with federal law, yet this law does. Don’t look for logic or consistency. They go by the idea that reality is what they say it is for any one situation, and there are no conflicts. It’s a classic example of Orwellian doublethink.

[Gay State Conservative]

If the state cannot enforce federal regualtions then why would they ever arrest a person for whom there is a federal warrant outstanding? Why uphold any federal law using state resources?

I'm not a lawyer but my hunch is that the main problem (in the eyes of leftists) is the punishment aspect.I think the left would (rightly) claim victory if the final ruling is that AZ can *question* but cannot *punish*...which,it would appear,is what some folks (who presumably know the law and the courts) are saying will happen.

(Yes,I understand that leftist bias could mean that these "folks" are wrong)

[FrankR]

"If the state cannot enforce federal regualtions then why would they ever arrest a person for whom there is a federal warrant outstanding?"

Good question. Maybe - if they lose this case - Arizona should take them at their word and never "interfere" with any Federal law, exercise any Federal warrent, or arrest and detain any criminal wanted on Federal charges.

Hey..obama wants them out of his "law"...so they should just get out.

Then, turn around and file Federal suit against ALL sanctuary cities/states...just to be "fair", ya know.