Posted on 04/24/2010 8:08:12 AM PDT by VU4G10
The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
No more than ANY power can be. This law is essentially a reiteration of Federal law. Are you equally against the Federal version?
You are a very kind and thoughtful person. In no way have I felt harangued. Think nothing of what has happened.
The only irritation I’ve felt is at that disgusting person who wrote the posting at Cornell U. Law School. He literally crowed about crushing Sheriff Arpaio. How disgusting
But John McCain wants amnesty for all illegals.
You're lying.
Wow ... pretty hard to argue with the set of facts you presented. I guess if you can't argue - a personal attack is just as good, right?
I don't think so.
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests [snip] except [list] and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
Note: it doesn't say simply "Federal Laws," as there is a LONG history of state and local officials making arrests for incidences of Federal crimes.
The Tenth Circuit’s most salient case on the preemption question is U.S. v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999). In that case, an Oklahoma police officer arrested the defendant because he was an “illegal alien.” The officer did not know at the time whether the defendant had committed a civil or criminal violation of the INA. Id. at 1295. It was later discovered that the alien had illegally reentered the country after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, a criminal violation. When the government indicted the defendant, he moved to suppress his post-arrest statements, fingerprints, and identity, arguing that he was arrested in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1252c. The defendant claimed that a local police officer could arrest an illegal alien only in accordance with the conditions set forth in Section 1252c and that because his arrest was not carried out according that provision it was unauthorized. Section 1252c authorizes state and local police to make a warrantless arrest and to detain an illegal alien if (1) the arrest is permitted by state and local law, (2) the alien is illegally present in the United States, (3) the alien was previously convicted of a felony in the United States and subsequently was deported or left the country, and (4) prior to the arrest the police officer obtains appropriate confirmation of the alien’s status from federal immigration authorities. 8 U.S.C. § 1252c.
The Tenth Circuit’s conclusion was unequivocal: Section 1252c “does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law.” Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d at 1295. The court rejected the alien’s contention that all arrests not authorized by Section 1252c are prohibited by it. The court reviewed the legislative history of Section 1252c and analyzed the comments of Rep. Doolittle (R-Calif.), who sponsored the floor amendment containing the text that would become Section 1252c. The court concluded that the purpose of the amendment was to overcome a perceived federal limitation on this state arrest authority. However, neither Doolittle, nor the government, nor the defendant, nor the court itself had been able to identify any such limitation. Id. at 1298-99.
The interpretation of 1252c urged by the defendant would have grossly perverted the manifest intent of Congress, which was to encourage more, not less, state involvement in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Reading into the statute an implicit congressional intent to preempt existing state arrest authority would have been entirely inconsistent with this purpose. Moreover, such an interpretation would have been inconsistent with subsequent congressional actions. As the Tenth Circuit noted, “in the months following the enactment of Section 1252c, Congress passed a series of provisions designed to encourage cooperation between the federal government and the states in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.” Id. at 1300 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a)(9), (c), 1357(g)). Put succinctly, the “legislative history does not contain the slightest indication that Congress intended to displace any preexisting enforcement powers already in the hands of state and local officers.” Id. at 1299.
I stand corrected. You are correct. I speed read that and missed it entirely.
Encouraging.
That is MOST interesting! Thanks for the information.
I have just visited GoPetition and found the following page very interesting:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stand-with-arizona-and-against-illegal-immigration.html
Regards
“t was initially passed by the voters but later found unconstitutional by a federal court, with appeals against the judgement being halted by Governor Gray Davis in 1999. “
Prop 187 was killed by one crooked Federal judge, Marianne Pfaelzer, sitting on her decision until Pete Wilson left office. At which point she colluded with Gray Davis to let her decision stand without it ever being appealed to a higher court.
Arnold could have challenged this subversion of California’s voters at any time he wanted to, but being a loyal stooge for the Open Borders/ Treason wing of the GOP he never has.
Karl Rove was La Raza’s Man of the Year during Dubya’s administration. It’s no surprise to find him lying about the AZ law. He’s a long standing enemy of border control.
The way I read these sections, "all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws" can refer to state and local police officers.
Also, can 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) "Any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law" be applied to a local police officer who conducts a traffic stop and finds a driver of a car (who may be an illegal) who has other people in the car as passengers (who are illegal) under the "transports" clause?
In other words, could Arizona police officers (under the definition of "any person who" be held in violation of this law by not detaining someone they suspect to be in violation of the above clause?
-PJ
See #111.
I take it that you agree that the federal code allows state and local law enforcement to arrest people for infractions and detain them on suspicion of illegal immigration pending federal determination.
I am a bit concerned that the federal code only refers to illegals who commit felony crimes, and also refers only to illegals who commit felony crimes, are deported, and then return.
Still, that doesn't absolve the local law enforcement officer from detaining a person on the suspicion of being illegal during the course of another legitimate law enforcement engagement.
-PJ
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.