Have you read the opinion?
Okay. Today may have been a happier day if I had not just read that opinion.
On its face, the text does not support Arizona’s reading of Section 2(B). The second sentence is unambiguous: “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-1051(B) (2010) (emphasis added). The all encompassing “any person,” the mandatory “shall,” and the definite “determined,” make this provision incompatible with the first sentence’s qualified “reasonable attempt . . . when practicable,” and qualified “reasonable suspicion.”
The court has been able to separate sentences 1 and 2 but I don't think that you can. The two are tied together. The first sentence says that for any lawful stop, detention OR arrest, a reasonable attempt shall be made to determine immigration status. Only IF the person is arrested does the law enforcement officer have to have the person verified by federal authorities. Now I do see the preemption argument since the INA does in fact give specific authority to the Attorney General of the United States to determine the States' role in assisting with immigration.
Now this is where I got pissed. Congress has made its own ambiguous laws by stating under DHS directives that DHS will respond to identity inquiries. But according to INA, no immigration inquiries should even need to be made unless the State of Arizona has entered into some sort of an agreement with the Attorney General. May have to do a bit more digging on the DHS directives to see if any of these allow for more State-Federal cooperation in determining immigration status
And this is where I got really pissed.
US Constitution Article I, Section 10:
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
IMO, the Attorney General, since the duty has been firmly placed on his shoulders to ENFORCE the immigration laws, AND Arizona and other states could make a solid case for a foreign invasion taking place, should be sued heavily for Dereliction of Duty and immediately removed from office.
And my last point, since Arizona is being sued for trying to actually protect its LEGAL citizens, why then shouldn't cities like San Francisco be sued as well for declaring itself a Sanctuary City?
Sanctuary Cities Immune From Federal Law