<...cringing at the imminent hate about to be flung my way... >

Well.

My response would be the federal government is more powerful than Arizona. So if the Federal government does not want Arizona infringing on its prerogative, then it needs to step off.

The states can't just walk around and enforce federal laws the the Feds didn't ask them to enforce.

Imagine if they did that sort of thing for espionage

"The state of Montana is putting you on trial for espionage."

Come on...

Actually (if I understand the law correctly), the law doesn't duplicate it, it just requires the local law enforcement to enforce the federal law. If the feds change their law and open up the borders, then it becomes moot. Irregardless, I think Arizona will win this one.

Thucy-

Shamelessly stolen from the newsvine comments section:

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act

Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

"State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law."
(SB1070 accomplishes this.)

"There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws."
(SB1070 accomplishes this.)

"Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S."
(SB1070 accomplishes this.)

"Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens."
(SB1070 accomplishes this.)

As you can see, the Federal law ALLOWS and even ENCOURAGES the states to help enforce the federal laws. So why the Justice Department is saying Arizona is infringing on its prerogative is beyond me.

@Thucy -- *If* the statement "the federal government is more powerful than Arizona" is true, then you may be right. But, the Constitution is actually a *limiting* document, not an empowering document. It defines a clear set of purposes and powers for the Federal Government, and specifically states that any power not enumerated in the Constitution is a power of the State.

As far as espionage...good example. Since espionage (as I suppose you mean it - national secrets, military secrets, etc) is a Federal level offense, it would make no sense for the state to enforce. But, *business* espionage - I don't know the answer - but I suspect that sort of espionage crime would start at a state level court.

Cause Obama Bin Laden wants to open up our borders to everyone and make us all feel good about ourselves while putting our security at risk.

Bin who? I heard he's riding a stationary bike hooked up to a generator in the mountains of Pakistan trying to get enough charge on some batteries to make another VHS tape quoting Democrat talking points... :P Problem is, his beard keeps getting stuck in the chain.

Oh...sorry...*Obama* bin blah blah. yeah...agreed.

10th Amendment rules!!!!!

Just out of interest, Krellin and Draugnar, what about the fact that the Chief of Police in Tucson and the Chief of Police in Phoenix have both stated that the Arizona immigration law would interfere with their forces' ability to do their work properly?

Surely it does not make sense for immigration policy (OR the enforcement of that policy) to be decided on a state-by-state level? Or are you saying people in Arizona should have Arizona passports and that if a native of Nevada enters Arizona without the express permission of the Arizona immigration authorities, he should be considered an illegal alien?

yes the constitution is a limiting document.

it doesnt make arizone more powerful than the federal government though, and you know it.

can arizone invade mexico? no, but the USA can

lol what the heck is arizone sorry

As far as the CoPs go, they we elected to, and have a sworn duty to, enforce and upholds the laws of their cities, counties, and states. They don't make the law, they enforce it. If they don't like it, they can get another f'ing job.

As far as enforcing the federal law, that has already been covered better than I could by Drano. there is no doubt that Arizona is well within their rights.

I believe most states require their elected officials to swear to uphold the Constitution,. I don't know if this includes police officers. If Arizona State officials have sworn to uphold the Constitution this would be another argument that Arizona can enforce co-current* laws.
*co-current/concurrent I don't know which is the correct term in this case.

Jamie - *A* chief of police dislikes the policy? Hardly a mandate...

Arizona does not need Arizona passports...you have the issue 100% backwards. The law basically states that if you come into contact with law enforcement, you have to prove you are a citizen of the US...not of Arizona. I think you are purposely misinterpretting.

@ Thucy - I never said Arizona is more powerful than the Feds....but that in no way means the Feds are more powerful than the state, either. States have different laws than one another all the time as long as they fall within the Constitution. If the Feds pass a law, a state can not impose a law that breaks Federal law...but a state can put limits on it's citizens that are not Federal law, so long as those state laws are constitutional. For example, Rochester, Michigan has an ordinance against spitting on public sidewalks. This is not a Federal law or even a state law....but it does not mean that it is not a valid local law.

@Draug - Right on, brother, re: Cops are to enforce the laws, not interpret or make the laws.

Draugnar and Krellin: I agree that the job of the police is to enforce the law. But surely, as experts in doing just that, they are qualified to comment on whether a given law will be easily enforceable or not, etc?

(I must say, I will be interested to see what the outcome of this case is)

@Krellin - exactly. In brief, laws can get stricter as they go down the line, but not more lenient, with a few exceptions where the Feds actually do *not* have the mandate to make the law to begin with (state medical marijuana laws where the pot is grown, processed, and distrbuted in state for instance).

Jamie - I understand the idea of "expert" opinion, and yet for any given issue I can find "experts" on either side of the issue, including the "consensus" of global warming. That is why we vote laws into existence by majorities, and have courts that can test their Constitutionality. If the expert cops really want to be involved in the making and deciding of laws, they give up their position and run for office. Frankly, though, I am no fan of the law enforcement, whom I consider a necessary evil, but a sad lot of individuals as a whole. :p

Jamie - you give too much power to the police in general. Lawmakers (Senators, Congressman, Mayors, Commissioners, Governors, etc.) make the laws, the populace endorses those laws where required (amendments to state constitutions and a few others), judges interpret the laws in regards to the constitution or when judging a specific case, and prosecuters pursue justice through the courts, and cops gather evidence to enforce the laws. They are paid to do what it takes, no matter what their beef. If they don't like a law, let them run for an office outside of law enforcement, an office where their job is to make the laws or interpret what the intent was when it was made or the constitutionality thereof.

I am not suggesting that:

(a) the police should make the laws, or
(b) the police shouldn't have to enforce laws they disagree with

...but I think you are silly to argue that experienced, senior police officers should not be allowed to express an opinion about a proposed change in the law, especially in terms of how the enforcement of that law would play out in practice.

And Krellin, don't even try to claim that the USA has a functioning democracy.

@ Krellin: "Arizona does not need Arizona passports...you have the issue 100% backwards. The law basically states that if you come into contact with law enforcement, you have to prove you are a citizen of the US"

On the spot, there and then? Or do you have a certain time limit within which to turn up at a police station and show your passport, driving licence, or whatever?

If it's the former, that's pretty scary if you ask me. I frequently travel about (I live in the UK)with no form of I.D. on my person.

In the US, you should always have ID on you. That's why states issue state IDs for those who don't drive. And if you are here on a green card, visa, or as a guest with a passport, you are required by federal law to carry it with you at all times.

Jamie -
1. *A* singular police officer has been cited by you as being against this law. that hardly constitutes a movement.
2. Yeah...we are not even close to democracy. Actually, we are a representative republic. I know...I know....the US sucks, we are just a tyranical, emperialistic empire, blah blah blah...I've heard your silly rant before. It's old, trite and passe...
3. Even without the current immigration law if the cops pull you over and you refuse or can't produce ID you may find yourself sitting in a cell until you can prove who you are. There is nothing unique about the ability to throw you in jail and hold for a given period of time. That argument comes from the hysterical left-wing of the country that doesn't want the law enforced. I suppose in whatever glorious country you live in the absence of ID means you are completely free and clear of any threat of incarceration, huh? Please...get real. You CAN travel in the US with ID, just as in the UK...but, in the US....just as I am sure it is in the UK...if the cops decide they have reason to question you and hold you, you will have to prove your identity. Don't pretend it's otherwise. The Arizona law does not give the cops the right to pull anyone over ONLY to check ID. It states that *if there is some other reason* you are in contact with police, you have to produce ID. You're (unspoken) hysterical response that cops will suddenly start checking everyone's ID alla Nazi Germany is ludicrous and *everyone* knows it.

Wow, I agree with Jamie, that's pretty scary.

On what point and why?

@ krellin:

"Jamie-

"1. *A* singular police officer has been cited by you as being against this law. that hardly constitutes a movement."

Actually TWO of the most senior police chiefs in the state. Not just one traffic cop or something as you are trying to imply.


"2. Yeah...we are not even close to democracy. Actually, we are a representative republic. I know...I know....the US sucks, we are just a tyranical, emperialistic empire, blah blah blah...I've heard your silly rant before. It's old, trite and passe..."

Well, as long as your electoral registration system is set up to disenfranchise blacks/poor people, as long as you keep the bizzare electoral college system, and as long as the two main parties are almost identical and dominated by the vested interests of the wealthy... yeah, I'm gonna say you're not much of a democracy.


"3. Even without the current immigration law if the cops pull you over and you refuse or can't produce ID you may find yourself sitting in a cell until you can prove who you are."

That's awful. I'm glad the UK isn't like that. What exactly is the justification for being able to lock people up just because they don't go around constantly carrying ID? I don't want to carry my passport and drivers licence around with me. They're valuable to thieves. I keep them locked away at home, unless I'm travelling across borders where I'll need my passport.

Oh and Krellin, you should never, and I mean never, use the phrase "everyone knows it".

@Jamie and largeham. You can be detained without charges in the US by the feds and most states provide for a minimum of a limited detainment at the site until you can prove your identity and explain your presence at the location in question or hold you in an interrogation room longer if you go with them willingly. The only limit the states impose on themselves is they won't put you in a cell without charging you.