What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

I never said I want open borders. I want laws that meet Constitutional standards and are legally enforceable.

The most interesting legal issue is if the state can make illegal immigration a state crime, which is what the law does. Or is the crime of illegal immigration solely a federal prerogative as identified in the Constitution as a power of Congress.

And whether it is controversial to you or not, and whether you or I disagree on the legal merits, it is controversial to many attorneys, law enforcement officials, local government officials and others.

That is why we have a federal judiciary. If the courts determine it is legal, I might not like it, but I will accept it.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

it is controversial to many attorneys, law enforcement officials, local government officials and others.

All of whom have a great deal at stake and not just financially.

Originally Posted by classicman

All of whom have a great deal at stake and not just financially.

All of them?

Many legal experts who have expressed concern about the law have only the Constitution in mind. Many local elected officials and police chiefs in AZ are concerned about liability exposure since there is no clear standard of what constitutes "reasonable cause" or "suspicious behavior."

You can ignore the legal issues and attempt to make it all about politics and money. As convenient as it might be to deflect the argument away from the legal questions, that in itself is acting politically.

I honestly dont understand what is so wrong with having the federal judiciary determine the constitutionality of the AZ law (or any law where there are controversial legal questions). Perhaps you can explain why that would be so bad.

As an aside:
While not pointing any fingers here, its funny how many conservatives are all gung ho about questioning the constitutionality of a federal law they dont like (health reform) but for some reason, have a problem with others questioning the constitutionality of a state law that those conservatives like.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You answered that yourself, federal and state.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You answered that yourself, federal and state.

How so?

The core issue, putting aside the 4th and 14th amendment issues, is whether a state can make a law that the Constitution says is solely the prerogative of Congress....and there is something called the Supremacy Clause as well which often comes into play when determining the constitutionality of state laws.

If illegal immigration can only be a federal crime, then it raises question about a state law that makes illegal immigration a state crime.

I am not suggestion that it applies in this case. I dont know, but some constitutional experts believe it does apply and I think it is a legitimate question. The federal judiciary should make that determination.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You asked what is bothering conservatives. I told you. I'm not defending their position.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You asked what is bothering conservatives. I told you. I'm not defending their position.

Ah...I get it now.

They are big on states rights....until a state legislates in a manner they dont like. Then they wave the Constitution.