What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

Originally Posted by jinx

Don't states have individual drug laws?

Possession of illegal drugs has never been solely a federal crime nor does federal law identify it as such.

What the AZ laws does is make illegal immigration a state crime when federal law (and the Constitution?) deems it to be solely a federal crime....that the states can help enforce, but NOT make more restrictive than the federal law.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Possession of illegal drugs has never been solely a federal crime nor does federal law identify it as such.

What the AZ laws does is make illegal immigration a state crime when federal law (and the Constitution?) deems it to be solely a federal crime....that the states can help enforce, but NOT make more restrictive than the federal law.

State Troopers seem to be the ultimate law enforcement agency at all state levels. It seems to me that they have great leeway to enforce all law, both state and federal. You keep saying the AZ law is more restrictive, when it is not. We have already agreed that Federal police agencies (ICE and Border Patrol) have the same authority that they are giving to local and state police agencies in AZ.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

State Troopers seem to be the ultimate law enforcement agency at all state levels. It seems to me that they have great leeway to enforce all law, both state and federal. You keep saying the AZ law is more restrictive, when it is not. We have already agreed that Federal police agencies (ICE and Border Patrol) have the same authority that they are giving to local and state police agencies in AZ.

In the opinion of many, the AZ law is more restrictive because it create state arrest authority for violations of federal immigration law in situations that do not exist under federal law.

The issue is not state troopers being the ultimate law enforcement agency, but the state legislature and governor enacting a law that says illegal immigration is a state crime...when the Constitution (?) and federal law deem immigration legislation/regulation to be a federal matter...with enforcement support from the state.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

In the opinion of many, the AZ law is more restrictive because it create state arrest authority for violations of federal immigration law in situations that do not exist under federal law.

Illegal immigration is a crime. ICE and Border Patrol arrest and detain persons who are here illegally everyday. The only difference I see is that now a state level or lower duely appointed law enforcement official can now assist the feds in doing the same, arresting and detaining persons for a violation of crime. They arrest people who can be tried under federal law on a daily basis, it just so happens that they are liable to arrest for similar violations at the state level. I don't see how that is more restrictive.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Redux

What the AZ laws does is make illegal immigration a state crime when federal law (and the Constitution?) deems it to be solely a federal crime....that the states can help enforce, but NOT make more restrictive than the federal law.

Shortly after the U.S. Civil War, some states started to pass their own immigration laws, which prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in 1875 that immigration was a federal responsibility[1].

Supreme Court case, Chy Lung v. Freeman.

We are not called upon by this statute to decide for or against the right of a state, in the absence of legislation by Congress, to protect herself by necessary and proper laws against paupers and convicted criminals from abroad, nor to lay down the definite limit of such right, if it exist. Such a right can only arise from a vital necessity for its exercise, and cannot be carried beyond the scope of that necessity. When a state statute, limited to provisions necessary and appropriate to that object alone, shall, in a proper controversy, come before us, it will be time enough to decide that question. The statute of California goes so far beyond what is necessary, or even appropriate, for this purpose, as to be wholly without any sound definition of the right under which it is supposed to be justified. Its manifest purpose, as we have already said, is, not to obtain indemnity, but money.

Originally Posted by jinx

Supreme Court case, Chy Lung v. Freeman.

The Supreme Court ruled the state law was unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress had exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce and immigration. It also held that the state law violated 14th amendment rights of non-residents (that it did not apply only to citizens).

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Supreme Court ruled the state law was unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress had exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce and immigration.

The USSC cases I have provided links for show a precedence for specific immigration issues not affecting commerce to be considered a police matter and within a states right to legislate.

Originally Posted by jinx

The USSC cases I have provided links for show a precedence for specific immigration issues not affecting commerce to be considered a police matter and within a states right to legislate.

And as I noted, those cases were before the federal government asserted its express power to regulate immigration.

And, again, we aint the experts and we have a difference of opinion.