DoJ v. Arizona (Immigration Megathread)

[Bramborska]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00061.html

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

Today is supposed to be the day the DoJ files suit against Arizona over... Well, Arizona's version of the DoJ's law.

[Arkinesia]

I hope the Department of Justice wins, just like it ought. Non-procedural immigration is a part of US Code, and is federal responsibility.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Huzzah!

[Panzerjaeger]

I hope the Department of Justice wins, just like it ought. Non-procedural immigration is a part of US Code, and is federal responsibility.

Then maybe the Feds should start taking that responsibility seriously.

[Bramborska]

I hope the Department of Justice wins, just like it ought. Non-procedural immigration is a part of US Code, and is federal responsibility.

I believe the case is not whether its Federal responsibility, but whether Arizona's law interferes with it. Obviously, states can 'back up' Federal law with their own. For example, almost every large city has a local Equal Employment Commission, but the Federal version is still around.

[Maryginia]

im from az and i hope the doj wins

[Arkinesia]

I hope the Department of Justice wins, just like it ought. Non-procedural immigration is a part of US Code, and is federal responsibility.

Then maybe the Feds should start taking that responsibility seriously.

Here's hoping on a false hope…

[Neo Art]

I hope the Department of Justice wins, just like it ought. Non-procedural immigration is a part of US Code, and is federal responsibility.

I believe the case is not whether its Federal responsibility, but whether Arizona's law interferes with it. Obviously, states can 'back up' Federal law with their own. For example, almost every large city has a local Equal Employment Commission, but the Federal version is still around.

The difference is of course that while states may supplement federal law, they can only do so in a purely intra-state way. The federal government has anti-discrimination in labor laws. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has laws that are stricter than the federal version. The difference is, of course, that the laws of Massachusetts pertain only to Massachusetts. The laws of the state can not impact the policies or laws of other states, nor can they interfere, elaborate upon, or attempt to enforce matters that are PURELY federal.

“Arizon” has no closed border. The border is with “The United States of America”. Immigration is matter of individuals entering “The United States of America” not “The State of Arizon”. Which makes immigration a uniquely federal matter. One the state can no impinge upon. The individual state can not create or enforce immigration policies. That’s the job of the federal government.

[Conservative Alliances]

I hope the Department of Justice wins, just like it ought. Non-procedural immigration is a part of US Code, and is federal responsibility.

Then maybe the Feds should start taking that responsibility seriously.

Good luck with that.

[Neo Art]

I hope the Department of Justice wins, just like it ought. Non-procedural immigration is a part of US Code, and is federal responsibility.

Then maybe the Feds should start taking that responsibility seriously.

Irrelevant in regards to this law. How the federal government chooses to use its power is the decision of the federal government. The state can no co-op federal authority just because they don't like how the federal government chooses to use that authority.

[Bramborska]

I hope the Department of Justice wins, just like it ought. Non-procedural immigration is a part of US Code, and is federal responsibility.

I believe the case is not whether its Federal responsibility, but whether Arizona's law interferes with it. Obviously, states can 'back up' Federal law with their own. For example, almost every large city has a local Equal Employment Commission, but the Federal version is still around.

The difference is of course that while states may supplement federal law, they can only do so in a purely intra-state way. The federal government has anti-discrimination in labor laws. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has laws that are stricter than the federal version. The difference is, of course, that the laws of Massachusetts pertain only to Massachusetts. The laws of the state can not impact the policies or laws of other states, nor can they interfere, elaborate upon, or attempt to enforce matters that are PURELY federal.

“Arizon” has no closed border. The border is with “The United States of America”. Immigration is matter of individuals entering “The United States of America” not “The State of Arizon”. Which makes immigration a uniquely federal matter. One the state can no impinge upon. The individual state can not create or enforce immigration policies. That’s the job of the federal government.

But the Arizona law doesn't concern the enforcing of the border. Arizona, even with the law, has no border enforcement agency. The law only gives the local police the same inquisition-like powers that the Federal government's border enforcement powers already have. The concept of 'immigration' is, for the most obvious reasons, not enforceable by the states; I agree. Yet within state borders policies by the state concerning immigrants are applicable. For example, if you were right and immigrants were only under the jurisdiction of the Federal government--they wouldn't need to pay parking meters (considering it's a municipal ordinance).

Edit: er, grammar is hard.

[Neo Art]

But the Arizona law doesn't concern the enforcing of the border. Arizona, even with the law, has no border enforcement agency. The law only gives the local police the same inquisition-like powers that the Federal government's border enforcement powers already have. The concept of 'immigration' is, for the most obvious reasons, not enforceable by the states; I agree. Yet within state borders policies by the state concerning immigrants are applicable. For example, if you were right and immigrants were only under the jurisdiction of the Federal government--they wouldn't need to pay parking meters (considering it's a municipal ordinance).

Edit: er, grammar is hard.

The problem thus becomes is, if state laws concerning immigrants are legal in that state, what authority does the state have to CREATE laws concerning immigrants on an intra-state level. My point is, of course, that the idea of “immigrant”, as a concept, is only relevant on a federal level. State borders are, by definition, open. There’s really no such thing as an “immigrant” to a state from a legal perspective. It is a term that only has meaning in a legal sense at a federal level.

And as such, it’s extremely questionable (to the point of perhaps being downright obviously untrue) whether a state has ANY powers to create laws regulating immigration. Because, remember, the law does not (and really can not) make it illegal for someone to BE IN ARIZONA. Rather, it creates criminal penalties for people who are in the COUNTRY illegally and FOUND in Arizona. That’s a very crucial difference, and an important one. It's not to say that immigrants are only under the authority of the federal government. That's silly and obviously untrue as you point out. But rather their STATUS as an immigrant, and the legality or lack thereof OF THAT STATUS is a matter for federal enforcement only. The state can surely put an immigrant, even an illegal one, under their authority if the immigrant is found within that state. What the state can NOT do is make regulations, laws, or legal penalties that relate to their STATUS in the country, because their STATUS is a federal matter, not a state one.

The STATE can not really make penalties for being in the COUNTRY illegally. Or, to put it another way, the state can not decide that someone is in “the state” legally, because definitionally inherent to a state’s open borders, anyone who is in the COUNTRY legally can be in any STATE legally. So the only way one can be “in arizona” illegally is because Arizona is, by definition, part of the broader country. So who gets to decide who is in the country legally or not? The federal government.

Arizona can not make that determination, nor can it enforce any penalties for being in the state illegally, because to make a determination that someone is in the STATE illegally they must make the determination that they are in the COUNTRY illegally, and that’s solely the authority of the federal government.

[Greed and Death]

Since your here Mr. Art does this case require some sort of standing to proceed ?

[Neo Art]

Since your here Mr. Art does this case require some sort of standing to proceed ?

To make a very long answer very short, let it suffice to say that the federal government ALWAYS has standing when the allegation is that a state law unconstitutionally interferes with federal powers.

[Greed and Death]

Since your here Mr. Art does this case require some sort of standing to proceed ?

To make a very long answer very short, let it suffice to say that the federal government ALWAYS has standing when the allegation is that a state law unconstitutionally interferes with federal powers.

aka I will learn about this in more detail in law school then, I hope.

[Neo Art]

Since your here Mr. Art does this case require some sort of standing to proceed ?

To make a very long answer very short, let it suffice to say that the federal government ALWAYS has standing when the allegation is that a state law unconstitutionally interferes with federal powers.

aka I will learn about this in more detail in law school then, I hope.

"standing" generally means “you have to be impacted by the conduct of the party you bring suit against” or “you have to have a direct interest in the law being enforced in this case”. One of the big issue in the 2008 election with those who were trying to sue Obama to have the birth certificate released is that, technically, the only people who have a DIRECT interest in enforcement of election law are the 538 electors. Since they’re the only ones ACTUALLY voting they’re the only ones who have a direct interest in enforcement of the laws regarding candidate requirements. Sorta why I can’t sue you for trespassing on my neighbor’s lawn.

Well what’s the federal government’s argument here? That their rights as the federal government are being interfered with by this law. The law that they’re invoking to attempt to enforce is not the Arizona law, but the US Constitution. They have a direct interest in the enforcement of the constitution in this matter because it relates directly to their particular powers.

[Dyakovo]

I hope the Department of Justice wins, just like it ought. Non-procedural immigration is a part of US Code, and is federal responsibility.

Then maybe the Feds should start taking that responsibility seriously.

What makes you think they're not?

[The Bleeding Roses]

Arizona will win. Nothing else needs be said.

[Neo Art]

Arizona will win. Nothing else needs be said.

I think, given your demonstrated skill in legal analysis, that this very comment, all by itself, creates a virtual certainty that the DoJ will win this one.

[Vervaria]

Arizona will win. Nothing else needs be said.

Why will it win?

[Dyakovo]

Arizona will win. Nothing else needs be said.

Other than an explanation of why you think that to be the case...

[Conservative Alliances]

Arizona will win. Nothing else needs be said.

Is this your personal hope or legal opinion?

[Neo Art]

Arizona will win. Nothing else needs be said.

Is this your personal hope or legal opinion?

I fear to have something that constitutes a "legal opinion" one must actually know a bare minimum about the law.

[Rolling squid]

Arizona will win. Nothing else needs be said.

Why will it win?

because this is the same court that gave us citizens united.

[Orlkjestad]

The Justice Department will win, no questions asked. The law is obviously unconstitutional, and we're dealing with THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. If only the case was on pay-per-view...