DOJ Seeks Injunction Against AZ Immigration Law

Update: Via Politico, Here is a copy of the Complaint filed today.

The Department of Justice will file its legal challenge to Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070, as early as today. It will seek an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect.

The lawsuit will rely on pre-emption (through the Supremacy Clause) but it's also expected to contain a civil rights claim.

But the filing is likely to have a civil rights component as well, arguing that the Arizona law would lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and foreigners, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the government has not announced its plans. President Obama has warned that the law could violate citizens' civil rights, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has expressed concern that it could drive a wedge between police and immigrant communities.


The law is set to take effect on July 27. Via CNN:

The law, which is scheduled to take effect at the end of July, requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect that they're in the United States illegally. It also targets businesses that hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.

The AP:

The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.

The law also prohibits government agencies from having policies that restrict the enforcement of federal immigration law and lets Arizonans file lawsuits against agencies that hinder immigration enforcement.

< Will The Obama Administration Damage The Dem Party? | Lindsay Lohan Gets 90 Days in Jail for Probation Violation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Decisive. Excellent. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 12:33:49 PM EST

    So you're a naturalized (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 01:59:43 PM EST
    citizen, and therefore you're not required to carry your "papers" with you.  And then you run a red light and some cop demands you provide your papers to prove you're a citizen and therefore not required to have papers.

    Then what happens?  Presumably, you get arrested on suspicion and dragged down to the precinct and you're allowed your phone call to try to get somebody who can dig up those citizenship "papers" you weren't obligated to carry with you and bring them to the cops so you can go home.

    This law effectively requires everyone of Hispanic origin to carry papers with them, citizen or not-- but not the rest of us.  I can't wait until the first person is stopped on "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal German immigrant, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Worse than that (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 02:11:07 PM EST
    It is not just traffic stops that can occasion an inquiry regarding your immigration status.

    A lawful stop can be done to enforce local zoning and use laws--the statute's author specifically noted that the unlawful activity being probed could be: (1) a car up on blocks in a front yard, and (2) too many people living in the same residence.

    Local zoning ordinances cover a lot of ground.  Basically, anyone can be stopped at any time for anything under this law.   It is not just traffic stops or those already under arrest for a crime.


    Exactly the problem (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    One of them anyway

    And (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    If the cop doesn't arrest you, anyone else can sue you for "not upholding the law".

    Sue the cop, that is ... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 06:45:51 PM EST
    ... one of the most absurd provisions of this ridiculous law .... Designed -- I can't see any other explanation -- to pressure the police to make more (and thus more invalid) arrests for failing to carry papers.  These arrests, I suppose, are not actually intended to produce convictions, or even prosecutions (in state court), but rather to result in the arrested person being turned over to ICE.

    Right (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 07:01:02 PM EST
    I mis-typed.



    Bad Example IMO (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    Driving through a red light and getting stopped for it would require the driver to show a valid driving license. Things would go badly for an undocumented person in that scenario, unless he or she had an excellent forgery that clears the PD data base.

    The problem is when someone is just "suspected" of doing something wrong and is stopped because he or she looks Mexican. There is no requirement to show papers or driver license, and if the "suspect" does not show legal residence the police can either bring the person to jail, or federal immigration.


    That is true now and has no connection (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 02:23:39 PM EST
    to AZ1070.

    If you are pulled over for any violation of a traffic law and if you do not have a valid drivers license the police can arrest you and impound the car to prevent you from continuing to break the law.

    And the police won't stop someone for "looking Mexican." We lived next door to a couple from Mexico while in Chicago. He had blond hair and blue eyes. She was a pale skinned brunette.

    Squeaky, repeat after me. There is no Mexican "race" anymore than there is an American "race."

    Your sole claim is that the police will act improperly. That could be true in hundreds of different ways. As a society we must depend on their training and supervision.


    They won't target blond Mexicans (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 06:07:47 PM EST
    We should trust those in authority to always make the right decision?   Sure.

    No thank you.  Especially because the idea is to get rid of the brown people.  Did you miss the controversy over the mural in Northern Arizona depicting school kids?  Passers-by complained that the kids were too dark and hurled epithets at those painting the mural.  Word came down from  on-high to lighten the complexions of the kids in the mural.  

    And why were they brown to begin with?  Because the artist was using a photo of the actual school kids....

    Racist law.  Okay, you don't like the word racist--because Latino is not a "race"....Well, then let's use the word "bigot" instead.


    I repeat (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 11:19:15 PM EST
    Your sole claim is that the police will act improperly. That could be true in hundreds of different ways. As a society we must depend on their training and supervision.

    The problem is we have about 12 million illegal immigrants in the US... This is merely an attempt to stop them.


    Please Stop Your Propaganda (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 02:38:25 PM EST
    This law is pandering to a right wing crowd who believes that Mexicans are the new blacks, and they do not want them in their state.

    The politicians in turn are fearmongering in order to fire up those who are likely to vote racism and bigotry ahead of common sense and civil rights.

    All the professionals who work to actually fight crime in the state of AZ, and whose jobs are not dependent on being elected are against the law because it will increase crime and damage the trust in their communities that they have worked so hard to gain.

    Arizona's law will intimidate crime victims and witnesses who are illegal immigrants and divert police from investigating more serious crimes, chiefs from Los Angeles, Houston and Philadelphia said before meeting with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss the measure. Counterparts from Phoenix, Tucson, San Jose and Montgomery County, among others, joined them.

    "This is not a law that increases public safety. This is a bill that makes it much harder for us to do our jobs," Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said. "Crime will go up if this becomes law in Arizona or in any other state."....

    While the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the new law, elected sheriffs including Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, head of the Arizona Sheriff's Association, back it.



    Let me see (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    You quote the Wa Post and chide me for propaganda?


    BTW - Police management never wants additional tasks... As for quoting the LA chief..

    lol and rolling in the floor.


    Yes I Know (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:55:58 PM EST
    WaPo is right wing, but the facts are that non elected police workers, be they police chiefs or working on a beat, believe that this law will have a negative effect on violent crime see it for the political distraction that it is.

    It is also a fact that the undocumented have an extremely low crime rate.


    I thought you would pick up on (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:57:05 PM EST
    "[A]ll the professionals . . ."

    No. The policeman asks to see your (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    driver's license, car registration and proof of insurance.

    Assuming you have them he issues you a ticket, which you sign agreeing that you will appear in court. You then drive away fuming at yourself for not paying attention and happy that you didn't run into another car.

    If you do not have them you get the same treatment as a Born In The USA citizen. You are arrested and your car impounded.


    Officer must follow through (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    the new legislation requires the officer to go an extra step and request citizenship verification and doesn't the legislation allow citizens to sue if they witness the officer not doing this part of their job?

    Officers are damned if they do and damned if they don't under this law.


    Ha, ha, ha! (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:57:03 PM EST
    Surely you jest.  If you have a heavy accent, or funny shoes, apparently, he permits himself "reasonable suspicion" that you're an illegal and demands to see your papers.

    The joke of the whole statute is that there is no "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal rather than a legal immigrant.  The only possible circumstance is the classic van loaded with 20 sweaty dusty people careening away from the border on a lonely road at high speed.

    But a guy driving down the street, or hanging on the corner, or name your petty violation, there is no "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant.


    I'm so tired of the misinformation (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by mexboy on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 04:06:20 PM EST
    The law actually says you are presumed an" illegal alien" unless you can prove otherwise.

    This is what SB1070 says:






    It is also true that some states, including New Mexico and Utah, do not require proof of citizenship to issue a DL. The fact that they are asking for Arizona documents is no accident.

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 04:08:04 PM EST
    That's the "carry your passport" problem.

    Guilty until proven innocent (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by mexboy on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 04:14:48 PM EST
    if you look the M word.

    No civil rights claims (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 04:03:43 PM EST
    it's all preemption and the supremacy clause. The complaint seems to have been drafted in anticipation of adjudication before a Republican appointee. And that's fine, because the argument for the U.S. seems pretty iron clad. I anticipate that a TRO will be issued.

    I don't know if this part will stick, but I particularly admire the complaint's argument that SB 1070 will interfere with the President's (near-plenary) role in conducting foreign policy:

    Because S.B. 1070, in both its singularly stated purpose and necessary operation, conflicts with the federal government's balance of competing objectives in the enforcement of the federal immigration laws, its passage already has had foreign policy implications for U.S. diplomatic relations with other countries, including Mexico and many others. S.B. 1070 has also had foreign policy implications concerning specific national interests regarding national security, drug enforcement, tourism, trade, and a variety of other issues. . . . S.B. 1070 has subjected the United States  to direct criticism by other countries and international organizations and has resulted in a breakdown in certain planned bilateral and multilateral arrangements on issues such as border security and disaster management. S.B. 1070 has in these ways undermined several aspects of U.S. foreign policy related to immigration issues and other national concerns that are unrelated to immigration.

    Can any entity sue/claim for (none / 0) (#2)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 12:34:22 PM EST
    "possible future" events or damages?

    The point of an injunction, no? (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 12:38:12 PM EST
    TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    are sought to keep a party from doing something or to get the court to order a party do something.  Money damages, in my experience, are not involved.  There are other vehicles to pray for money damages.link

    Wouldn't they (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 01:15:29 PM EST
    have to show "harm" first?  Since this law has not yet gone into effect, is there a good legal argument someone can make about "harm" at this point?

    No (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 01:19:20 PM EST
    It is all about potential. An injunction does not cancel a law, just puts off the enactment until it can be evaluated as constitutional, etc., imo.

    IANAL, so take that with a pound of salt


    I know what an injunction is (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 01:21:48 PM EST
    The question was if they could sue for future or potential losses.  Different question.

    Yes I Know (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 01:24:14 PM EST
    And as Oculus said injunctions are not the vehicle for that. Injunctions stop things that are potentially damaging, therefore by definition the damages have not happened yet.

    I was responding to BTAL (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 01:26:24 PM EST
    I See (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 01:34:29 PM EST
    Well your browser must be set wrong, or you mistakenly responded to oculus...  I have also occasionally put comments in the wrong place, so I can understand. Although, from the content of your comment it does appear that you were responding to oculus..

    Yes, but that wasn't the question. (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 02:31:48 PM EST
    Oculus , thank you for the link n/t (none / 0) (#26)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:05:24 PM EST
    What's the problem? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 02:01:25 PM EST

    The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents ...

    Federal law already requires legal immigrants to carry their immigration documents. The AZ law supports the federal law.  There appears to be no conflict.

    Field preemption (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    Not conflict preemption is the argument.

    And it is a slam dunk frankly.


    Looked up field preemption (none / 0) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:20:00 PM EST
    How about absense of team on the field.  Isn't Arizona's argument that the Feds aren't fielding a team and that the Feds are required to?  Won't Arizona argue that they can't be preempting in the face of an unequal playing field?

    Losing argument (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:24:56 PM EST
    For example, the feds could decide not to be on the fie;d, so to speak, as part of their approach (not saying they are doing that, but they could).

    Here's another phrase that may explain it  - "occupy the field." Occupation of the field includes deciding what to emphasize and what not to emphasize.  


    How could that square with (none / 0) (#37)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:35:52 PM EST
    Obama's public pledge to send 12,000 NG troops to AZ to help secure the border?  

    Easy to square (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:39:41 PM EST
    The feds decided what they would do.

    Ordinary citizen here (none / 0) (#38)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    OK, If it's that's easy in court fine, but for an ordinary citizen you have to do much more than that.  To an ordinary person, 'I'm not going to enforce this particular part of the law and you can't either' just doesn't convince me.

    Snap to it.


    Preemption (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 07:59:39 PM EST
    Absent the key and catch phrases, waldenpond, simply means that the federal government has authority--as the sovereign and under the supremacy clause--to govern in this area. Should the government elect to claim that right, the state (or local or other) cannot be heard to say otherwise. I understand that your concern is: Shouldn't somebody do something...and if the feds have walked away, why not the state...etc. Yet, from a structural and integral standpoint, it is much broader than that for the reason--the very traditional and almost ancient recognition--that the country (the sovereign country) has an overriding interest in certain areas. Commerce in the country is one such example; foreign policy is another. And, here, securing/protecting/controlling/having authority over its borders is another example of where the national interest is paramount.

    There is the whole; and, there are the components. There are times and occasions in a republic where the totality/the whole leads or should lead...if we are to regard ourselves as a nation. Looking at the Constitution (and, historically, looking back to Roman times) the needs of the country must come first. Those needs are determined by the Executive (the President.) Even in a family--like a nation--there are areas where the parts have to defer to the greater good, to the whole.


    Easy in court (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:40:07 PM EST
    is right.

    That's my point.


    Court of public opinion is a different nut (none / 0) (#41)
    by coast on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:43:22 PM EST
    to crack.

    Encroachment (none / 0) (#22)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 02:36:52 PM EST
    I don't get that part either.  I am guessing it is because they are encroaching on another agency by acting as federal agents without the training?

    What federal agency (none / 0) (#24)
    by coast on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    enforces the current federal law in your town?  I don't know of one enforcing it in mine.  Hard to say a state agency is encroaching when there is no current enforcement.

    Where do you live? (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:06:40 PM EST
    There are federal agencies all over the place, with jurisdiction all over.

    SC (none / 0) (#30)
    by coast on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:15:54 PM EST
    Our state has decided to take the problem on by going after the employers.  I haven't heard one federal agency come forward and say something to the effect of "we don't need the state (AZ)doing our job, we routinely do this as part of enforcement activities".

    Field preemption (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:19:14 PM EST
    is the argument, not conflict preemption.

    Perhaps I need to write a post to explain the concept.


    No need, saw your post after we started on this (none / 0) (#35)
    by coast on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:24:58 PM EST

    Ah (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:21:50 PM EST
    You have your own issues down there!  (My aunt and uncle have a home down there - the politics is always entertaining, but in a sad way!)

    But you actually do have federal agencies with offices there who are working on these problems - probably many based out of Atlanta or Jacksonville.  Maybe that's why - they work out of regional offices and don't have as big a presence as they may have in AZ.


    There is not an INS bureau in (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:50:35 PM EST
    the town I live in...

    I would have been surprised if ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Erehwon on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 07:12:36 PM EST
    INS did have an office in your town! But I guess you do live in the past as INS was dissolved over seven years ago ... :-)

    Oh, you are just soooooooo clever (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 11:14:43 PM EST
    The Repub party thanks (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 02:11:25 PM EST
    the Demos for this most excellent additional reason for the 58% of those who favor AZ1070 to vote Repub.

    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 02:12:39 PM EST
    As if the 58% are not already solid GOP wingnuts....

    as odd as it sounds (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:04:37 PM EST
    some are not.  or were not.  I know people who voted for Obama who are totally red in the face about immigration.  

    having said that, I totally agree with this action except I dont see why it is bad to punish businessess who "hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them".  that to me seems like the way to deal with the problem instead of going after the poor schleps who are trying to make a living.


    OK (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    I see your point. 53.8% voted McCain in 2008 (45% Obama) so an additional 4.2% of the 58% ppj mentions are likely Democrats.

    Pete Wilson (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:25:53 PM EST
    Yeah Prop 187 (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:45:08 PM EST
    He became toxic to his own party...  I hope that those who are clamoring to use anti-immigration fearmongering as a way to drum up votes, will continue to make Hispanic voters flee from anything GOP.

    You think the Repubs expect to win CA or WA or OR? (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:52:49 PM EST
    The Republicans used to have (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 06:16:50 PM EST
    success in California.  Republicans like Bush I won here.

    Republicans like Pete Wilson won a Senate seat and then the governorship in Califorinia.....In 1994 or thereabouts, Republicans controlled the state legislature and ousted Willie Brown as speaker.

    What happened?  Republicans went Latino bashing.....Prop 187.  

    Think it won't happen in Nevada or New Mexico or Colorado?  Until very, very recently, those were  reliable red states.  Now trending very blue.....If the Latino bashing continues, kiss Arizona and eventually Texas goodbye......Know the percentage of school kids who are Latino in those states?  It will surprise you.....  


    If we have to ignore illegals and let them destroy (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 06:50:47 PM EST
    the hard won wages and working conditions to win elections then something is wrong with the people voting.

    and........ (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 06:59:13 PM EST
    President Bill Clinton urged Californians to reject Proposition 187 as an impediment to federal policy on immigration. After admitting that "it is not wrong for you [Californians] to want to reduce illegal immigration," Clinton asked voters to allow the federal government to "keep working on what we're doing."[

    ...working and working and working and working and working and working and working and working and working.....



    Cryptic. Wiki states some credit (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:43:34 PM EST
    Wilson's anti-immigrant stance with building a Dem. party majority in CA.  

    Read This (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:47:28 PM EST
    From 2002

    LOS ANGELES -- Republicans are still apologizing to Hispanics for Pete Wilson's immigration policies. Mr. Wilson himself, however, offers no apologies.

    But, Wiki also states Wilson served (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 03:45:17 PM EST
    in Vietnam!

    The Democratic gain (none / 0) (#71)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 03:54:20 PM EST
    I suspect that the amount of support for the Arizona law is a kind of mirage...except outside the state. Outside of the state, it would be an easy guess that most people (other than dyed-in-the-wool Republicans and Republican-leaning independents) would not have that issue in the tope 2 or 3 or 4 issues which form the basis for their voting decision. So, probably, no risk for the Democrats outside the state...even in the short term. OTOH, what are the odds that Latino/a voters may view that issue with a higher priority both inside and outside Arizona? If a higher priority in that demographic, what does that say about the generational future of voting in--oh, lets just say--Nevada, Colorado, Texas, etc.?

    Well (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    Not to be cynical, as to the principled decision of both Obama to voice support of the law suit against AZ and of the DOJ to pursue the law suit... but, Latinos have been polling low for Obama and the Democrats because the promised immigration bill has not come to fruition. And as has been pointed out, Reid is in a tough election and needs Latino support.

    Pols are pols who sometimes do stupid things... this time I think it will pan out for Obama and the Democrats, despite the fact that 56% of US voters supposedly support the AZ bill.


    Preemption (none / 0) (#67)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 07:00:59 AM EST

    The feds seem making the case that a state cannot make something a crime that the feds have already made a crime.  Such as the case of requiring immigrants to carry documentation.  

    If the feds win this case, there is a huge body of state criminal law that to some degree overlaps federal law.  Would state prosecution of the murder of a federal agent for example be something that is preempted by this doctrine?  

    No, that is not the case (none / 0) (#68)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 11:50:20 AM EST
    Please do some research about preemption. The legal position is used to safeguard the role of the United States as a nation. In that sense, the legal argument tends to be decisive in matters of foreign policy, national commerce, and border integrity aka immigration issues. Nations--not just the United States--see to their borders and their troops, e.g., as a nation (as a whole) and not as cities, municipalities, states, or portions thereof. It is based in the Constitution (and, actually & historically, much earlier universally) because it is an essential part of what makes a nation a nation. To have a "patchwork" or to promote a bunch of potentially conflicting laws throughout the country on a central component like immigration or foreign policy or national commerce would invite internal conflict destructive to the very integrity of the nation.

    So...as I suspect you know, this is not about red herrings. It is not about legitimate (and recognized) authority to regulate shoplifting, burglary, arson, civil torts, etc. etc. etc. This is (once again) about the overriding integrity of the nation.


    Add-on (none / 0) (#69)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 11:55:03 AM EST
    Oops...as to the alleged commission of a crime involving one who happens to be employed by the federal government. If the charge involves the commission of a crime covered under federal law, federal authorities have authority to pursue remedy under the law said to have been violated.

    If immigration were truly the purview of (none / 0) (#70)
    by coast on Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 02:04:36 PM EST
    the federal government, then why are states being forced to implement the REAL ID act which is solely an immigration enforcement tool.  The act is supposed to go into effect in 2011 and requires that ID applicants show proof of legal status.  So why is the federal government requiring states to do their bidding when someone is applying for an ID, but a law enforcement officer can not ask for the same documentation when stopping someone for another violation of the law?

    Funny how feds lean on Ariz., not R.I. (none / 0) (#73)
    by BTAL on Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 04:57:46 PM EST


    Anyway, if enforcing immigration law is a bad thing for local cops to do, as Holder claims, why pick on Arizona? If he's really upset that the same laws he has taken an oath to enforce might actually get (gulp!) enforced, why isn't he suing Providence instead of Phoenix? They've been doing local immigration enforcement for years now.

    As The Boston Globe-Democrat reported yesterday, "From Woonsocket to Westerly, the troopers patrolling the nation's smallest state are reporting all illegal immigrants they encounter, even on routine stops such as speeding, to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement."


    Rhode Island cops now routinely contact ICE when they suspect they've come across an illegal immigrant. Since 2006, the number of contacts they've made to ICE's Law Enforcement Support Center in Vermont has nearly doubled, the Globe reported. How is this significantly different than Arizona's proposed law?

    from The Boston Globe

    One is a law (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 09:03:28 PM EST
    That law can be seen to directly contradict/contravene what is within the nation's sole authority to regulate. (Or was your question really rhetorical....) Oh, and nothing precludes local enforcement agencies from tipping off/providing assist to the federal government.