The Glade 4.0

There may not be a good definition yet, Screeling. Unless AZ courts have interpreted the phrase in prior cases, it's an open question. I agree, though, that it's most likely to be interpreted as a contact pursuant to enforcement duties, not asking the park patrol guy for directions. Like I said, however, enforcement-related duties are still so incredibly far-reaching these days, the cops can pretty easily justify stopping virtually anyone on any given day.

That is certainly part of it, yes. However, there is more to it, as below;



And since Arathain is taking a similiar bent with this response:



Except, and Khross hinted at this as well... The federal government doesn't have a "police force" tasked with enforcing federal law. They do have some "departments" for lack of a better word, that are supposed to focus on specific federal crimes, or had enforcement of some crimes put into their box, but the federal government has ceded authority of enforcement to state and local police forces, while in some cases retaining jurisdiction, but relying on the local police to do the work.

However, and this is more directed Arathain... does this mean that states can stop spending money on police efforts to stop drug trafficking, kidnapping, bank robbery, etc?

That clarifies your position, thanks, and I think I agree with you.

Ok, so if I understand correctly, you're saying that if my main worry is really a general concern for the 4th Amendment, then I should have no greater objection to state cops using minor pretextual stops as excuses to investigate suspected immigration violations than I have to them doing the same thing to investigate suspected violations of other federal laws. Right?

Yes, which is the logical problem with my position, and the motivation for Arizona passing this law.

However, when Congress makes a bad law, the answer is not to have the states enforce it for them, it's for the states to take up with the feds to fix the problem and do their jobs.

In fact, because of this law (and his poor poll numbers) Reid is talking about taking up immigration.

Repeal bad laws, don't make more.

Except, the States have the right to police their own borders. They also have the right to police their own population for criminals. Nothing in the Constitution prevents Arizona from policing its own population for illegal aliens and detaining them until ICE can deport them.

_________________

Absolutely. They already do this in fact. See California's stance on marijuana.

Some of your other examples, however, (bank robbery, kidnapping) are direct assaults on state citizens. Also, there are violations of state laws, as well. Stealing from a bank is a federal crime, but armed robbery is a state crime as well.

AZ does not have the authority to determine who can or cannot enter their state.

Arathain:

Really? Care to show me any Constitutional basis for that statement? I have one for my position. It's called the Tenth Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution denies the States from policing their own borders or denying people entry.

_________________

Correct. And in addition, you should have the same objection to the state level enforcement using the pretextual contact as the federal government doing the same.

Privileges and Immunities clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. Also, I thought you said the 10th had been vacated anyway?

RangerDave:

Privilege and Immunities clause applies only to citizens, as does the Equal Protection clause. Neither of which are extended to illegal aliens.

And the Tenth has been vacated; but so then has the majority of the Constitution in practice. Tell me, were we to actually follow the letter of the Constitution, would we be having this argument?

_________________

If figured that would be a counterpoint, but such an example only exists because of lack of interest by the Federal government in forcing the matter, and whats more, demonstrates exactly the point I was making... without local enforcement, the federal laws mean very little, and the fed relies on such activity by local authorities to uphold federal law.


Guess what, this a state law in Arizona now as well, so the local authorities are upholding state laws. Being here illegally is a federal crime, a state crime in Arizona. Of course, that again assumes that the only law being broken in residency. That is almost never the case.

Section 8:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

This firmly establishes the borders of the US as within the powers of the Federal Government.

Arathain:

Neither of those have anything to do with illegal residency. Show me where the Constitution specifically prohibits the states from enforcing their own borders.

_________________

Which gets me back to my previous point. If you can't enforce a law, it's a bad law. Change the law.



Being here illegally is a crime? That means committing a federal crime is a State crime, basically. That's just dumb in general, as I'm sure you know. They are only doing this so they can enforce it under state law. I don't think it should be enforced by the states. It's already a federal law, the feds should enforce it or change the law. Again, I don't believe that it is or should be within Arizona's jurisdiction to control who enters its borders.

Arathain:

We get that you don't believe Arizona should have that authority, but seeing as there's no explicit prohibition against it, Arizona can (provided we actually enforce the Rule of Law instead of the Rule of Judiciary Will).

_________________

Sure it does. The Federal Government establishes what constitutes illegal residency.

The states are not specifically prohibited from enforcing their borders, but they do not have the authority to decide who is allowed into the country. Therefore, their enforcement must necessarily be consistent with Federal laws.

In other words, the Fed could say that anyone who wades across the Rio Grande is instantly a citizen. Arizona could not keep them out. Therefore, it is the Feds that decide the illegality of these residents, not Arizona. Thus, it must be federal law, which I do not agree should be enforced, in this case, by Arizona.

Do you want a national police force?


Yes... that is what illegal means, though I think I must be missing something, because that comment is out of character for you.


Except our laws are hierarchical... federal law governs and state laws can only be more restrictive not less (putting aside the issue in California atm). In the absence of a federal law, state laws are the umbrella statute. But being a federal law makes it the law of the "law of the land" and police are required to enforce the laws from their level up (ie state troopers are not responsible for enforcing dog leash laws in the park, unless its a state park).



Again, so you want a federal police force?

Well, there's 2 sides of this: what should be done and what can legally be done.

What should be done is opinion-based; I think I've established my position well enough.

What could legally be done is more of a grey area. The power was provided to the Fed but not specifically prohibited to the States. I believe I am correct (obviously) but would concede it's loose enough to warrant some constitutional lawyers hashing it out.

Um.... FBI, ATF, INS, Border Patrol, Park Service, Military Police, Secret Service, probably some I'm forgetting.



If that's the case, then it makes the legislation even more unnecessary.



Too late.

Arathain:

Arizona has the right to determine who is in their state legally or otherwise. They just have to be uniform about it.

_________________

The comment of yours that I replied to referred to AZ denying entry to people in general, not simply illegal aliens, but fair enough. You're right that the P&I clause is for citizens only, but the EP clause is for all persons, as is the Due Process clause of the 14th. Federal control of immigration in general, though, comes from the naturalization clause Arathain quoted, as well as the Commerce Clause and Federal control over foreign relations via treaties, coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause.

A textualist reading of the "letter" of the Constitution completely misses the interaction and intent of these clauses, which was obviously to give the Federal government control over immigration and to ensure the free flow of commerce and people across state lines.

RangerDave:

The Federal Government has control over naturalization and immigration as legal process. That's patently and explicitly clear. Show me where the Constitution DENIES Arizona the right to detain illegal aliens.

_________________

I can see why you made that list, and except for the MP and Park Service, which actually are enforcement officers in the same vein as police, none of those apply as an authority that actually performs local enforcement. For those tasks, the federal government relies upon local authorities, and has given authority to those agencies to enforce the laws (though primary jurisdiction maybe reserved).


And it also defeats your argument that local police shouldn't be doing the enforcing... it is already part of their job. The only difference is what statute the criminal gets charged under... local, state or federal.

Now, if you mean unnecessary as in the local police didn't need authority to already request that identification, because it was already within their power, I agree. However, this comes back to the other, more important parts of the law (in my opinion), that add penalties to employers of illegal aliens. This bill is targeted at removing the incentive to be in AZ.