The Glade 4.0

I discussed earlier my approval of partnerships. Clearly, though, the Fed does not approve of this Arizona bill.



No, it doesn't. My argument is this Arizona bill is unnecessary. If what you say is true, and local is supposed to enforce federal, why then is this bill, which makes violating federal law a state crime (basically) necessary?



Which is unnecessary and ill advised, as I have stated. I believe I outlined 4 reasons why.

That's untrue. They cannot deny any US citizen entry, whether they implement this uniformly or not. Who establishes what it takes to be a US citizen?

Im pretty sure its that citizens of a state are citizens of the nation, not the reverse order. We didn't have a centralized immigration federal agency for a long time in this nation remember.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I didn't say you had citizenship of the state of Arizona, did I? I said they can't deny you entry.

No, they cannot deny me entry because the right of travel of a citizen of any of the states is respected by all the states - part of forming our Union.

I am not sure the same is true for those not a citizen of any state.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmarnieh:

There's no right of travel in the Constitution.

Arathain:

Yes, Arizona can indeed deny you entry into their state. They can also ask you to leave their state.

_________________

Doesn't matter. From what I recall from reading the bill (don't recall it all now), there is nothing in the AZ law that is in conflict with the federal law, unlike the drug laws in California, which should make it pretty clear the uproar is at least partly political, if not completely.

There are those however that have legitimate concerns about abuse of authority. A bigoted police officer might see this as an opportunity to harass people he deems on the other side of whatever line he has. That said, this same police officer more than likely already does this, and this law changes nothing at that level.


As I have said more than once now, this law also contains changes to the penalties for breaking employment laws, which directly affect the state's revenues. Primarily what this bill appears to do, from my recollection again, is to incorporate already existing powers of enforcement with the new penalties to make enforcement and evidence collecting easier. It doesn't change deportation, since AZ is turning over any suspected illegals to the federal government for them to deal with.


And I disagreed with those then, do now, and which lead to this exchange.

On the latter point, I do have the same theoretical objection to pretextual stops at the state level and the federal level. The practical impact is very different, though, so the urgency of my objection is also different.

On the former point, I think the nature of the law being enforced is relevant to determining the likely harm to 4th Amendment protections and to the day-to-day freedom from government intrusion generally. If the law being enforced is, say, a law against bank robbery, then the likelihood of random innocent people being stopped on a pretext so the cop can check to see if they're a bank robber is fairly low. This is the case because there are relatively few actual bank robbers and because the characteristics that would initially trigger suspicion that a particular person might be a bank robber tend to be distinct from the characteristics of a non-criminal - e.g. behaviors such as casing a bank, associating with known thieves and/or arms dealers, etc.

By contrast, if the law being enforced is immigration status, the likelihood of random innocent people being stopped so the cop can check their immigration status is quite high because there are relatively many actual illegal immigrants and because the characteristics that would initially trigger suspicion that a particular person might be an illegal alien are not very distinct from those of a legal alien or even of many citizens because they are largely based on appearance, language, and culture.

In short, I'm more concerned about this law than I am about similar enforcement efforts with respect to other federal laws because I think the nature of this law and the crime it is intended to address will inevitably result in a vastly higher number of innocent people being subjected to intrusive and unjustified interrogation by law enforcement.

Correction: The word[i/] "travel" is not in the Constitution, but the [i]right to travel is.

It's really not. You might argue it exists vis-a-vis the Tenth, but that's stretching it a bit.

_________________

So in essence, you don't like this law because its been so long and the existing laws under enforced (intentionally or otherwise), that the number of criminals has reached a critical mass that attempting to reverse the situation will cause problems?

In that case, the IRS should no longer be allowed to audit people. After all, the vast majority of people don't cheat on their taxes, and their profiling system results in a high number of people being subjected to intrusive and unjustified interrogation.

No, I'm saying that there are few reliable means of differentiating between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants, and that, combined with the relatively high chance of successfully catching an illegal via random stops, will lead to many innocent people being harassed.



No argument here. The IRS is the poster-child for intrusive government overreach.

No its not, that doesn't stop it from existing.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmarnieh:

Sure it does. You can't govern by Rule of Law for things you don't Codify.

_________________

Of course not. But since the Fed controls who is a citizen, the Fed controls who may enter Arizona.

Rule of Law doesn't require a textualist approach, Khross.

Which I have said more than once now, I am fine with.



ok....

A state can certainly arbitrarily eject you from the state, if they couldn't, extradition would be illegal.

This is a pretty faulty argument in my opinion. It is pretty well established througout the Constitution that the Fed controls the relationship between the states. Commerce, borders, waterways, etc.

Only as far as criminal proceedings are concerned. They can't toss you out because they don't serve your kind.

When you are facing extradition in a state, not only are you presumably still innocent, but as far as that state is concerned, you're not even accused of a crime there. They have no more legal basis for ejecting you than they do anyone else.

Yes, actually, it does. The Rule of Law requires uniformity in application and practice. Without either, it is Rule of Judicial Interpretation.

_________________

Sure they do. They have the same amount of evidence they have when they detain you for an alleged. They can't detain just anyone.

The Rule of Law is a short-hand expression embodying legal values such as certainty, predictability, publicity, and universality. Textualism is one approach to achieving those values, but it is not the only one. Stare decisis, rules of construction, etc. are other approaches intended to further those values. For that matter, approaches that emphasize legislative intent over textual content can also serve such values. Each approach has pros and cons, and it's arguable whether or not textualism is better or worse at achieving the values that Rule of Law is all about. After all, it's not hard to argue for differing interpretations of text.

And of course, flexibility is a contrary legal value that, in many people's opinion, including my own, needs to be balanced against universality, etc. And textualism is particularly awful at achieving such a balance.

RangerDave:

No, you argue for rule of judiciary interpretation. There's very little real predictability in most of our court cases anymore. There's very little uniformity in decisions or rulings on questions of law either. And stare decisis is simply an appeal to tradition; which, ironically, has a funny way of being used as a political out more than an argumentative construct in questions of law these days.

Arathain:

The Federal government mediates disputes between the states and provides some level of normalization in trade, currency, etc. However, it's powers are very strongly limited by the Constitution.

_________________