Feds sue state of Arizona

[Master of Ossus]

. . .that's why this is a problem. States aren't supposed to be "enhancing" Federal laws, they're supposed to follow them.

Not 'enhancing' the law, 'enhancing' law enforcement's ability to enforce the law. Not the same thing. Not close, either.

You missed the part where Arizona's enacted significantly harsher penalties than Federal laws. That doesn't have anything to do with giving law enforcement "extra tools" or whatever.

States enact and enforce environmental regulations that are more stringent and impose greater penalties than federal law all the time. You can say that immigration is "plenary" and that environmental regulations are not, but why does this distinction lead to such a difference in your willingness to accept state action?

[LaCroix]

Just a few questions to clarify the status quo for a non-american.

Isn't it mandatory to carry a peronal ID on your person at all times in the States? In most (all?) european states, it is. This Id has to show your name, birth date and birthplace, which shows if you hold citizenship (theoretically), but when in doubt, the officer can get the complete info on you with only a call and a few moments wait to get the data from the office with the data given on the Id.

Isn't there a registry like that in the States? Or is this carry at all times just an inconvenience, when a normal ID+call to the central to check would give the officer the same info?

[General Zod]

A process which is costly to the police and time-consuming.

As opposed to overcrowded jails?

Also, I disagree with your assessment that federal immigration laws are "harsh."

Someone has trouble with hyperbole I see. If the penalties are greater than what already exist, by definition they're 'harsher'. Or 'stricter' if you want to be pedantic.

They don't actually appear to me to impose any substantive penalty on the illegal alien (fine and imprisonment for 6 months seems incredibly minor). But furthermore, the outrage over the AZ bill seems to focus entirely on the stop-and-identify aspect of it, as opposed to anything else.

Maybe it's not "substantive", but since it's attempting to make immigration regulation a state concern, it's grounds for a suit. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=351

[General Zod]

States enact and enforce environmental regulations that are more stringent and impose greater penalties than federal law all the time. You can say that immigration is "plenary" and that environmental regulations are not, but why does this distinction lead to such a difference in your willingness to accept state action?

I assume you have some actual examples?

In any case, another example that lays some groundwork for a Supremacy Clause suit: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... mption.htm

As was said by Mr. Justice Holmes in Charleston & Western Carolina R. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co:
"When Congress has taken the particular subject matter in hand, coincidence is as ineffective as opposition, and a state law is not to be declared a help because it attempts to go farther than Congress has seen fit to go."

Second, the federal statutes "touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system [must] be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject." Congress has devised an all-embracing program for resistance to the various forms of totalitarian aggression. Our external defenses have been strengthened, and a plan to protect against internal subversion has been made by it. It has appropriated vast sums, not only for our own protection, but also to strengthen freedom throughout the world. It has charged the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency with responsibility for intelligence concerning Communist seditious activities against our Government, and has denominated such activities as part of a world conspiracy. It accordingly proscribed sedition against all government in the nation -- national, state and local. Congress declared that these steps were taken "to provide for the common defense, to preserve the sovereignty of the United States as an independent nation, and to guarantee to each State a republican form of government. . . . "

Edit: Zod, I'm sorry--I must have accidentally hit the "Edit" button, instead of the "Quote" button on your post when I was trying to reply. I have attempted restore your post to its original state, but apologize if I haven't. Please call me on it if the above misrepresents your original post and correct the record for that, either here (I think you have edit capability?), via PM, or below. -Master of Ossus 4:00pm PST 7/6/2010

[Master of Ossus]

As opposed to overcrowded jails?

That's precisely the problem. There's limited jail space, and spending some of it while you detain someone to find out who they are is costly and expensive and time consuming.

Someone has trouble with hyperbole I see. If the penalties are greater than what already exist, by definition they're 'harsher'. Or 'stricter' if you want to be pedantic.

Someone has a problem answering direct questions, I see. I asked you specifically to identify what penalties were imposed on illegal aliens by the Arizona bill. I even linked you to the text of the bill, for your convenience. It's true that I also disagreed with your assessment that the federal rules are harsh (it also doesn't seem like you know what the term "hyperbole" means...), but this isn't just "pedantic." It's impossible to be "even harsher" (even than entirely permissive and lenient laws) or "stricter" without imposing ANY additional penalty.

My reading of the Arizona bill didn't come up with any additional penalties layered on top of federal ones for illegal aliens (the only penalty involved was the fine for willful failure to comply with their ID-carry rule).

Moreover, even if the penalties were greater than the federal ones, provide a substantive reason to distinguish immigration from environmental laws. Why is California allowed to enact environmental laws that are nationally viewed as very restrictive and difficult to meet, but not allowed to enact a law dealing with illegal aliens who are in California more harshly than the federal government?

Maybe it's not "substantive", but since it's attempting to make immigration regulation a state concern, it's grounds for a suit. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=351

Congratulations. You have discovered that federal immigration laws are plenary. Explain the RATIONALE for having such a distinction, rather than retreating to the fact that courts have traditionally drawn one.

It's also hilarious that you couldn't even find an example of a case in which a state law was held to be unconstitutional for infringing upon the federal government's plenary power to regulate immigration. Indeed, Bica strongly argues in favor of the Arizona bill because it held that states are allowed to regulate employers who hire illegal immigrants. (In fact, it could even be read to suggest that the Obama administration's suit is invalid for lack of ripeness, since the law hasn't even been enforced yet).

[MKSheppard]

States enact and enforce environmental regulations that are more stringent and impose greater penalties than federal law all the time.

Like say, for example, all the cars sold in the US are divided between two emissions control systems -- California legal, and Federal Legal.

But what I find interesting is that the Obama administration decided to make this into a slapfight over WHO has the right to make laws; rather than going ahead with all the demagoguing they were doing earlier about how discriminatory the law was.

[D.Turtle]

Just a few questions to clarify the status quo for a non-american.

Isn't it mandatory to carry a peronal ID on your person at all times in the States? In most (all?) european states, it is. This Id has to show your name, birth date and birthplace, which shows if you hold citizenship (theoretically), but when in doubt, the officer can get the complete info on you with only a call and a few moments wait to get the data from the office with the data given on the Id.

Isn't there a registry like that in the States? Or is this carry at all times just an inconvenience, when a normal ID+call to the central to check would give the officer the same info?

As the american people are paranoid lunatics there is no such thing as a national ID. You are also not required to carry an ID on you at all times. You do not even have to identify yourself unless detained under suspicion for a crime (and not even then in about half the states in the US) - and even then simply stating your name is enough. You do have to carry a driver's license when driving and show it when stopped for a traffic violation.

Sources: Identitiy docs in the US and Stop and Identify Statutes (both Wikipedia).

[Kanastrous]

But what I find interesting is that the Obama administration decided to make this into a slapfight over WHO has the right to make laws; rather than going ahead with all the demagoguing they were doing earlier about how discriminatory the law was.

Pretending that one losing front has suddenly ceased to exist so that you're free to attack on another is a popular tactic, on all sides...

As the american people are paranoid lunatics

Considering the unflattering sweeping generalizations that could be made regarding Germans, you might want to drop the broad brush in the sink, and leave it there.

[Master of Ossus]

Edit: Incidentally, I screwed up when I was originally replying to the above post of General Zod's--I hit the "Edit" button when I meant to hit the "Quote" one. I attempted to restore his post to its original state before posting this reply, but I can't be 100% sure that the restoration was entirely accurate. Obviously I apologize to everyone involved in the thread; I did not mean to alter General Zod's original post for any reason and will undertake to make any corrections necessary to preserve the integrity of the thread.

This was to be my original reply to Zod's post:

I assume you have some actual examples?

Sure. The California Clean Air Act and none of its follow-ups were state programs that all imposed higher standards than the federal law. Similarly, Maine took steps like banning use of out-of-state baitfish from being imported into the state for environmental reasons, even though bait fish from other states are (obviously) permitted in those other states.

In any case, another example that lays some groundwork for a Supremacy Clause suit: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... mption.htm

I understand what the Supremacy Clause does (at least in principle); I disagree that the Arizona law runs afoul of it for reasons which I have spelled out.

[Broomstick]

In short, Arizona's trying to overstep its authority.

I don't think the law, here, is as settled as you make it sound. State police officers can demand that people identify themselves if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is committing a crime, or even if they don't have specific suspicions about the individual in question but are investigating a crime, under the constitution. Failing to identify oneself can result in a misdemeanor conviction and imprisonment.

Failure to identify oneself under some cirucmstances is a misdemeanor.

Failure to prove citizenship in Arizona after July 29 can result in indefinite detention. Meaning, you can be held for years, without trial, if you happen to go on vacation and leave your birth certificate or social security card at home. Or just lose them.

You don't see a difference, there?

And, despite reassurances to the contrary, I believe this will used against brown people with a funny accent, not against white folks who sound Midwestern. The folks voting for this are confident it will never be used against them, just against THOSE people.

[Broomstick]

Wait a second - what about tourists? They can't possibly have a document showing their citizenship to the USA - does the law address that situation or is this one of those moronic american laws that fails to address such things?

It covers people here illegally - assuming a foreign tourist has a valid passport with all required visas, etc, then they are here legally and the law doesn't apply to them.

But I'm willing to bet it's the Mexican-looking tourists who get asked, not anyone else. Well, Mexicans more than other people - I'm sure even some very white tourists will get asked occasionally because bigots are too damn common.

[Broomstick]

Just a few questions to clarify the status quo for a non-american.

Isn't it mandatory to carry a peronal ID on your person at all times in the States?

Nope, not required.

In most (all?) european states, it is. This Id has to show your name, birth date and birthplace, which shows if you hold citizenship (theoretically), but when in doubt, the officer can get the complete info on you with only a call and a few moments wait to get the data from the office with the data given on the Id.

Isn't there a registry like that in the States?

Nope.

The closest thing we have to that is a driver's license - but of course that leaves out non-driving adults (yes, they do exist in the US) and children. Even there, the database is on a state level, not a Federal one. In-state, police now have a quick link to confirm in-state licenses, but confirming the validity of an out-of -state driver's license or ID may or may not be immediate. Not to mention there are 50 different such databases.

Not to mention our driver's licenses/state ID's only show current residence and nothing on birthplace. (It does have your birthdate)

Yes, we do things differently here.

When I visited Europe waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the 20th Century they kept hammering us with the rule that we had to carry ID on us at all times - because in the US that's just not required.

[Master of Ossus]

Failure to identify oneself under some cirucmstances is a misdemeanor.

Yeah. It's a misdemeanor in some states whenever a police officer asks for you to identify yourself. Very narrow circumstances, there.

Failure to prove citizenship in Arizona after July 29 can result in indefinite detention. Meaning, you can be held for years, without trial, if you happen to go on vacation and leave your birth certificate or social security card at home. Or just lose them.

No, that's not what the statute says. Such a detention would go far beyond a "reasonabl[e] attempt to determine the immigration status" of the person involved.

You don't see a difference, there?

I do, but it really has nothing to do with the bill.

And, despite reassurances to the contrary, I believe this will used against brown people with a funny accent, not against white folks who sound Midwestern. The folks voting for this are confident it will never be used against them, just against THOSE people.

That's not the aspect that's being challenged by this case, but even if it were the law is facially neutral from my amateur reading of the bill (in fact, it includes provisions detailing how it complies with federal race and national origin discrimination laws).

[D.Turtle]

Considering the unflattering sweeping generalizations that could be made regarding Germans, you might want to drop the broad brush in the sink, and leave it there.

It was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but can you mention a good reason why a national ID is a bad thing, especially considering that a majority of countries world-wide have it in one form or another.

Most of the reasons I hear against a national ID (especially in the US) ARE fueled by paranoia of a central government getting total control over everyones lives using such an ID (not to mention mark of the beast idiots).

[Kanastrous]

I don't personally object to a national ID program.

[Broomstick]

Failure to identify oneself under some cirucmstances is a misdemeanor.

Yeah. It's a misdemeanor in some states whenever a police officer asks for you to identify yourself. Very narrow circumstances, there.

And in some states you don't have to identify yourself to any random officer you run into on the street. Unless you're doing something to warrant police attention. There are still places where, if you're just sitting on a park bench harming no one you can decline to identify yourself without penalty.

Failure to prove citizenship in Arizona after July 29 can result in indefinite detention. Meaning, you can be held for years, without trial, if you happen to go on vacation and leave your birth certificate or social security card at home. Or just lose them.

No, that's not what the statute says. Such a detention would go far beyond a "reasonabl[e] attempt to determine the immigration status" of the person involved.

Well, you get thrown into detention, you don't have a means to prove your citizenship - identity isn't necessarialy the same thing - and you sit there until something happens.

And to clarify - something like my driver's license proves my identity - it says jack shit about my citizenship. Legal resident aliens can get valid driver's licenses, it has nothing to do with citizenship. So... unless you carry around your birth certificate (which wouldn't work anyway for anyone born outside the US but still holding citizenship... ironically enough, like John McCain, born in Panama) and your social security card, or a passport, you're fucking screwed if the Phoenix PD decides you're a damn dirty foreign and throws your ass into detention.

[Master of Ossus]

Like say, for example, all the cars sold in the US are divided between two emissions control systems -- California legal, and Federal Legal.

Interestingly, according to Federal law it's now up to states to choose which standard to adopt. After California's Clean Air Act survived a Supremacy Clause challenge, the government had to beat a strategic retreat and require states to adopt one standard or the other so as to avoid all manner of hilarity as every state passed their own equivalent of the EPA.

But what I find interesting is that the Obama administration decided to make this into a slapfight over WHO has the right to make laws; rather than going ahead with all the demagoguing they were doing earlier about how discriminatory the law was.

Well, after it became clear that Arizona wasn't just going to keel over about their law, I think the Obama Administration had to sit down and read the thing. They, of course, discovered that it was facially neutral and so they knew they couldn't win in a court (except maybe the one of popular opinion) on discrimination grounds. And, in fairness to them, I think the law is unsettled in the area on which they're challenging it. I think if I were the judge, knowing no more than what I know from having read the bill and a little bit of case law, that I'd have to rule it was constitutional, but it's not a total slam-dunk, so I think it's a fair enough legal challenge to bring because SCOTUS hasn't nailed down exactly what states are and are not allowed to do in this area.

[D.Turtle]

I don't personally object to a national ID program.

Hmm, maybe it would have helped if I had said that the American people (like the British and the Australian people - and others) are paranoid lunatics, etc.

[Master of Ossus]

And in some states you don't have to identify yourself to any random officer you run into on the street. Unless you're doing something to warrant police attention. There are still places where, if you're just sitting on a park bench harming no one you can decline to identify yourself without penalty.

True, but the US Constitution has been held to permit states to pass legislation requiring identification in such circumstances. We're talking about the limits of what's constitutionally permissible; not idly musing about the differences between Connecticut and Nevada law.

Well, you get thrown into detention, you don't have a means to prove your citizenship - identity isn't necessarialy the same thing - and you sit there until something happens.

Right. Until the police can, through reasonable efforts, determine who you are and what your immigration status is (still not the same thing as citizenship--love the bait-and-switch technique).

And to clarify - something like my driver's license proves my identity - it says jack shit about my citizenship.

But under the Arizona bill, it's PRESUMED that if you have a driver's license then you're in Arizona legally.

a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:

[*] A valid Arizona driver license.

[*] A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

[*] A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

[*] A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.

Legal resident aliens can get valid driver's licenses, it has nothing to do with citizenship. So... unless you carry around your birth certificate (which wouldn't work anyway for anyone born outside the US but still holding citizenship... ironically enough, like John McCain, born in Panama) and your social security card, or a passport, you're fucking screwed if the Phoenix PD decides you're a damn dirty foreign and throws your ass into detention.

No you're not. You benefit from the presumption that's built into the law (presumably) for precisely this reason.

[Kanastrous]

The problem I have with a 'reasonable period of detention' is that 'reasonable' is whatever a judge decides it is.

[General Zod]

I understand what the Supremacy Clause does (at least in principle); I disagree that the Arizona law runs afoul of it for reasons which I have spelled out.

Then I'm not sure why you even bothered to reply to my original post at all, since I was trying to point out why it was perceived as a problem.

[Master of Ossus]

The problem I have with a 'reasonable period of detention' is that 'reasonable' is whatever a judge decides it is.

Yeah, just like I can be arrested on "probable cause," which is whatever the magistrate decides that that it is. I'm one weird judge's opinion away from being locked up. American law clearly provides me with no protections whatsoever.

[General Zod]

And to clarify - something like my driver's license proves my identity - it says jack shit about my citizenship. Legal resident aliens can get valid driver's licenses, it has nothing to do with citizenship. So... unless you carry around your birth certificate (which wouldn't work anyway for anyone born outside the US but still holding citizenship... ironically enough, like John McCain, born in Panama) and your social security card, or a passport, you're fucking screwed if the Phoenix PD decides you're a damn dirty foreign and throws your ass into detention.

Most states require a birth certificate in order to get an ID though, which should theoretically solve that problem.

[Master of Ossus]

Then I'm not sure why you even bothered to reply to my original post at all, since I was trying to point out why it was perceived as a problem.

Because I can't understand why you think that Supremacy Clause renders the Arizona bill unconstitutional. The Arizona bill doesn't directly conflict with federal law, nor does it seem to me to infringe upon the federal government's plenary power to regulate immigration. How are federal goals compromised if local officers alert them to illegal aliens within the local officers' jurisdiction?

[Kanastrous]

It apparently interferes with the Feds' power to ignore the matter, and require that everyone else ignore it, too.