it’s not federal law, i.e. federal statutory law, i.e. the immigration law that supposedly any executive or judicial officer of the several states would be constitutionally duty-bound to enforce.
edit: it’s right there in your own quote, eve.
they’re two separate things, where “Laws of the United States” are “federal laws”
Interesting. It looks like they took a slightly different road to the same destination.
But it looks like Bricker’s point about Arizona making a state crime out of a federal crime is not moot since that is exactly what this portion does, particularly when read in conjunction with the unlawful transportation of illegal immigrants crime further down in the statute.
It’s not federal statutory law, but it is federal law.
It’s right there in my quote:
Art VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…
Both the Constitution and the laws made by Congress are the supreme law of the land. See the word ‘and’ in there? The Constitution is (among other things) the supreme law of the land. You cannot then say that since it’s not statutory law, that it’s not law.
I’m aware that each State has its own statute for defining “citizen’s arrest” or “private person’s arrest”; however, I have never encountered such a thing for federal offenses. Is there anything like that burined in federal law?
Not that I’ve ever heard of. We get citizen’s arrests from the old English common law, and there’s very little of that (if any, nowadays) in Federal law. The U.S. Code makes no provision for citizen’s arrest AFAIK.
I thought the main question was whether Arizona could prosecute crimes involving illegal presence (failing to carry a green card, aiding or transporting illegal aliens, etc.) as state offenses, or whether only the feds could do so. Once that is settled, the arrest question seems moot. All the claims about improper arrests put the focus on the arrest, when the real question seems to be whether Arizona can make laws regarding immigration at all.
Let me bounce this idea off the Board.
Citizens are clearly allowed to travel freely from state to state (Article 4 and Amendment 5). I don’t think the same can be said for non-citizens, thus it may be constitutional for Arizona to ban non-citizens from entering the state so long as it does not conflict with Federal naturalization law. If the Fedlaw says legal aliens have the right of travel, then Arizona cannot prevent them from coming in the state, but I highly doubt the law says that illegal aliens can freely travel around the U.S.
Could Arizona say that only the holder of a federal firearms license can be the owner of a gun store?
I would say “Yes” both to Saint Cad and Bricker as their hypos. Off the top of my head, I don’t see a constitutional problem with either approach.
It seems to me that this is one of the rights that would apply to all people, not just citizens.
The Constitution is pretty specific that the Priviledges and Immunities Clause applies to US citizens both in Article IV and the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment protects any person within a state’s border whether they are a citizen, legal alien or illegal or tourist but I still think that a technical reading of the Constitution would indicate that only citizens have a constitutional (as opposed to statutory) right to travel between the states. So while Arizona would have to grant illegal immigrants equal protection under the law, it is still within its Constitutional right to ban non-citizens from entering the state except (possibly) where it conflicts with immigration law assuming that immigration laws are related to naturalization laws as necessary and proper.
But again, you would need to show me a cite that illegal immigrant are granted a statutory right to travel to any state they choose.
Raising a zombie thread, did the SCOTUS judgement in Arizona v United States consider this issue at all?
Edit: By issue I mean state police arrests of violators of federal law.
From a legal perspective I’ve been wondering about the Arizona laws for a while now. As far as I know, states can build upon federal law, but can’t diminish it. So while there is a federal minimum wage, may states have a higher one. While there is OSHA, other states, such as Oregon, have their own OSHAs (I.E. OR-OSHA). So why would immigration law be any different?
The short answer is “field preemption.”
There are some areas if the law that can be addressed only by the federal law. There are some areas of the law that can be addressed by both.
For example, in my area, intellectual property, states are prohibited from having any laws regarding patents, but trademarks are addressed at both the state and federal levels.
The long answer is that the Constitution says the feds have authority in some areas and the states have authority in others (in practice, this generally means that authority is shared in some measure.)
Congress and the federal executive have exclusive authority over foreign relations, and immigration matters have always been held to fall within that zone of influence.
Conversely, federal employment legislation falls under the federal general welfare power. The states also have plenary authority over employment matters. The general rule is that state law may be inconsistent with federal law in such areas so long as it doesn’t directly conflict - and there is no federal maximum wage.
I’m pretty sure that the minimum wage is supposed to be an exercise of the commerce power, not the spending power. See generally United States v. Darby.
On another board we discussed that years ago, and the answer is, not citing Arizona though, YES, state officers are permitted under federal law to arrest for violations of federal crimes. I will have to research it, but I definitely read case law on it.
It is up to an individual state to permit what federal case law does though
The question in the OP is whether state officials could arrest an assassin in the absence of such a state law - on federal charges only.