Using Arizona as an example…
Can a state perform the traditionaly federal role of controlling the border with Mexico?
Can a state decide to criminalize being within it’s border if not a US citizen or “authorized” to be in the US?
I’m sure, but I couldn’t give you the constitutional legalities, that AZ couldn’t keep Californians out if it wanted to. Is there a connection somehow?
No, I do not believe that states cannot regulate their borders in the manner you ask. Interstate commerce being the domain of the Feds, and all that.
But states can enforce Federal laws that are otherwise not being enforced by Federal law enforcement agencies, i.e. real net impact of the recent Arizona legislation.
I really doubt if this is true. Could Arizona state police set themselves up next to the border with Mexico, and stop cars entering from Mexico to see if they’ve broken federal laws about, e.g., the duty-free allowance for liquor, or the importation of Cuban cigars?
As mentioned, Arizona cannot regulate its interstate borders beyond a certain minimum effort (i.e., California’s produce inspection regime).
It can, however, enforce all applicable laws, including federal laws, within its borders.
The alternative would be for Arizona law enforcement to fail to enforce federal laws. States can and do choose from time to time to not enforce those laws-- the executive branch of a state has discretionary prosecutorial power and can allocate resources as it sees fit. But this just means that some federal laws may not be enforced at the state level-- it doesn’t mean that the state can’t enforce those laws.
IANAL, but I don’t see a loophole out of this in Arizona-- they could choose to be like 49 other states and fail to enforce federal immigration law, but they’re within their bounds to enforce it.
No, because that’s the jurisdiction of Customs & Border Protection. But the Arizona law isn’t about border enforcement.
No they can’t and they tried. California sort of tried to stop the Okies during the Great Depression
They can stop you for things like inspection of fruit and veggies and stuff.
United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez:
This court agrees that § 1252c did not authorize Vasquez’s arrest. Nevertheless, we further conclude that § 1252c does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, § 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law. This conclusion moots the remaining issues raised by Vasquez on appeal. Accordingly, this court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms the district court’s denial of Vasquez’s motion to suppress…
Section 1252c authorizes state and local law-enforcement officers to arrest illegal aliens if all of the following three conditions are met: (1) the arrest is permitted by state and local law; (2) the alien was deported or left the United States after a previous felony conviction; and (3) prior to arrest, the officer obtains “appropriate confirmation” of the alien’s “status” from the INS…
this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.See Davida v. United States, 422 F.2d 528, 530 (10th Cir.1970); cf. United States v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir.1983) (“infer[ring, as a matter of state law] that Illinois officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests”); United States v. Swarovski, 557 F.2d 40, 43-49 (2d Cir.1977) (noting generally that there is no overarching federal impediment to arrests by state officers for violations of federal law). In fact, this court has held that state law-enforcement officers have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws. See United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301-02 & n. 3 (10th Cir.1984); see also Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, 477 (9th Cir.1983).
176 F.3d 1294
thank you Darth for the details.
I am confused by the wording though. I find it surprising that local and state police can enforce federal laws in general. Is it true that a local sheriff in Ohio can arrest someone (say in Ohio) for say securities fraud? Or is the power to enforce federal laws limited to immigration laws?
Well, in general, there’s nothing stopping the state from authorizing a state or local law enforcement agent from enforcing federal laws unless congress states that the law can only be enforced by agency xyz. Bu the state itself may not authorize it - you can see where the court says “as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.” I’m interpretting this as saying that the state needs to ‘empower’ the officers to make arrests for such things - it could be a blanket empowerment or related to individual crimes.
The courts discussion of how 1252 creates an ‘additional’ vehicle enforcement make sit clear that one exists already - basically, to look up a statute and then make arrests for it. Note, however, that this doesn’t necessarily mean the state can bring a trial - if the feds choose not to prosecute, well…
For most issues, you wouldn’t even think about - securities fraud - eh, let the feds do the paperwork . Tresspassing on federal property - throw the guy in the can and wait till the feds come - but immigration is so political that it changes the scenery…