To support the Constitution is to support laws made under it.
14
We noted just recently that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit “have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,” and that federal law as currently written does nothing “to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.” United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1296, 1299 n.4, 1300 (10th Cir. 1999). Rather, we observed that federal law “evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.” Id. at 1300.
http://openjurist.org/264/f3d/1188/united-states-of-america-v-jose-de-jesus-santana-garcia-gonzalo-alonso-ruiz-tovar
SCOTUS implicitly reversed Vazquez-Alvarez in Arizona:
The 10th Circuit in Vazquez-Alvarez read these provisions as conferring jurisdiction in addition to a sort of common-law enforcement power; SCOTUS said they are the only means under which state peace officers may enforce federal immigration law.
Does your state have a criminal simulation statute? I think that would apply also.
Implicitly or expressly?
If I am not mistaken the case law I remember dealt with other federal crimes too. I checked, but the MB I was on is closed down, so I could not research it there.
Well, they expressly rejected the V-A holding, but they didn’t mention the case by name. It was cited with approval by the dissent in the 9th Circuit.
As to non-immigration matters, you’re right:
Yeah, Miller sounds awful familiar!!
As I said in post 39;
“It is up to an individual state to permit what federal case law does though”
For what it’s worth, in this Jurisdiction, a police officer is REQUIRED to prevent crimes, and is PERMITTED to arrest people on suspicion. Since I am not a police officer, I can make a citizens arrest, but I am never REQUIRED to do so, and I am not PERMITED to do so on suspicion.
With regard to federal laws, my local police officers [used to be] in the same position as I am. Like me, they are not required to make an arrest to stop the commision of a federal-only crime. Like me, they would not be protected from false-arrest claims if they were only trying to prevent the commission of a federal-only crime.
Even supposing that an individual police officer here was foolish enough to perform an arrest he was not required to do, and which made him potentially liable to disciplinary action, you would still have to suppose that he/she recognised a particular federal-only crime. This combination [was] uncommon.
In practice, the state police here [used to] prefer to work with federal public servants who have powerful relevant search & seizure powers, but no arrest powers, and the federal public servants like to work with the state police, who have limited search and seizure powers, but strong powers to arrest people who try to stop federal public servants by violence or abuse.
I doubt that works.
The Constitution refers to citizens of a STATE being able to live in or visit other states. It’s essentially a way of conferring national citizenship to all state citizens. It doesn’t imply that states can regulate the passage of those who aren’t citizens of any state, just that they can’t restrict “privileges and immunities” of their state to their own citizens.
Obviously no law allows illegal aliens to travel around (by definition), but there’s also no law that says they can’t pass from state to state either.