In the mayhem surrounding the AZ immigration law, everyone (here and in the media) mentions federal law as it concerns this AZ bill, but NO ONE cites anything specific. I feel so lost. Do any of you know if it really exists? Where is it? What exactly is federal law concerning questioning someone about their immigration status? What do they need or not need in order to ask? Does AZ really overstep federal law? Is it more or less strict than federal law? Who enforces the federal law or should do so?
I’ve looked quite a bit on the web and haven’t found anything. I want to be able to talk about what the federal government should be doing in specifics, NOT according to hear-say.
To read the Federal immigration law, start at the Homeland Security web site or atlexis.
If you;re asking about the legality of asking folks about their immigration status, or asking them to prove their status, I think you’re really more interested in the legal principles surrounding stop and search. Start with the Terry case.
What’s at question here isn’t really the immigration laws per se, but the way that folks in Arizona want to attempt to enforce them. If you start with the Terry and Hibel cases at wikipedia and follow the links to other related cases and discussions, I think you’ll be well informed on the relevant legal issues.
Thanks for the links. I think they’ll help a little, but I want to know according to the books, what federal laws does the AZ law allegedly overstep? When and under what circumstances may federal agents ask for papers, or stop someone? What can or can’t the federal government do?
Actually the US Border patrol can stop you purely for “reasonable suspicion” of being an illegal alien. It does not have to be in connection with another suspected crime.
The issue isn’t just specific statutes, but that the Arizona statute regulates in an area that the federal govenrment considers to be constitutionally under its total control or within its “plenary power,” namely immigration. States may not regulate certain areas of federal law that are considered to intrude on the the U.S. Government’s plenary powers, for example, interstate commerce. Because regulating interstate commerce is within the plenary power of the federal government, states may not pass laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce even in when not directly in conflict with an existing statute, a doctrine known as the “dormant commerce clause.” Since immigration is a plenary power of the federal government, the argument is that the Arizona statute is regulating in an area solely relegated to the feds.
Arizona’s Employer Sanctions Law (passed in 2007) which requires all businesses that are licensed by the state to use the Federal government E-verify system (which at the federal level is a voluntary program) to validate all employees as having the right to work in the US. This law has been challenged numerous times under the same prinicpals you cite above, but has been upheld in Federal court each time.
The immigration enforcement law that was recently passed in no way intrudes on the US governements powers. All it does is require that local law enforcement enforce the U.S. immigration laws.
It is important to remember that coming to this country validly and overstaying your visa is not a crime, entering this country illegally is a crime.
I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not saying that the Arizona law clearly violates the plenary power doctirne, I’m saying that argument is probably some of what the OP has been hearing about the statute as it concerns federal law. It’s an argument that’s being made by others, not my own. I have no opinion on its merits.
There is a concern that the law will be enforced in an impermissibly discriminatory fashion, by disproportionately singling out Hispanics for citizenship checks. I suppose the counter-argument would be that the majority of illegal aliens in Arizona are Hispanics, but that doesn’t get around the problem that the majority of Hispanics in Arizona are not illegal aliens.
If that’s the concern, the same concern should exist for the existing Federal law…yet you don’t see City governments and rock bands boycotting the United States. :rolleyes: Majority of people that are against the Arizona law, don’t understand it or the existing Federal laws in place.
Sure, but that’s what they do. Local law enforcement officers aren’t trained in the nuances of federal immigration law. That’s the major concern, that suddenly they’re obligated to determine the legal status of folks they are arresting.
Further, it requires legal aliens to carry and produce on demand their registration papers… and by extension, it requires citizens to carry those papers as well or face arrest.
And it makes some things a crime that aren’t a federal crime, such as having illegal immigrants in your car.
But they can be. And many local jurisdictions do. See Section 287g of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It makes no sense that people have their panties in such a wad over Arizona’s new law, yet there is no similar outcry over the current Federal laws, which are even more onerous.
Nothing wrong with that.
These citizens only have to show a driver’s license, state issued ID, tribal ID, or other government issued ID. Similar type of information you would have to present if the Border Patrol stopped you in suspicion of being an illegal alien.
Only if the person knows that the passengers are illegals or the purpose of transporting them is to further their illegal presence in the U.S. And it is also a violation of Federal law to knowingly transport illegal aliens within the borders of the U.S., so nope nothing new here.
The border patrol can stop you at a checkpoint but they do not and cannot stop people at random on the street and demand to see papers. Their power is specifically limited to dealing with people who are entering the country.
You do NOT have to show identification to a police officer who stops you UNLESS you are operating a motor vehicle.
I’m trying to point out the hypocrisy of those angry and protesting against the Arizona law, which mirrors the Federal immigration law.
With regard to point #1, you are incorrect. Under Section 287gof the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act local law enforcement agencies can and have been authorized to enforce the federal immigration laws. The Arizona Dept. of Public Safety and the City of Phoenix Police Departmentalong with many other local law enforcement groups already have the powers through 287g that the new Arizona law are pushing dow to all law enforcement groups within the State.
If the SB1070 is ultimately struck down, which I don’t believe it will, an alternative the State of Arizona could do is to require all local law enforcement agencies within the State to cooperate with ICE under the provisions of 287g.
With regard to point #2, you are also incorrect, it is not a criminal violation under SB1070, to have illegal aliens in your car unknowingly.
A border patrol officer does not have the power to walk up to anybody on the street in, say, Kansas, and demand to see proof of citizenship.
At points of entry into the United States, the border patrol has broader search and detention powers than a police officer. While, under most circumstances, an officer has to have “probable cause” before conducting a search, a border patrol officer at a point of entry has much more discretion about whether to detain or search someone. I understand that the border patrol has checkpoints at several locations within 100 miles of the border as well. For example, there is one near Camp Pendleton that I pass every time I drive to and from San Diego to LA.
The border patrol does not and cannot start driving around los angeles stopping people on the street and pulling over cars and detaining them without cause.
No, I’m not. As you point out, some LEOs can be empowered by 287g. That program creates a cooperative, multi-jurisdictional enforcement effort with ICE supervision. Designated local officers have to meet certain requirements and complete a five week course. The new Arizona law opts out of all of those requirements, and automatically empowers all LEOs in Arizona.
The text of the law says “IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.” The term “reckless disregard” has not been defined in the law, but seems to imply that the driver has an obligation to know. And how do you prove that a driver knew a passenger was an illegal alien?
The burden is on the driver to prove that they did not know someone was illegal, which almost requires them to check their passenger’s papers.
Ostensibly, this clause and the others that surround it are aimed at folks who employ illegal immigrants, but it potentially criminalizes all sorts of every day activity, like driving a neighbor to the store.
ETA: and they should check the driver’s papers. If you are hauling around illegal aliens, I would have reasonable suspicion that you might also be an illegal alien. Again nothing new from the Federal law.