Eric Holder: Stupid? Racist? Incompetent? Yes.

[Asher]

[Imran Siddiqui]

When your argument is that such behavior (Arizona, et al can lead to a patchwork of State laws) what is the meaningful difference between Arizona's law and Sanctuary Cities?

The legal argument against Arizona's law is federal preemption based on the federal government having sole power over immigration. The legal argument for Sanctuary Cities is the prohibition of commandeering of local law enforcement as detailed in Printz.

The political arguments don't really matter all that much (as they usually don't... it's what's the political intention that actually matters)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Idiot. This is why you pay more for Georgetown law degrees. Printz said the federal government can't force state to uphold federal laws. It says nothing about the state deciding to enforce federal laws on its own, so long as state is not being inconsistent with the law.

So what you are saying is that "There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law".

Thanks for backing my point!

I'm glad to see Georgetown law degrees just serve to valid my points

[Hauldren Collider]

Imran, is it unconstitutional for illegal residency to be a state crime?

[Wiglaf]

Your point, which was asinine, was to pick one quote from a long article from a Holder spokesperson -- spokeswoman in fact -- and say something completely noncontroversial about it, namely that it is right because the federal government cannot force states to enforce federal law. Well thanks douchebag. No wonder you host polycasts . At best, it was an innocent mistake, and you somehow failed to notice that no one was debating that and that the feds are not requiring the enforcement of anything, and it's not german to this discussion. At worst, you were implying Arizona's law was unconstitutional because of something in Printz (which you insist on italicizing as if this is some sort of legal writing class), which is disingenuous.

[David Floyd]

First off, owned by Wiflaf??

Secondly, this isn't about Arizona, it's about the facepalm that should result when you make the following argument - choosing to enforce federal law is a problem, but choosing to NOT enforce, and help people EVADE, federal law is perfectly OK. This coming from the US (ie, federal) Attorney General? Whu-huh? Lamar Smith had it right - if there wasn't a racial aspect, excuse me, "civil rights" aspect here, there's no way that argument would possibly be made relating to any other part of federal law.

I can just see States choosing to refuse to turn over information to the federal government that they have on kidnappers, or money launderers, or terrorists. Give me a break

[Imran Siddiqui]

That will be an interesting question for the SCOTUS. I'm guessing, based on the makeup of the court, they'll likely say no (5-4 or 6-3), but you never really know.

[David Floyd]

What part of the Constitution would imply that a State does NOT have the power to criminalize illegal residency? I can't find one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you somehow failed to notice that no one was debating that

A state that actively seeks to enforce a law is doing more damage than a state or city that refuses to so much as cooperate with the law? Huh? As Rep. Lamar Smith points out in the article, does Holder also think it's OK for states and cities to refuse to cooperate on federal banking laws? How about anti-terrorism? Taxes? No, of course not, but somehow when it comes to people of color, it's OK to help THEM violate the law.

You can try again with the next post, Wiggy.

[David Floyd]

Except that no one is compelling AZ to enforce federal law. In fact, the Justice Department is trying, oddly enough, to compel AZ to NOT enforce federal law. *facepalm*

[Wiglaf]

Floyd, who has been laid more than you Imran, was making the point that states typically cooperate with federal investigations despite pre-emption doctrine. It is common practice that the feds appreciate, even though they can't legally require it. What is happening here is that the feds are prohibiting that help from occurring entirely. That takes pre-emption about five steps too far and to the left

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can just see States choosing to refuse to turn over information to the federal government that they have on kidnappers, or money launderers, or terrorists. Give me a break

Printz involved state officials suing because they were required to enforce provisions of the Brady Bill, namely to require state officials to perform background checks, using a nationwide system, on people buying guns in that state.

I do wonder (maybe a case has been heard on this) if turning over information would be considered commandeering of state officials to enforce federal law. I'd lean towards yes, but I'm not sure.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Except that no one is compelling AZ to enforce federal law. In fact, the Justice Department is trying, oddly enough, to compel AZ to NOT enforce federal law. *facepalm*

The Justice Department also believes that AZ is going slightly beyond federal law. Regardless, they are claiming that immigration is their turf and even if states want to help, they are barred by pre-emption.

And no, Wiggy, it isn't unheard of. For example, states are completely barred from adding to or even attempting to help enforce ERISA, which governs group pension and group health plans (they can only regulate the insurance companies that offer the group health plans and some specific criminal penalties for theft from such a plan).

[David Floyd]

How would it be commandeering if the state officials VOLUNTARILY turned over the information?

This is simply a case where the federal government is refusing to seriously enforce federal law, and a state that has a compelling interest in seeing that law enforced is voluntarily assisting the feds. Now, the feds are not only saying "We don't want your help", but "You aren't allowed to help us". Then, they go a step further, as is the OP of this thread, and say "Not only are you not allowed to help us, but we will sue you to prevent you from doing so. However, if you actively refuse to enforce federal law, and in fact create sanctuaries for people to evade federal law, that's fine and dandy and you won't be sued." It makes no sense.

[David Floyd]

The Justice Department also believes that AZ is going slightly beyond federal law. Regardless, they are claiming that immigration is their turf and even if states want to help, they are barred by pre-emption.

And it's rapidly becoming clear that that position is going to be unsustainable in the Courts (in addition to making no sense to begin with).