Eric Holder: Stupid? Racist? Incompetent? Yes.

[David Floyd]

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

Right. What's next? State and local police forces are no longer allowed to assist the FBI? It would be the same silly argument.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Now you are jumping all over the map. I'm talking about sanctuary cities not turning over 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.

It depends on how far the SCOTUS considers the pre-emption on immigration law to go.

Legally it can make all kinds of sense, although politically it may not to some people.

[DinoDoc]

Printz involved state officials suing because they were required to enforce provisions of the Brady Bill,...

Seriously Imran. Printz involved the Feds ordering the States to do something. This case isn't remotely similar. Find better case law.

[Wiglaf]

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).

You are such a phony. Of course it's not unheard of. No one said it was. STATES CAN'T ENFORCE ERISA BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT URGENTLY WANTED UNIFORM STANDARDS TO PROTECT BENEFITS[/CAPS]And as you said there's exceptions of various kinds. Holder doesn't want states to enforce immigration laws because he doesn't want uniform standards BECAUSE HE WANTS HISPANIC VOTES. There is literally no other reason to not want uniform enforcement here. Naan and beeeeyond.

I'll let you decide which of those decisions is possibly a valid use of pre-emption, and which is complete bull****

[Imran Siddiqui]

Right. What's next? State and local police forces are no longer allowed to assist the FBI? It would be the same silly argument.

Usually the feds like state and local police forces to want to help them, so it hasn't really been challenged. This time they don't want to.

Here is a law professor indicating why he believes the AZ law will be preempted:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizonas-immigration-law-supremacy-and-federal-preemption.html

Arizona's immigration law, which authorizes state and local law enforcement officials to inquire into the immigration status of any person "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States," runs up against the comprehensive federal scheme in Title 8 U.S.C. that governs treatment of aliens. Congress enacted Title 8 pursuant to its plenary power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States." The federal scheme reflects Congress's judgment to completely occupy the field of immigration and naturalization (with an important exception, discussed below)--a judgment that is well within its powers until Article I, Section 8--and the comprehensive federal scheme therefore likely preempts Arizona's new law. The new law is almost certainly invalid under the Supremacy Clause.

So there is most definitely a preemption argument.

[David Floyd]

Now you are jumping all over the map. I'm talking about sanctuary cities not turning over information.

My fault, I misunderstood.

And yes, you're probably right that States can't be compelled to turn over information. It just doesn't make any sense at all to sue them for choosing to do so.

It depends on how far the SCOTUS considers the pre-emption on immigration law to go.

Legally it can make all kinds of sense, although politically it may not to some people.

Yes, I understand that the courts can finagle their way to any decision they like, but in this case, it doesn't even pass the bright line of common sense, which should be a pretty good indicator.

In any case, passing a law mirroring federal law is NOT a power expressly denied to the States under the Constitution. Passing a law in contravention of federal law would be, but that's not the case here. It's not even clear to me that passing a law that mirrored and then went beyond federal law, so long as it didn't violate the Constitution, is a power denied to the States under the Constitution.

[SlowwHand]

Illegal aliens fall under state's rights.

[David Floyd]

Usually the feds like state and local police forces to want to help them, so it hasn't really been challenged. This time they don't want to.

But you miss the point. If preemption dictates that States cannot help the federal government enforce the law, either voluntarily or involuntarily, then whether or not the feds want local police to help them out doesn't really matter, as the local and state police would be PREEMPTED from doing so.

That's just silly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Seriously Imran. Printz involved the Feds ordering the States to do something. This case isn't remotely similar. Find better case law.

People who rail against sanctuary cities don't want the feds to order localities to do something? That's news.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But you miss the point. If preemption dictates that States cannot help the federal government enforce the law, either voluntarily or involuntarily, then whether or not the feds want local police to help them out doesn't really matter, as the local and state police would be PREEMPTED from doing so.

Preemption suits would only really applies when there is an objection to action or a law. I mean, technically, one can say a locality may be preempted from doing something, but if the feds want them to and they volunteer to, no one is suing, so it doesn't matter.

[David Floyd]

Well in that case, you simply create a series of patchworks and inconsistencies in federal law, which is purportedly what the federal government is suing to avoid. In other words, state cooperation is illegal, but will only be subject to litigation based on the whim of the federal government. Such a result stemming from your definition of preemption would only serve to politicize the enforcement federal law, wouldn't it?

They can't have it both ways.

[Wiglaf]

Usually the feds like state and local police forces to want to help them, so it hasn't really been challenged. This time they don't want to.

Here is a law professor indicating why he believes the AZ law will be preempted:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizonas-immigration-law-supremacy-and-federal-preemption.html

So there is most definitely a preemption argument.

There's only an argument if Arizona does something inconsistent with the federal law. Not if the federal law says 'states can't really deal with this issue we think.' Please do not ever quote a law professor again and act like they are authorities on anything, most of them are pedophiles or virgins.

[David Floyd]

Also, let's be clear. I highly doubt that the officers on the ground in charge of enforcing immigration law are in any way upset by Arizona or any other state voluntarily cooperating. It's the politicians in Washington who don't want the cooperation, because, as Wiglaf pointed out, it all comes down to getting the Hispanic vote in November.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well in that case, you simply create a series of patchworks and inconsistencies in federal law, which is purportedly what the federal government is suing to avoid. In other words, state cooperation is illegal, but will only be subject to litigation based on the whim of the federal government. Such a result stemming from your definition of preemption would only serve to politicize the enforcement federal law, wouldn't it?

They can't have it both ways.

Why not? Governments try to do it all the time in other fields?

Now, I think the preemption discussion is not cut and dry - as I've pointed out I think it's like to be 5-4 or 6-3. There are valid arguments on either side of the issue as preemption is very thorny. We'll just have to see what happens.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also, let's be clear. I highly doubt that the officers on the ground in charge of enforcing immigration law are in any way upset by Arizona or any other state voluntarily cooperating. It's the politicians in Washington who don't want the cooperation, because, as Wiglaf pointed out, it all comes down to getting the Hispanic vote in November.

Well, or they think the immigration laws are unjust (but don't have the votes or don't want to try to get the votes to overturn them).