Less than a month after hearing a challenge to the controversial Obama health care law brought by 26 states, the Supreme Court today will explore the relationship between the federal government and the states on another hot-button issue: immigration.

 

At issue is S.B. 1070 — Arizona’s strict immigration law that empowers local police to enforce federal immigration laws. It was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer who says that the law was needed to combat illegal immigration.

 

“It costs us about 1.6 billion dollars a year in health care, incarceration and education,” Brewer said. “It’s out of control.”

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/supreme-court-set-to-hear-challenge-to-arizonas-immigration-law/

This has been a really exciting Supreme Court session to follow: the challenge to health care reform, the Jefferson County school assignment plan, and now this. I'm really curious to see what happens when the opinions are released.

I agree, this case interests me a lot too.

U.S. high court appears to back Arizona on immigration:U.S. high court appears to back Arizona on immigration - Yahoo! News

Some of our lawyers might have to help me out here, but it sounds like the challenge here is specifically about federal powers versus state powers. From my understanding, even if the Court upholds it here, it would still be susceptible to other challenges on the racial aspect of it later on.

 

Also, the Solicitor General has been panned in most of the discussions I've read about this case. I listened to the audio of the healthcare law arguments and his performance was very poor there too. I don't know all of the nuances of the legal arguments (and it seems most believe he's failed in making them) but his presentation and speaking abilities are awful too.

In real simple terms Habib the Feds are the only one that can enforce immigration laws and the feds do a lousy job. I was even trained by an ICE officer that made running jokes about the fed failing to do their job. When this happens states are in a no win situation and in AZ they took the law into their own hands (rightly so in this mans opinion because the feds don't even attempt to pick up the ball so they can drop it) and gave their own state law enforcement officers the power to enforce immigration laws. If AZ wins look for several other states to follow suit. Remember, this would not be necessary if the feds would do their job but they don't and again in my opinion it hasn't mattered which party is in control, they both stink on immigration and the losers are the individual states.

In real simple terms Habib the Feds are the only one that can enforce immigration laws and the feds do a lousy job. I was even trained by an ICE officer that made running jokes about the fed failing to do their job. When this happens states are in a no win situation and in AZ they took the law into their own hands (rightly so in this mans opinion because the feds don't even attempt to pick up the ball so they can drop it) and gave their own state law enforcement officers the power to enforce immigration laws. If AZ wins look for several other states to follow suit. Remember, this would not be necessary if the feds would do their job but they don't and again in my opinion it hasn't mattered which party is in control, they both stink on immigration and the losers are the individual states.

 

I don't have an issue with what you've said here, though I wish the federal government would overhaul the immigration system instead of what they are doing now. I do have an issue with the Arizona law, but that's over wording that I think demands profiling, which I don't agree with. But, from my understanding the only issue the Court is hearing regarding this law is the separation of powers between the states and the federal government and not the "profiling" issue.

In real simple terms Habib the Feds are the only one that can enforce immigration laws and the feds do a lousy job. I was even trained by an ICE officer that made running jokes about the fed failing to do their job. When this happens states are in a no win situation and in AZ they took the law into their own hands (rightly so in this mans opinion because the feds don't even attempt to pick up the ball so they can drop it) and gave their own state law enforcement officers the power to enforce immigration laws. If AZ wins look for several other states to follow suit. Remember, this would not be necessary if the feds would do their job but they don't and again in my opinion it hasn't mattered which party is in control, they both stink on immigration and the losers are the individual states.

 

While your point about the Feds is most likely correct it has no bearing on this case.

While your point about the Feds is most likely correct it has no bearing on this case.

 

But it is the underlying reason for the case.

 

The Feds haven't been doing their job and someone has to do the job.

But it is the underlying reason for the case.

 

The Feds haven't been doing their job and someone has to do the job.

 

It's the underlying reason for why AZ did what they did.

 

It has no bearing on the decision that will be made by the SCOTUS.

 

If so, states would be making all kinds of laws due to Washington's inability to be successful.

But it is the underlying reason for the case.

 

The Feds haven't been doing their job and someone has to do the job.

 

True, but this case is likely going to turn on Congressional intent and the Supremacy Clause rather than enforcement or the lack thereof.

 

The case will probably turn on the concept of field preemption -- the idea that courts will imply federal preemption if the regulations are so pervasive that they are said to "occupy the field" -- and interpretations of Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956), in which the court held that if federal interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant, not only will it preclude enforcement of state laws on the subject, but if state laws go beyond the scope of Congressional intent in such an area, that law is not deemed to be an aid to to the federal government, but in fact may be entirely preempted.

 

Scalia and Thomas will likely not see it that way, because that's what they do, but I think this case is going to turn on whether or not Congress and the President have a sufficiently large regulatory scheme regarding immigration and not whether they bother to use it.

If so, states would be making all kinds of laws due to Washington's inability to be successful.

 

I disagree, there are always exceptions to the rule and this is one of them.

Do state (or local) law enforcement entities have arrest and enforcement powers in other federal crimes?

Do state (or local) law enforcement entities have arrest and enforcement powers in other federal crimes?

 

I remember there being some obscure cases where "locals" had powers to act but we never ever did anything outside of what was in the KRS (Kentucky Revised Statues).

I'm really not well versed on this at all. What are some other federal crimes?