6 ms·
This over-simplifies our federal system to the point of uselessness. The Federal Government is responsible for immigration. It's their job to set policies and
by gortok 1y ago
This over-simplifies our federal system to the point of uselessness.
The Federal Government is responsible for immigration. It's their job to set policies and adjudicate immigration issues.
Local and State Law Enforcement are not responsible for -- and indeed it is outside of their powers to enforce immigration laws.
Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law (see: Printz v. United States).
So, what you have in this situation are the fact that States and the Federal Government have opposing interests: The States need to be able to enforce their laws without their people feeling like they can't tell the police when there's a crime, and the current federal policy is to deport all undocumented immigrants, no matter why they're here or whether they are allowed to be here while their status is adjudicated.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Gabriel54 1y ago> Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law (see: Printz v. United States). So the supreme court struck a reasonable compromise between federal and state interests. I am not a lawyer, but I am certain that this precedent does not give states the right to actively obstruct federal agents from doing their job, that is, to enforce federal immigration law.
- hypeatei 1y ago> does not give states the right to actively obstruct federal agents Who said they had that right and when did this happen?
- Gabriel54 1y agoThe warrant of the judge's arrest strongly suggests that she did not think it was appropriate for ICE to arrest Ruiz and took actions to prevent it from happening.
- sarlalian 1y agoShe probably didn't think it was appropriate for ICE to arrest Ruiz at the courthouse. If going to court for a case against you becomes a good way to get deported, guess what people aren't going to do. We don't have the resources to keep everyone who has a case against them in jail, so we release people on the promise that they will show up for court. If it's dangerous to their freedom and living status to show up to court, they won't.
- rolph 1y agothe feds also have no right to arbitrarily obstruct court in session, they have to seek administrative recess, they cant just barge in and start belching commands, they dont have that authority.
- Gabriel54 1y agoThe agents in this case did no such thing. As far as I am aware this has not happened anywhere.
- rolph 1y agothats right they did no such thing, presumibly they sought recess from a chief justice, and by the time they came back, the person of concern was gone. had they realized they were likely to walk into the middle of procedings, the first stop should have been authorization to intercede.
- thuanao 1y agoConsidering the constitution only enumerates the power of naturalization (NOT residency) to Federal government, there is no clear power granted to Feds for things like residency visas. Controlling the border from foreign enemies is a far cry from the Federal government asserting the right to determine who gets to simply live and work within the states. The Supreme Court makes a mockery of 10th amendment on so many issues, whether it's drugs, healthcare, immigration, gun control...
- dragonwriter 1y ago> Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law Not just immigration law but federal law generally. It's funny that this never reached the point of beign a decision rule in a case and thus binding precedent until the 1990s, as you see it in dicta in Supreme Court cases decided on other bases back to shortly before the Civil War (specifically, in cases around the Fugitive Slave Laws.)
- Gabriel54 1y agoMight it be because the federal government simply did not need to exercise much authority over the states? As a non-expert I am curious. I am continually amazed by how much authority is delegated to the states and local jurisdictions in the United States (e.g. matters of marriage, property, voting, etc.). As I understand even citizenship was handled by local courts up until very recently.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> Might it be because the federal government simply did not need to exercise much authority over the states? Yeah, it is absolutely because the federal government was simply not trying to commandeer state authorities to enforce federal law; the interesting part (to me) is that the courts were anticipating the problem well before it materialized.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]