Washington Suing Arizona for Immigration Law

[Accountable]

Why would a state need a new law giving itself permission to enforce a federal law?

Eyeblast.tv

Dept. of Justice to File Suit Against Arizona - Video - FoxNews.com

[Royd Fissure]

Politics? in my disingenuous tone of voice

[Accountable]

:wah: Sure, but you can't sue somebody for being politically, erm, incorrect. :-2

[Royd Fissure]

Sho nuff politically incorrect - but it's always useful to make a big fuss in one's state by shaping up to Washington DC. I'm thinking now of Bobby Jindal and his little discussion with the Coastguard over the oil cleanup barges.

[littleCJelkton]

Accountable;1316969 wrote: Why would a state need a new law giving itself permission to enforce a federal law?

Eyeblast.tv

Dept. of Justice to File Suit Against Arizona - Video - FoxNews.com


One reason I suspect why such an incident would occur is the following. The Federal law is not being enforced, or not being enforced as it should be as stated by the law. Since it is not being enforced properly by The Federal Law in place, the State deems it necessary to draft, pass, and enforce a new law, Another reason could be that the situation and circumstances have changed in such a way that the Federal Law can no longer cover everything that needs to be done in aforementioned state, and The Federal government has not made the necessary efforts to change and/or update the law to accompany for the changes, thus the state government deems it in the best interest of its residents to draft, pass, and enforce a law that satisfies that which the federal law does not. This is not to say that I agree with the Arizona law or any state law that has been made up to enforce a federal one, but the reasons I mentioned are ones I see would be the reasons a state would pass a law giving it permission to enforce a state law

[Accountable]

Wow, you write as if you don't live in the US. My question is why don't they simply enforce the federal law? There's no law against that, is there?

[littleCJelkton]

Accountable;1316969 wrote: Why would a state need a new law giving itself permission to enforce a federal law?

Eyeblast.tv

Dept. of Justice to File Suit Against Arizona - Video - FoxNews.com


Question in first post as it appears.

Why would a state need a new law giving itself permission to enforce a federal law?

Accountable;1317064 wrote: Wow, you write as if you don't live in the US. My question is why don't they simply enforce the federal law? There's no law against that, is there?


Question you now ask.

Why don't they simply enforce the federal law?

Followed by

There's no law against that, is there?



As anyone can clearly see there are three different questions as I have already stated my view on the first one Why would a state need a new law giving itself permission to enforce a federal law? I will attempt to answer the second, I would suspect that a law would not be enforced or not enforced enough to satisfy the needs for which the law was past because of many reasons, One of which is a company(S) has come to make a sizable profit off the fact that aforementioned law is not enforced, thus the company(s) will use that money to lobby against enforcing said law. They may also use that money to jump start a person's career in public service working a local member of the state government and help make federal office more obtainable for that person. A third reason is that said federal law enforcement is not needed in all states thus it has less support to be enforced by federal members of the Federal Government (they) that are from states who a.) don't need it enforced in their state or b) the lack of enforcement of said law is an economic booster for their state. Now as for the third question Is there a Law against they( being the federal government) enforcing federal law. Depends on the Law some laws in the passed have had subsequent laws passed lessening the enforcement powers of the first law, then again to get laws passed and properly enforced you have to have the majority of all members from all 50 states and both parties in agreement about said law. That rarely happens as this country is bitterly divided in to groups that out of some ill-concieved sense there group is never wrong believe the other is never right. With this division in the federal government It is suprising that anything gets passe or enforced at all, thus States feel the need to pass laws and enforce them, because the federal goverment will not, this is allowed because the state government more often than the government is comprised of members who have similar views on what laws should be passed and enforced.

[Royd Fissure]

Seems like some sort of jurisdictional issue:

http://immigration.procon.org/sourcefil ... cement.pdf

States and localities bear the primary responsibility for defining and prosecuting crimes. But beyond enforcing the laws or ordinances of their state or locality, state and local officials may also have the authority to enforce some federal laws, especially criminal laws. Immigration law provides for both criminal punishments (e.g., alien smuggling, which is prosecuted in the courts) and civil violations (e.g., lack of legal status, which may lead to removal through a separate administrative system). The states and localities have traditionally only been permitted to directly enforce the criminal provisions, whereas the enforcement of the civil provisions has been viewed as a federal responsibility with states playing an incidental supporting role.

[Accountable]

Good Lord, another K Snyder. :yh_doh

Okay, CJ. We've not met, so I'll try to address your post, but it's really too convoluted for me to regularly converse with you. I'd greatly appreciate your ideas separated into paragraphs, at the very least.

littleCJelkton;1317112 wrote: Question in first post as it appears.

Why would a state need a new law giving itself permission to enforce a federal law?



Question you now ask.

Why don't they simply enforce the federal law?

Followed by

There's no law against that, is there?



As anyone can clearly see there are three different questions as I have already stated my view on the first one Why would a state need a new law giving itself permission to enforce a federal law? I will attempt to answer the second,The second was a restatement of the first, the third a further clarification. As virtually anyone can clearly see.

littleCJelkton wrote: I would suspect that a law would not be enforced or not enforced enough to satisfy the needs for which the law was past because of many reasons, One of which is a company(S) has come to make a sizable profit off the fact that aforementioned law is not enforced, thus the company(s) will use that money to lobby against enforcing said law. Fail. You completely ignore the context of the question. Was it on purpose? This reason would also necessarily mean the state would not create a new law because your fictional company would lobby against that, as well.

littleCJelkton wrote: They may also use that money to jump start a person's career in public service working a local member of the state government and help make federal office more obtainable for that person. I assume this is your second reason, since you follow it with "a third reason." It doesn't address the subject, question, or issue in any way. Fail.

littleCJelkton wrote: A third reason is that said federal law enforcement is not needed in all states thus it has less support to be enforced by federal members of the Federal Government (they) that are from states who a.) don't need it enforced in their state or b) the lack of enforcement of said law is an economic booster for their state. The question addressed is why don't the state simply enforce federal law. Federal law enforcement's lack of doing their job is exactly a reason to enforce the law, not to fail to enforce it.

littleCJelkton wrote: Now as for the third question Is there a Law against they( being the federal government) enforcing federal law.CJ, read this in isolation. Don't you see how stupid it is to think the pronoun would be referring to the federal gov't?? I obviously - painfully obviously - meant the state government. Why in creation would I ask if federal gov't is prohibited by law from enforcing federal law?? Wouldn't that have to be a federal law as well? Who would enforce such a law?

The rest of your post is too convoluted for me to address. Goodness , I'm tired. :yh_tired

[Accountable]

Royd Fissure;1317219 wrote: Seems like some sort of jurisdictional issue:

http://immigration.procon.org/sourcefil ... cement.pdf
I'm not sure whether entering the country without permission would be criminal or civil. I would think it would be criminal (along the lines of breaking & entering), which puts the local law enforcement right in the thick of it. So logically then, illegally entering the country must be a civil violation.

So we're back full circle to political posturing, as you said. :-5

[littleCJelkton]

[QUOTE=Accountable;131726

The second was a restatement of the first, the third a further clarification. As virtually anyone can clearly see.




Your first statement: Why would a state need law giving itself permission to enforce a federal law.

Your Second Statement: Why don't they simply enforce federal Law

The first statement implies that the state is the one passing the law as states enforce state law, When you use a pronoun They in a sentence where federal Law is the subject, then why would any body think you were trying to refer to anything other than the federal government which is responsible to pass and enforce the law. So if in question one you are asking about a states actions and the second, you are asking about a federal law process not state how would do you deduct the first statement is a restatement of the first? I am have not met you either but I am not sure if such a deduction process would make it easy to regularly converse with anyone let alone me or K, but I am not here to make judgments on you, So I will just say what I have to say, and not delve in to personal attacks, as this is just a forum nothing to really stress about.