I'm going to stick with the following prediction I made back on July 6, 2010, at the Mayor Sam website:
"For what it's worth, and for the record -- we have a record, right? -- I think parts of the law are constitutional, and parts are not."
"The parts that merely require state law enforcement agents to enforce federal law are constitutional."
"The parts that create new punishments based on the same conduct prohibited by federal law, however, will probably be found unconstitutional (e.g., for "trespass" by being in the state illegally)."
"I think the courts will find that Congress intended to preempt the field when it comes to prescribing penalties for entering and remaining in the country illegally, but did not intend to prevent state and local law enforcement authorities from enforcing federal laws."
What do YOU think? Weigh in with your prediction by posting a comment. Is there a valuable prize for winning prediction? Sure! Bragging rights!
No, not if the judge has any sense.
ReplyDeleteThe law is intended to allow Arizona law enforcement agents, many who are LEGAL immigrants, to help the U.S. enforce the already existing immigration law. Trespassing is illegal, is a crime that must be prosecuted, and those doing it deported.
Isn't it strange how local and national news are entangled? One is almost the same as the other. Please do not touch SANCTUARY CITIES or you'll get in major trouble. Just ask Sup. Mike Antonovich.
ReplyDelete