Arizona Approves Measure Allowing Local Police to Arrest Suspected Illegal Aliens
The measure also “makes the sale of fentanyl a class 2 felony if the person knowingly sold the drug and another person dies because of the substance.”
Border security was a huge issue on Tuesday night.
Arizona voters approved Proposition 314, allowing local law enforcement to arrest suspected illegal aliens.
It won by a large margin, 62.6% to 37.2%:
Proposition 314 makes it a state crime for people to illegally enter Arizona from Mexico outside official ports of entry, permitting local and state law enforcement officers to arrest them and state judges to order their deportations. Those who enforce the law would be shielded from civil lawsuits.
The proposal won’t go into effect immediately, requiring a similar law in Texas or another state to be in effect for 60 consecutive days before a violator can be prosecuted.
Republican lawmakers in Arizona argued the proposal would help secure the border after the Biden administration dealt with an unprecedented surge of illegal immigration.
The measure makes it a felony “to submit false information or documents for employment or public benefits.”
Plus, it “makes the sale of fentanyl a class 2 felony if the person knowingly sold the drug and another person dies because of the substance.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I voted NO. This is a clear violation of federalism and the constitution.
You’re going to have to provide a LOT more analysis to support that statement, particularly since Federalism rightly discerned is based on state sovereignty.
How do you figure? Does a state give up its right to defend its foreign borders when it joins the union?
I can understand preventing them from disallowing *legal* immigrants it disfavors, but what possible constitutional reason would there be to prevent them from their rights to self-defense?
The Supremacy Clause generally gives the federal government the right to overrule state law in some matters. Immigration/citizenship is an express power of the federal government. Through statute, Congress limited the power of the states to enforce federal immigration laws.
The part of about entering only through ports of entry may pass statutory muster, but the ability to arrest suspicion of status or to deport as a violation probably do not (based on readings of case law). None of these are unconstitutional (even if unenforceable under statute).
The underlying statute would be a helpful item to look at. The new Congress and President Trump should review in what circumstances states can enforce federal immigration law, and make changes to this provision. States have a legitimate right here to protect themselves, especially when the federal government will not. Doing this by statute will make this much harder for a subsequent administration to take a different view as it would require legislative action and not just executive action.
Yeah, that tracks with my sense of it – you can’t make up a state law that says, “all immigrants over 6′ 2″ may be deported”, but you could make a state law that says, “state officers may enforce federal immigration laws per federal statute”, which should allow them to forcibly deport illegal immigrants not being handled by la migra. The only question might be, if federal statute has certain process provisions, if they must be adhered to directly (like, “all illegal immigrants may contact outside counsel”, or something similar). I don’t know enough about federal immigration statutes to do an off the cuff analysis, but here’s a thought – make the process the punishment. If we can terrorize innocent self-guided tourists of the capitol, we can certainly make life hard for illegal immigrants, encouraging them to self deport 🙂
The constitution gives the feds authority over naturalization — NOT immigration. SCOTUS maintained that one implies the other, but the argument is illogical… and under the 10th Amendment, states retain equal access to this authority.
no it is not
Is it? Maybe it does violate the constitution, but if so the violation is far from clear. The Supreme Court will have to decide on Texas SB4, and that will determine whether this measure comes into effect or not. So by definition if it does come into effect it will be constitutional.
I agree with the people wanting to get rid of illegals if the federal government refuses to do their jobs but I also agree with you. I don’t see where a state has the authority to deport anyone. They could order the arrest of illegals and mandatory turning them over to ICE for deportation, though.
Hoorah! Make State Sovereignty Great Again!
(Can that get made into an acronym pronounced like “meshuga”?)
I find it interesting that California can stop cars at its borders and check them for fruits, vegetables, and animals, seizing such without a specifically directed court order, but Arizona can’t control its borders for illegal humans.
https://vistacriminallaw.com/california-prohibited-items/
Sad they even had to do it.
It should have been done without even asking.
I think it is a misreading that detaining and deporting illegals is solely a federal matter.
Immigration IS correctly federal; Arizona cannot make up its own rules about what steps someone must go through or what qualifications they must have to getLEGAL citizenship.
However, it is not solely a federal power to determine whether a person is a lawbreaker, nor what the penalty for that lawbreaking is. Border jumping is NOT immigration, period.
I think it could be reasonably adjudicated that Arizona can identify border jumpers and remove them from their state, as soon as we can get a judiciary that is not hopeless leftist and unconstitutional
“Immigration IS correctly federal; Arizona cannot make up its own rules about what steps someone must go through or what qualifications they must have to getLEGAL citizenship.”
Clearly you meant your first word to be naturalization, NOT immigration, because that’s what you are describing.
The feds and the state can each have a law that applies to the same offense. One that comes to mind is narcotic possession and distribution. CA has a law against heroin possession; so does the federal government. A person in possession can be prosecuted by either authority.
Another example would be robbery. Rob a bank and you violate both a federal and a state law. The robber can be prosecuted by either jurisdiction.
So if AZ has a state law against entering the state from a foreign country without compliance with law governing such, then AZ authorities can act to enforce the AZ law.
Deporting may be a different story as it might be stepping into federal territory, but incarceration under the state law would be appropriate.
13-4295.04. Enforcement of article
Notwithstanding any other law, this article may not be enforced in any manner until any part of Section 2 of S.B. 4, 88th Leg., 4th Called Sess. (2023) that was enacted in the State of Texas, or any other law of any other state similar thereto, has been in effect for a period of sixty consecutive days at any time on or after the effective date of this article.
I don’t understand the caveat of having another state go first before enforcement of the statute. Is it so Arizona has company in the Federal Courts when the inevitable lawsuit over Federalism occurs?
No, it’s so they know it’s been okayed by SCOTUS, so they won’t have any legal challenges. They’re letting Texas (or some other state) go first and fight the challenges; if and when the other state’s law has been upheld and has been operating smoothly for 60 days without an injunction, then their law will take effect.