The statutes don't block the federal government from enforcing federal law.
They do limit the extent to which federal authorities can depend on California citizens and state officials to affirmatively assist in executing the federal mission.
Right? While it's clear that states can't nullify federal laws, in the absence of conflicting federal statutes, can't California enact immigration policies that advance its own, unique state interests?
Arizona's statute didn't conflict with federal law; it was just different from federal law, reflecting the state's sovereign priorities.
I accept as a given that State regulation is excluded by the Constitution when it has been prohibited by a valid federal law, or it conflicts with federal regulation - when, for example, it admits those whom federal regulation would exclude, or excludes those whom federal regulation would admit.
If Arizona's efforts at creating complementary policy were impermissible, then California faces an immense challenge justifying a policy that is quite explicitly designed to undermine federal enforcement.
The federal government is supreme, but in the absence of conflict with federal law, the states have considerable discretion to fashion their own policies.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/how-an-obama-administration-precedent-may-doom-californias-effort-to-make-itself-a-sanctuary-state/
They do limit the extent to which federal authorities can depend on California citizens and state officials to affirmatively assist in executing the federal mission.
Right? While it's clear that states can't nullify federal laws, in the absence of conflicting federal statutes, can't California enact immigration policies that advance its own, unique state interests?
Arizona's statute didn't conflict with federal law; it was just different from federal law, reflecting the state's sovereign priorities.
I accept as a given that State regulation is excluded by the Constitution when it has been prohibited by a valid federal law, or it conflicts with federal regulation - when, for example, it admits those whom federal regulation would exclude, or excludes those whom federal regulation would admit.
If Arizona's efforts at creating complementary policy were impermissible, then California faces an immense challenge justifying a policy that is quite explicitly designed to undermine federal enforcement.
The federal government is supreme, but in the absence of conflict with federal law, the states have considerable discretion to fashion their own policies.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/how-an-obama-administration-precedent-may-doom-californias-effort-to-make-itself-a-sanctuary-state/
No comments:
Post a Comment