LINK: Undocumented immigrants arrested in California courthouse — despite state law Looks like that promise of cracking down on Sanctuary States is coming to fruition. I agree with ICE on this one. The Federal government has complete authority in regards to immigration and enforcement of immigration laws which trumps State laws. And this is another example of California attempting to obstruct Federal Immigration law...which in itself is illegal. There's a difference between not enforcing federal law and making a law that purposefully attempts to stop enforcement of federal law.
The Sheriff would be within his or her lawful authority to stop ICE from doing this in his or her jurisdiction in CA, according to the CA State Constitution. But the Sheriff didn't, so ICE is well within their own authority to proceed.
What makes you think the sheriff would have the lawful authority to stop ICE from doing this? A sheriff has no authority over immigration enforcement unless the federal government gives them the authority.
In some states, CA being one of them, the locally elected Sheriff is defined in the State Constitution as the Chief Law Enforcement Official within the jurisdiction that elected them. This does not necessarily override Federal authority in that jurisdiction... but it does make it legal and lawful for the Sheriff to prevent and resist enforcement within their jurisdiction by outside agencies should they so choose (ostencibly read: should they be mandated to do so by their constituents whom they represent). The only case that I'm aware of where the Sheriff actually challenged the Feds was indeed in CA, and in that case, the Feds followed the Sheriffs orders. I'll see if I can find it, but iirc it involved BLM.
It might make it legal in the State, but would it make it legal Federally? According to our federal immigration laws it is illegal for anyone to aid illegal aliens or obstruct the enforcement of immigration laws. The State's Constitution does not supersede federal law. I know that some may argue "States Rights" in this (I've seen it before) but in this particular case that doesn't apply because the US Constitution specifically gives the Federal government sole power over immigration. (not saying you're saying this, just shooting down the argument before it appears)
I couldn't find the one I remember from CA, but here's one from Wyoming where the Sheriff challenged the Feds, it went to a district court, and the court ruled: "The court confirms and asserts that “the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official.” " https://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/...by-the-constitution-or-face-immediate-arrest/ Whether it makes it federally 'legal' or not, I dunno. It prolly comes down to which one is less willing to go to war over it...
That would be complicated, as courts gave set the precedent that duly elected Sheriffs have enforcement powers greater than Federal officials within their jurisdictions. The Feds could try to arrest and try in a Federal court, but the Sheriff has the constituional power of deputization which technically and legally would allow them to raise and arm an army in resistance. At this point (and likely way before), the Feds would just say screw it to avoid setting off a chain of similar conflicts that could lead us to civil war. This is the theory in practice behind the 2A Sanctuary Cities anyway. It could be applied to immigration just as easily.
I'll have to read your link later, am at work using my phone atm. But thanks for it. I hadn't heard of that case before. Will be fun to read it. (I know weird hobby but hey, it is what it is.)
The Feds often exceed their power, but control of foreign immigration is clearly given to Congress. If they had not legislated on this issue California could do so, butI when there is a conflict the supremacy clause rightly or wrongly picks the Feds.
This is different than the Wyoming case. Besides courthouses are public buildings, ICE had every right to be there. If they happen upon fugitives of justice they have a sworn duty to apprehend them along with the Constitutional authority to do so...
What this might come down to is interpretation of legal warrants. Law enforcement takes a warrant signed by a federal judge, and applies an interpretation to it that is in conflict with state law. Theoretically federal law trumps state law, but in actuality this sort of comes down to a regular law enforcement officer on the ground who applies their own general interpretation of a very broad and vague federal law. It's almost as if federal law enforcement is virtually immune from state law.
Sorry, 'modernpaladin'... you're misinformed on this I'm afraid. As a libertarian, I hate to say this - but the Feds "trump" ,legislatively, contrived State edicts / mandates / "laws" in this regard... (pot smoking is a close parallel), lol... State constitutions are under the purview of Federal, US Constitution constraints...
Imo yes...but only because the federal government was failing to do its duty in securing our borders. Legally however he did the right thing in suing Arizona because they were trying to usurp the government's authority over immigration. And in law if you don't contest such then that can be grounds for future suits to be dismissed.
Cities and states have no right to hinder the feds on immigration. California having an immigration policy thwarting federal laws is just as silly as Kentucky having a different foreign policy than our federal government.
