Immigration legal precedents

I thought this was a rather good summary of the situation.

Former Los Angeles candidate for mayor attorney Walter Moore says police can enforce federal immigration law

• May 1, 2010

Arizona Police Can Enforce Federal Immigration Law
The national media are inundating airwaves and bandwidth with legal opinions on Arizona’s new immigration law — from people who are not lawyers.

We heard from a wise Latina, but it was Shakira, not Sotomayor. We also heard Mayor Villaraigosa, but he is an “undocumented lawyer:” he never passed the bar despite four tries.
Yours truly is a real lawyer, with over 25 years’ experience protecting people’s rights in state and federal courts. Two years ago, I had occasion to look into the law concerning the very same issues implicated by Arizona’s new law.

You see, two years ago, an outstanding young man named Jamiel Shaw II, who was being recruited by colleges for their football teams, was murdered two doors down from his house by an illegal alien gang member — a criminal who should never have been in our country in the first place, and who had just been released from jail back into the community a day or two earlier rather than being deported. Jamiel’s mother got the news in Iraq, where she was serving our country as a sergeant in the U.S. Army.

I had to do something about the heartbreaking, preventable murder; had to try to stop it from happening again. So I researched and drafted a proposed ordinance, which I called “Jamiel’s Law,” to try to spare other young people the same tragic and preventable fate. Jamiel’s Law was as simple as simple gets: all it would have done was carve out an narrow exception to L.A.’s “sanctuary city” policy, aka “Special Order 40,” to let the police enforce federal immigration laws against known gang members.

Then, as now, people claimed that immigration is a federal issue, and that the police cannot enforce federal law, and blah blah blah. They didn’t really care about the law. They just wanted to stop anyone from doing anything about illegal immigration.

Anyway, as a real lawyer, with real experience in this field, let me de-bunk for you some of the baloney being peddled by the armies of “undocumented lawyers” on whom the media have chosen to focus. Unlike those faux attorneys, moreover, I will support what I say with actual legal authority — you know, the way real lawyers do.

Here’s what I want to get through your head: state and local police can enforce federal immigration law. Federal law does not prevent them from doing so.

Don’t take my word for it. Here are federal court opinions saying so:

In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — you read that right, the Ninth Circuit — concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.”

In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”

Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘ to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.

In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.”

In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, that “[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”

in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.

In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

Hips don’t lie, but hips don’t count as legal precedent.

The people whose legal opinion matters are the men and women who wear black robes, and they have ruled, again and again and again that federal law lets local police enforce federal immigration law. So the next time some wanna-be lawyer tells you that federal law prevents local police from enforcing immigration laws, I want you to remember this two-word legal term: “Prove it!”

If you want a great song, Shakira is your go-to gal. If you want to know what the law is, I’m you go-to guy. But bring your checkbook.