SCOTUS: This is a no brainer!

How can any judge approve of identity theft???

https://theconservativeopinion.com/b...qKTzxwZKYN2MIY

How can any judge approve of identity theft???

https://theconservativeopinion.com/b...qKTzxwZKYN2MIY Originally Posted by gfejunkie

states should be able to enforce federal laws in addition to state laws.


any way, this article has more details on the identity theft ruling.


https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/03/03/792745/


the opposition writes:
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court’s liberal wing, said U.S. immigration law gave federal authorities the sole responsibility to police fraud committed to obtain eligibility to work.

The law “reserves to the federal government—and thus takes from the states—the power to prosecute people for misrepresenting material information in an effort to convince their employer that they are authorized to work in this country,” Justice Breyer wrote.

he opposition writes:
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court’s liberal wing, said U.S. immigration law gave federal authorities the sole responsibility to police fraud committed to obtain eligibility to work.

The law “reserves to the federal government—and thus takes from the states—the power to prosecute people for misrepresenting material information in an effort to convince their employer that they are authorized to work in this country,” Justice Breyer wrote.


Another liberal interpretation of what they want - total federal government control.

It is explicit in the Constitution -

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be a truism by the Supreme Court.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people


it is a liberal dissenting opinion. And not grounded in the Constitution.

Where is ftw to declare the Constitution to be nazi and Racist?????
Along with the rest of the Fascist DPST crowd???

he opposition writes:
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court’s liberal wing, said U.S. immigration law gave federal authorities the sole responsibility to police fraud committed to obtain eligibility to work.

The law “reserves to the federal government—and thus takes from the states—the power to prosecute people for misrepresenting material information in an effort to convince their employer that they are authorized to work in this country,” Justice Breyer wrote.


Another liberal interpretation of what they want - total federal government control.

It is explicit in the Constitution -

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be a truism by the Supreme Court.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people


it is a liberal dissenting opinion. And not grounded in the Constitution. Originally Posted by oeb11

It's a double-edged sword. Should states be allowed to thwart federal immigration laws by declaring themselves sanctuary states?

I would make a distinction between instances where federal and state laws reinforce each other (e.g. this case) versus when they are in conflict.

In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the power to make immigration policy subject to limited judicial oversight. The Executive Branch is charged with enforcing the immigration laws passed by Congress.

Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization." By expressly allocating this power to Congress, the Constitution prevents the confusion that would result if individual states could bestow citizenship.

Many, but not all, state laws addressing immigration are preempted by federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.Nov 14, 2007

It's a complicated issue not fully resolved is my understanding. The SC has said that the federal government can not force a state to act as immigration agents but they can not intentionally violate federal law and set up their own rules on immigration. So what the hell does all that mean?


https://www.natlawreview.com/article...es-and-federal


The spending power of the federal government is vested in the legislature, and it is here, not the executive, that determinations on how federal grants are issued are made. This is a fundamental tenet of the separation of powers between the various branches of the federal government, particularly between the executive and the legislature. As such, the language in EO 13768 that acts as a threat to those jurisdictions deemed to be “sanctuary” for illegal aliens and in a state of noncompliance with the executive order’s demands related to civil immigration detainers is prima facia unconstitutional because the executive branch can only dispense with revenue allocated at the direction of the legislature.


And yet a recent 2nd Circuit Appeals Court decision says Trump can withhold federal funds from sanctuary cites so "law review, meet Trump and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals"!


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/nyregion/sanctuary-cities-funding.html



Trump Can Withhold Millions From ‘Sanctuary’ States, Court Rules


The Justice Department hailed the decision as a victory for public safety. Three other appeals courts had ruled against the administration on the issue.


So, in legal terms "you can't make us"! vs "maybe not but we can withhold money from you"!

The specific issue is not immigration.
It's criminal identity theft and criminal fraud. I don't understand why this wasn't cleary dealt with correctly in lower court, let alone some justices dissented.

Where is ftw to declare the Constitution to be nazi and Racist?????
Along with the rest of the Fascist DPST crowd??? Originally Posted by oeb11

Who is ftw?

The specific issue is not immigration.
It's criminal identity theft and criminal fraud. I don't understand why this wasn't cleary dealt with correctly in lower court, let alone some justices dissented. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

problem here is that the state took the information form a I-9 form which is a federal form.


this issue is why the state supreme court nixed the state law on the enforcement of identity fraud as info was taken from a federal form.

Who is ftw?



Originally Posted by WTF

Is One really that confused???

Funny how the DPST are -confused The law is very clear
"8 us code #1324 makes it a felony to knowingly bring or attempt to bring aliens across the border illegally or to conceal/ shield or hide. or to aid and abet.