Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Arizona vs. Maine
Following up on Professor Epstein’s excellent post about Judge Bolton’s opinion in the Arizona case, I’d like to pose a related, but different, question.
Professor Epstein concludes that the Administration is likely to win its case on federal pre-emption grounds. Would the pre-emption argument also work against states and cities with “sanctuary” policies? The State of Maine, for example, has a policy (imposed by the governor via executive order) that prohibits state employees from disclosing or even inquiring about a person’s immigration status. Isn’t there a credible argument that such a policy frustrates federal enforcement of immigration laws?
As a tactical matter, maybe this is a fight the Republicans don’t want, for fear of alienating hispanic voters. But as a legal matter, the argument seems sound to me.
With due respect Mr. Freedman, you would have to have federal enforcement of immigration laws.
Actually, whether or not the federal law is enforced wouldn’t matter, I’d bet. Regardless, the feds certainly don’t want to admit in a public trial that they’re not enforcing immigration laws.
It’s an excellent question.