Open AccessPosted Content
Enforcement Redundancy and the Future of Immigration Law
TLDR
In United States v. Arizona as mentioned in this paper, the Arizona Court rejected redundant enforcement by conceptualizing law as a set of prices rather than a series of obligations, which constitutes a radical departure from conventional approaches to preemption.Abstract:
It is commonplace for states to help enforce federal law. Indeed, "enforcement redundancy" is a widespread and typically unremarkable aspect of American federalism. Local police regularly arrest people for violating federal criminal law; states criminalize wide swaths of conduct, like dealing drugs, that are also federal offenses; and states often attach civil penalties to conduct, such as workplace discrimination, already proscribed by federal law. Nevertheless, in United States v. Arizona — the most significant immigration federalism case in decades — the Supreme Court vitiated Arizona’s efforts at redundant enforcement.This Article explores why the Arizona Court rejected redundant enforcement and what implications the rejection holds for the future of immigration law. The Court rejected redundant enforcement, I argue, by conceptualizing law as a set of prices rather than a series of obligations. This analytic framework constitutes a radical departure from conventional approaches to preemption. Moreover, the approach is one the Court cannot possibly embrace as a general way of analyzing intergovernmental conflicts. Doing so would eliminate vast swathes of state regulatory authority and dramatically reshape our federal system.The Court’s law-as-price approach makes Arizona much more a case about separation of powers than one about federalism. It consolidates tremendous immigration policymaking power in the Executive Branch, endorsing the idea that immigration law is centrally the product of executive “lawmaking” that bears little relation to immigration law on the books. The Court’s decision to ratify this sort of Presidential control over migration policy has important implications for the ongoing transformation of immigration law, as well as for the future of American federalism.read more
Citations
References
More filters
Book
Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches
TL;DR: McCarty et al. as mentioned in this paper examined the relationship of polarization, wealth disparity, immigration, and other forces, characterizing it as a dance of give and take and back and forth causality.
Posted Content
Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches
TL;DR: McCarty et al. as mentioned in this paper examined the relationship of polarization, wealth disparity, immigration, and other forces, characterizing it as a dance of give and take and back and forth causality.
Journal ArticleDOI
The Collapse of American Criminal Justice
TL;DR: For example, the authors argues that because of the multiuse nature of most basic research and the long time lags between discovery and application, it is unlikely that any one individual, company, or industry would support a sufficient amount of basic research to advance innovation.
Posted Content
Immigration Policing and Federalism Through the Lens of Technology, Surveillance, and Privacy
Anil Kalhan,Anil Kalhan +1 more
TL;DR: Secure Communities as discussed by the authors is part of a broader, technology-based shift toward automated immigration policing, the use of interoperable database systems and other technologies to automate and routinize the identification and apprehension of potentially deportable noncitizens in the course of ordinary police encounters and other moments of day-to-day life.