Sanctuary, Defiance and Authorities

The Trump Administration (no, you don't get to throw up in your mouth at the sound of that phrase) is suing California over three laws the state has passed into law.  These three laws prevent businesses and law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in their attempts to deport those in the country illegally.

To be clear, the federal government has the legal authority to deport anyone in this nation illegally.  That is how the laws are written.

It is also abundantly clear in the minds of many that there is no moral authority to deport anyone whose only criminal act was entering our nation in violation of our immigration laws.  That is especially true when referring to the "dreamers" who were protected under DACA.  They were not of age to make a choice about coming to the U.S. illegally.

California SB 54 prohibits state and local police agencies from notifying federal officials in many cases when immigrants potentially subject to deportation are about to be released from custody.

California AB 450 prohibits business owners from voluntarily sharing information about their employees with federal immigration agents.

California AB 103 requires that federal detention facilities be inspected by state authorities.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California issued a statement regarding this lawsuit.  

"This lawsuit is just the Trump administration's latest act of desperation to force California to cooperate with its dragnet round-ups and expulsions of immigrant residents.

With this lawsuit, the Trump administration is really saying that its racist immigration agenda, aimed at eliminating legal and unauthorized immigrants from our country, depends on California's cooperation.

But California wants no part in furthering Trump's unconstitutional and in-American agenda."

So it is clear that the ACLU is in favor of states passing laws that impact enforcement of immigration law.  They don't see this as a violation of the Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Funny thing is, that less than a decade ago, the ACLU took the exact opposite position in another instance of a state passing a law on immigration enforcement.  Arizona.

Arizona's SB 1070 imposed harsher, stricter standards on state and local law enforcement agencies in the state. An article in the Arizona Republic newspaper back then contained this:

"Annie Lai, an Arizona ACLU lawyer, has been studying the law and agreed it contains "a number of constitutional flaws" that could bolster a legal attack.

"This is one of the most extreme and direct attempts by a state to regulate immigration law, and that is prohibited by the supremacy clause of the Constitution," she said. "The immigration-enforcement provisions do not have adequate safeguards that United States citizens, legal residents, Native Americans and other minorities will not be detained and arrested."

So how is it that the Supremacy clause does and doesn't prohibit states from engaging in passage of laws regulating immigration?  Seems simple, federal law trumps state law.

That is, until we consider just how these two attempts at imposition of state enforcement of immigration laws differ.  The federal government has every right to enforce immigration law.  They do not have the right to force states to assist in that enforcement.  

But I don't agree that the state of CA can impose sanctions on private employers who choose to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.  I think that's going too far.  The state of CA can certainly choose to limit how state and local law enforcement agencies choose to cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities.  That is within their purview.

As always, immigration and the relevant issues require a comprehensive, long-term solution and our current Congress, as dysfunctional as it is, doesn't have the ability to craft such a solution.