If the AZ bill mirrors federal law?

Can someone point me to this law? I can't seem to find it.

4 Answers

Relevance
  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    In 1996 Bill Clinton Signed into law the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    Section 287(g) of this act deputizes state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration matters.

    http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/070622factsh...

    The act also defines how long an illegal must remain out of the country once deported before they can legally reenter.

    This is how Arizona is able to let their Police perfom what amounts to ICE duties. (The questioning of immigration status , detention and hand off to federal aithorities. )

    AZ SB1070

    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070...

    Basically states within the first few paragraphs that AZ law enforcement is going to abide by this federal law. SB1070 specifically prohibits AZ law enforcement agencies from being directed by their cities and towns to NOT enforce the law. In essence this prevents the creation of santuary cities and "free zones".

  • ?
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    There's a link below to an ABC News article about the Arizona Law mirroring federal law. Within the article are the links you're looking for - one is the raw text of the Arizona law, and there are about five or six links to the Federal statutes covering the same thing.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    it extremely is a symantics argument. Granted those provisions do not exist on the Federal point, yet in addition they don't conflict with Federal regulation. 5A is using the federal Statute of status (being unlawful) and criminalizing it on the state point pursuant to Federal rules, making it a criminal offense for unlawful (subsequently criminal) persons to illegally pursue artwork, and delivers a mechanism to punish employers who knowingly violate this. however the basis of this section the criminal status definition from the federal government, and is not defined with the help of the state itself. So this provision would not make a clean definition of Federal regulation, yet is a mechanism for the State to enforce Federal regulation (Concurrent Jurisdiction) 2H is designed to substantiate the State would not violate Federal regulation, nor tread on the Federal Prerogative 2B is yet another Mechanism for the state to enforce latest federal regulation. It is going no extra desirable than a needs and warrants examine completed in comparable circumstances, and would not amplify the definition of Federal regulation nor encroach on federal Prerogative.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.