Immigration Federalism: Red and Blue

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Matt says:

    I’m not completely sure I’d agree that New York is here “rebuking federal immigration policy” since what Patterson is doing is explicitly authorized in the law as it’s written. I suppose that this is a bit unexpected, but to my mind it’s not obviously more, and probably less, in line with the letter of the law than the claim made by the federal government, and upheld by the Supreme Court, that something can be an “aggravated felony” without actually being a felony.

    (Some of what Arizona is doing is also authorized by federal law, though I think some other aspects clearly go beyond what’s explicitly authorized.)

  2. Robert Schapiro says:

    Thanks for your comment Matt. You make the good point that New York is actually implementing part of the federal statute. Governor Paterson disagreed with what he understood to be the policy underlying the statute. One wonders if the drafters of the statute contemplated pardons being issued specifically for the purpose of avoiding deportation.

  3. Matt says:

    Hi Robert- I suspect that you are probably right that the clause in the law wasn’t put there with the intent that pardons would be used expressly to negate the immigration implications of a violation.