• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Judge will not block Alabama immigration law

Texashiker

Texashiker

Lifer
Strike one up for states rights.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2095421,00.html

A federal judge has refused to block key parts of Alabama's new law on illegal immigration, including its requirement to check the immigration status of students.
Click to expand...

Part of the article says there is no federal law baring the states from passing such laws. Since there is no federal law, the power is left to the states.

Constitution of the United States - Bill of Rights

#10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

Now if we can just get more states to jump on the bandwagon. With fewer illegal immigrants consuming resources, there is more for the real citizens.

I am also ashamed that Texas has not passed some kind of immigration law like Alabama has done.
 
Texashiker said:
Strike one up for states rights.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2095421,00.html



Part of the article says there is no federal law baring the states from passing such laws. Since there is no federal law, the power is left to the states.

Constitution of the United States - Bill of Rights



Now if we can just get more states to jump on the bandwagon. With fewer illegal immigrants consuming resources, there is more for the real citizens.

I am also ashamed that Texas has not passed some kind of immigration law like Alabama has done.
Click to expand...

That's not what the 10th amendment means.

The 10th amendment, if it applied here, would mean that the federal government would be incapable of passing a law to infringe upon this power because it belonged to the states. The judge in this case is simply noting that federal law is silent on this issue so there is nothing specifically barring the state from doing this. (I'm not sure if that will hold up) Implicit in that reasoning however is that the fed could pass a law tomorrow stopping Alabama if they wanted to.
 
Good for Alabama. Of course, I expect to see it challenged again in one way or another. The illegal immigrant apologists aren't going to let it stand...
 
eskimospy said:
That's not what the 10th amendment means.
Click to expand...

I understood the 10th to mean any right not given to the federal government is granted to the states, and finally to the people.

Unless the federal government says the states can "not" do something, the states have the right to do so.


eskimospy said:
The 10th amendment, if it applied here, would mean that the federal government would be incapable of passing a law to infringe upon this power because it belonged to the states.
Click to expand...

Federal law in most cases trumps state laws.

Immigration is the job of the Federal Government, and not the states.
 
BoomerD said:
The illegal immigrant apologists aren't going to let it stand...
Click to expand...

And business owners who hire illegal immigrants aren't going to stop hiring illegal immigrants.

You seem to think illegals show up, hang out all day and then collect a check from the government for $5K a month. Their IS a reason they are here; it's called work. Everything after that is just gravy. Stop the problem at the source - punish the toothless inbred chaw chewing overall wearing vomit that pays for the workers with "that thar northarn states paper mahnay"

Instead of chasing down hundreds of thousands of illegal workers, why not go after the thousands of businesses that hire said illegal workers?
 
Texashiker said:
I understood the 10th to mean any right not given to the federal government is granted to the states, and finally to the people.

Unless the federal government says the states can "not" do something, the states have the right to do so.

Federal law in most cases trumps state laws.

Immigration is the job of the Federal Government, and not the states.
Click to expand...

Federal law always trumps state law through the Supremacy Clause. The 10th amendment is mostly a way of reading the Supremacy Clause in that if a power isn't given to the feds then it is retained by the states/people, so there are certain areas (in theory) that the feds couldn't pass laws on.

Immigration policy is pretty clearly an area that the feds have control over, so they could stop Alabama tomorrow if they felt like it. You could view this as a victory for state's rights, but not the 10th amendment specifically. Then again, the 10th amendment is viewed much like the 9th amendment, more as a declaration of what already exists as opposed to an affirmative right.
 
Macamus Prime said:
And business owners who hire illegal immigrants aren't going to stop hiring illegal immigrants.

You seem to think illegals show up, hang out all day and then collect a check from the government for $5K a month. Their IS a reason they are here; it's called work. Everything after that is just gravy. Stop the problem at the source - punish the toothless inbred chaw chewing overall wearing vomit that pays for the workers with "that thar northarn states paper mahnay"

Instead of chasing down hundreds of thousands of illegal workers, why not go after the thousands of businesses that hire said illegal workers?
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that also...fine the businesses who hire them...fine them heavily, but also, round up and ship all the illegals back home.
 
Texashiker said:
Isn't that what the judge said?
Click to expand...

No, he said that the feds had not passed a law prohibiting Alabama from doing that. If they were using the 10th amendment it would mean that even if the feds HAD passed a law, it would be void. I don't think that's what he was trying to say.

Doesn't defeat the purpose of the Supremacy Clause?
Click to expand...

No, because the supremacy clause only applies to valid laws passed by Congress. If a law violates another part of the constitution, it's not a valid law.
 
BoomerD said:
I'm fine with that also...fine the businesses who hire them...fine them heavily, but also, round up and ship all the illegals back home.
Click to expand...

If there is strict enforcement of hiring illegals - there will be no reason for the majority of them being here.

The ones that do indeed leech, yes, round them up and ship them out.

But, if you put the fear of God into business owners, or anyone who hires an illegal for work, this will stop.
 
Macamus Prime said:
If there is strict enforcement of hiring illegals - there will be no reason for the majority of them being here.

The ones that do indeed leech, yes, round them up and ship them out.

But, if you put the fear of God into business owners, or anyone who hires an illegal for work, this will stop.
Click to expand...

True enough, but it's a two-headed snake. You have to cut off BOTH heads to make a difference.

Too many people will still hire the illegals as "day laborers," or they may just turn to crime if no one will hire them. They have to be removed from the country.
 
ElFenix said:
yes, judge is woman, no, this has nothing to do with 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

eskimospy said:
Yes I did, sorry for my bad pronoun. What I wrote stands though, no 10th amendment found.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree.

Any law not reserved by the federal government, is granted to the states, and finally to the people.

Since there is no federal law baring the states from checking the immigration status of students, the states have the right to pass such laws.
 
Texashiker said:
I respectfully disagree.

Any law not reserved by the federal government, is granted to the states, and finally to the people.

Since there is no federal law baring the states from checking the immigration status of students, the states have the right to pass such laws.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to say other than that simply isn't what the 10th amendment means. There's really no argument to be had, you're just wrong.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but the 10th amendment has nothing to do with the interplay between federal and state laws. It only has to do with the constitutionality of laws the federal government has already passed/is passing. If you think you can find some legal analysis of the 10th amendment that says it is the part of the Constitution that allows states to pass laws in areas left unaddressed by federal law, please link it. Otherwise I suggest checking the wiki article on the 10th amendment.
 
Texashiker said:
I respectfully disagree.

Any law not reserved by the federal government, is granted to the states, and finally to the people.

Since there is no federal law baring the states from checking the immigration status of students, the states have the right to pass such laws.
Click to expand...

you can disagree as much as you want, the judge made no mention of the 10th amendment in her opinion.
 
I wonder how many of the armchair constitutional law scholars would change their tune about state law if we were talking about California's environmental laws exceeding the federal standards...
 
eskimospy said:
I don't know what to say other than that simply isn't what the 10th amendment means. There's really no argument to be had, you're just wrong.
Click to expand...

Where did you go to law school at?

How long have you been practicing law?

If you are not a lawyer or judge, you have no standing to tell me I am wrong.


I am not a lawyer, I am just posting my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Infohawk said:
I wonder how many of the armchair constitutional law scholars would change their tune about state law if we were talking about California's environmental laws exceeding the federal standards...
Click to expand...

You're going to have to explain this one to me. Federal environmental standards are minimums the states cannot go below, but are explicitly allowed to exceed. If there was some state environmental program that disrupted a larger federal duty, then of course the federal govt would try to block it. I'm unaware of anyone making such an argument however, so I'm pretty baffled at your point.
 
Texashiker said:
Where did you go to law school at?

How long have you been practicing law?

If you are not a lawyer or judge, you have no standing to tell me I am wrong.

I am not a lawyer, I am just posting my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but I can definitely tell you that you're wrong. The 10th amendment is in respect to powers, not laws. The ability to make a law governing some aspect of our country is derived from the powers granted a governing body by the Constitution.

The 10th amendment deals with powers not laws. It is referring to the ability of Congress to make such a law to begin with, not what to do if Congress decides not to pass such a law.

If you can find any credible source that says otherwise I would be very interested to read it. I can provide you with dozens, if not hundreds that support what I'm saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top