US tries to block states' immigration laws

[fskimospy]

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

A large influx of foreign nationals that have not gone through the legal channels of immigration sounds like an invasion to me

Good luck with that line of reasoning.

 

[Lithium381]

Because it grants the federal government, not the states the ability to create laws of naturalization. The federal government then has all necessary powers to create laws as to how this naturalization procedure will be implemented. The federal government did this through the Immigration and Nationality Act, which in part clearly delineates the methods by which federal and state resources will be used. The statute in question acted in opposition to the aims of constitutional federal authority in this act, and thereby was nullified by the supremacy clause.

Nothing in this decision is saying that the state is disallowed from creating immigration policy by the Constitution, what it is saying that the federal government has immigration authority and the state is trying to screw with it. When state and federal laws conflict, the state loses.

If you're interested, here's the text of the 9th circuit's ruling: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/04/11/10-16645.pdf

Hopefully that clears up the confusion.

The states are not trying to create laws of naturalization, they're not granting citizenship to alabama, or to the united states. They're trying to maintain the legal standing of persons in their state.



Everyone coming in here saying "it's not up to the states, they don't have the authority". You're defending the fact that the federal government is NOT DOING ITS DUTY. Stop pointing the finger of blame at the states for trying to protect themselves and implore the Fed to do its job

 

[fskimospy]

The states are not trying to create laws of naturalization, they're not granting citizenship to alabama, or to the united states. They're trying to maintain the legal standing of persons in their state.

Everyone coming in here saying "it's not up to the states, they don't have the authority". You're defending the fact that the federal government is NOT DOING ITS DUTY. Stop pointing the finger of blame at the states for trying to protect themselves and implore the Fed to do its job

The US government has authority over rules of naturalization and all other powers necessary to carry out that function. This easily includes rules governing who can move in and out of the country.

The state is interfering with federal efforts to control the movement of people in and out of the country. It's not Arizona's place to question how the fed does that. I think the federal government is doing its duty fine, but it doesn't really matter what I think or what you think. The Constitution does not base powers on whether or not you think they are being used well.

EDIT: I'm also not blaming the state, I'm just saying that they need to follow the Constitution. (well, to be honest I'm not blaming the state in this thread. This law is a worthless, racist piece of shit) It's amazing how people who claim to fetishize the Constitution in so many other contexts want to violate the Supremacy Clause, one of its most fundamental tenets. (I find this is because people only respect the Constitution when it does things they like).

 

[cubby1223]

I'll never understand what it is with conservatives. You want the US to spend less, but increase spending on getting rid of illegals.

And you'll never understand, because you begin with a false premise.

I'll never understand what it is with the liberals like yourself, always analyzing only a portion of the full equation and conveniently ignoring everything else.

 

[cubby1223]

The state is interfering with federal efforts to control the movement of people in and out of the country.

Is the state actually interfering with federal efforts? Or is that a guess on your part to conform to your political views?

 

[fskimospy]

Is the state actually interfering with federal efforts? Or is that a guess on your part to conform to your political views?

*sigh*

From the ruling:

Through Section 2(B), Arizona has enacted a mandatory and systematic scheme that conflicts with Congress’ explicit requirement that in the “performance of immigration officer functions by State officers and employees,” such officers “shall be subject to the direction and supervision of the Attorney General.” Section 2(B) therefore interferes with Congress’ scheme because Arizona has assumed a role in directing its officers how to enforce the INA.

Hopefully that clears things up.

 

[Anarchist420]

The US government has authority over rules of naturalization and all other powers necessary to carry out that function. This easily includes rules governing who can move in and out of the country.

The state is interfering with federal efforts to control the movement of people in and out of the country. It's not Arizona's place to question how the fed does that. I think the federal government is doing its duty fine, but it doesn't really matter what I think or what you think. The Constitution does not base powers on whether or not you think they are being used well.

EDIT: I'm also not blaming the state, I'm just saying that they need to follow the Constitution. (well, to be honest I'm not blaming the state in this thread. This law is a worthless, racist piece of shit) It's amazing how people who claim to fetishize the Constitution in so many other contexts want to violate the Supremacy Clause, one of its most fundamental tenets. (I find this is because people only respect the Constitution when it does things they like).

The supremacy clause is powerful, I'll grant you that, but the States mostly initially could say who could be a citizen and who couldn't until the unConstitutional 14th Amendment. Elections are also supposed to be a matter left up to each State. The Federal government is supposed to share power with the states under a federal system, and if the Federal government is not repelling foreign invasions then each State has the right to do so.

I'm not saying that I agree entirely with AL's law (although I believe it should be and actually is within their rights to discriminate), but the amount of power the national government wields is staggering.

 

[fskimospy]

The supremacy clause is powerful, I'll grant you that, but the States mostly initially could say who could be a citizen and who couldn't until the unConstitutional 14th Amendment. Elections are also supposed to be a matter left up to each State. The Federal government is supposed to share power with the states under a federal system, and if the Federal government is not repelling foreign invasions then each State has the right to do so.

I'm not saying that I agree entirely with AL's law (although I believe it should be and actually is within their rights to discriminate), but the amount of power the national government wields is staggering.

You called an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional.

epic facepalm.

 

[woolfe9999]

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

A large influx of foreign nationals that have not gone through the legal channels of immigration sounds like an invasion to me

The drafters weren't referring to illegal immigation when they penned that. They were referring to military incursions. The phrase "unless actually invaded" refers to the previous phrase "or engage in War." It refers to the right of the states to field their own militia during a military invasion.

I shouldn't even have to do this because the meaning is so obvious, but here are the summarized comments of John Marshall at the Virginia ratification convention:

The tenth section, of the first article, to which reference was made by the worthy Member [John Marshall], militates against himself. It says, that "no State shall engage in war, unless actually invaded." If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a State may go to war; but cannot suppress insurrections.

He says it means war, not domestic insurrections. Doesn't seem it occurred to anyone that it was referring to any sort of immigration.

What is this, conservatives are now fans of the "living, breathing Constitution" theory?

 

[ElFenix]

Because it grants the federal government, not the states the ability to create laws of naturalization. The federal government then has all necessary powers to create laws as to how this naturalization procedure will be implemented. The federal government did this through the Immigration and Nationality Act, which in part clearly delineates the methods by which federal and state resources will be used. The statute in question acted in opposition to the aims of constitutional federal authority in this act, and thereby was nullified by the supremacy clause.

Nothing in this decision is saying that the state is disallowed from creating immigration policy by the Constitution, what it is saying that the federal government has immigration authority and the state is trying to screw with it. When state and federal laws conflict, the state loses.

If you're interested, here's the text of the 9th circuit's ruling: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/04/11/10-16645.pdf

Hopefully that clears up the confusion.

um, the statute in question is in south carolina and hasn't gone into effect yet. the 9th circuit's ruling isn't binding there and to the extent that south carolina's law fixes issues with arizona's law, it isn't even great persuasive authority.

in any case, preemption is different from authority. preemption says, both have authority but one has better authority.

 

[shortylickens]

I think the logical fallacy I see most often with this forum is making stuff the other person said and then arguing that.
I believe thats basically a straw man.

 

[thraashman]

You called an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional.

epic facepalm.

Considering who said it, does that even begin to surprise you? Everything he posts on here is a facepalm moment.

 

[chucky2]

snip

I get what you're saying here, but if you look at the amount we've been invaded, calling it anything less than an invasion is disingenuous at best.

The fact that States are even having to go to these measures, which are hugely non-PC in an overly PC society, shows just how bad the issue has been ignored by the Fed's. If it's the Fed's duty, they're severely derelict.

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

um, the statute in question is in south carolina and hasn't gone into effect yet. the 9th circuit's ruling isn't binding there and to the extent that south carolina's law fixes issues with arizona's law, it isn't even great persuasive authority.

in any case, preemption is different from authority. preemption says, both have authority but one has better authority.

Ahh crap, I was thinking it was Arizona's. Still, the issues are nearly identical in that they are directing law enforcement to act on immigration outside of the control of federal authority.

Also, if someone's authority is superseded by a higher authority... that means they don't have authority in that case.

 

[Lithium381]

What is this, conservatives are now fans of the "living, breathing Constitution" theory?

I'm a fan of the Federal Government taking its responsibilities seriously and acting on them, acting in full to support and enforce the laws of the United States of America.

WHY DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOT ACT AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, THEN CRY FOUL WHEN THE STATES ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES?

 

[Lithium381]

Ahh crap, I was thinking it was Arizona's. Still, the issues are nearly identical in that they are directing law enforcement to act on immigration outside of the control of federal authority.

Also, if someone's authority is superseded by a higher authority... that means they don't have authority in that case.

That's in the case of a contradicting law, right? IN this case it seems the states are just adding tighter scruitiny to an existing federal law.

question: It looks like the states cannot deport the illegals back to their own nation, can they expell them from their own state to an adjacent one?

 

[fskimospy]

That's in the case of a contradicting law, right? IN this case it seems the states are just adding tighter scruitiny to an existing federal law.

question: It looks like the states cannot deport the illegals back to their own nation, can they expell them from their own state to an adjacent one?

No, they are directing the actions of state resources in the enforcement of immigration law. This is directly in conflict with the INA. I haven't specifically checked how this law does it, but since it is making similar direction there's a high probability this one gets tossed too.

As to the second question, no I think that's highly unlikely. States are not allowed to expel people to other states, as freedom of movement is a fundamental right.

 

[woolfe9999]

I get what you're saying here, but if you look at the amount we've been invaded, calling it anything less than an invasion is disingenuous at best.

The fact that States are even having to go to these measures, which are hugely non-PC in an overly PC society, shows just how bad the issue has been ignored by the Fed's. If it's the Fed's duty, they're severely derelict.

Chuck

No, calling it an invasion is disengenuous at best. It's a large wave of illegal immigration which is comprised of people seeking better economic opportunity. I'm not trying to justify it, but "invasion" implies that it is a coordinated attempt to take over America by one means or another. I see no evidence to substantiate that notion. My feeling is that if we can't afford to absorb all these low wage immigrants, then we should just say so and have a rational conversation about it. Calling it "invasion" is demagoguery. Worse still is to then retroactively apply this hyper-politicized expression to the drafters of the Constitution who clearly hadn't given it a minutes thought when the drafted the language in question. You want to call it an "invasion," well I disagree with that formulation, but fine, just don't try to turn that into a legal argument.

- wolf

 

[chucky2]

We're having to teach our kids their language, have our teachers teach in their language, change our systems to handle masses of people who speak/read their language, etc etc.

I'm not sure what it takes for you to say 'invaded', but I think for 10's of Millions of Americans, we've long ago reached that point. That they're seeking better economic opportunity is meaningless from American's POV - that's not our problem, or, at least, shouldn't be. I don't even know why you'd bring that up.

 

[Lithium381]

No, they are directing the actions of state resources in the enforcement of immigration law. This is directly in conflict with the INA. I haven't specifically checked how this law does it, but since it is making similar direction there's a high probability this one gets tossed too.

As to the second question, no I think that's highly unlikely. States are not allowed to expel people to other states, as freedom of movement is a fundamental right.

Fair enough, are you aware of any Federal law or statute that implores the elected officials or representatives of the United States of America to enforce federal law? Are there any requirements in the INA that the law actually be applied? What I'm seeing here is "no the states can't do that" "no thats illegal, the states can't do that" but where who has the responsibility to actually enforce these laws, and why are they not doing them? Who has dropped the ball.

I understand that it MAY be unconstitutional for the States to enforce immigration, based solely on the fact that it is up to the Federal government to enforce immigration. If there is overlap why have we run into this problem ?

 

[Darwin333]

The US government has authority over rules of naturalization and all other powers necessary to carry out that function. This easily includes rules governing who can move in and out of the country.

The state is interfering with federal efforts to control the movement of people in and out of the country. It's not Arizona's place to question how the fed does that. I think the federal government is doing its duty fine, but it doesn't really matter what I think or what you think. The Constitution does not base powers on whether or not you think they are being used well.

EDIT: I'm also not blaming the state, I'm just saying that they need to follow the Constitution. (well, to be honest I'm not blaming the state in this thread. This law is a worthless, racist piece of shit) It's amazing how people who claim to fetishize the Constitution in so many other contexts want to violate the Supremacy Clause, one of its most fundamental tenets. (I find this is because people only respect the Constitution when it does things they like).

I sort of follow what you are getting at but aren't we talking about enforcement of laws and not creation of new laws?

Federal law already states that it illegals are, well, illegal. The states aren't stepping on the Feds toes by saying that an a person who is by Federal law illegally in the country (and therefore that State) illegally in the country.

States enforce Federal laws all the time, a perfect example being drug laws. A few states have refused to enforce those laws and now the Feds are stepping in to enforce them.

What is the legal difference between the two?

 

[Darwin333]

No, they are directing the actions of state resources in the enforcement of immigration law. This is directly in conflict with the INA. I haven't specifically checked how this law does it, but since it is making similar direction there's a high probability this one gets tossed too.

As to the second question, no I think that's highly unlikely. States are not allowed to expel people to other states, as freedom of movement is a fundamental right.

Wouldn't a state busting a pot grower be in conflict with the DEA?

And while I agree that freedom of movement is a fundamental right, the Federal Governments agency, TSA, disagrees.

 

[fskimospy]

I sort of follow what you are getting at but aren't we talking about enforcement of laws and not creation of new laws?

Federal law already states that it illegals are, well, illegal. The states aren't stepping on the Feds toes by saying that an a person who is by Federal law illegally in the country (and therefore that State) illegally in the country.

States enforce Federal laws all the time, a perfect example being drug laws. A few states have refused to enforce those laws and now the Feds are stepping in to enforce them.

What is the legal difference between the two?

Because the INA specifically states that state law enforcement and resources operate in immigration related actions under the supervision and direction of the federal Attorney General. In these cases, state officials are acting under a separate state authority outside of the Attorney General, and that runs afoul of federal law.

 

[Darwin333]

No, calling it an invasion is disengenuous at best. It's a large wave of illegal immigration which is comprised of people seeking better economic opportunity. I'm not trying to justify it, but "invasion" implies that it is a coordinated attempt to take over America by one means or another. I see no evidence to substantiate that notion. My feeling is that if we can't afford to absorb all these low wage immigrants, then we should just say so and have a rational conversation about it. Calling it "invasion" is demagoguery. Worse still is to then retroactively apply this hyper-politicized expression to the drafters of the Constitution who clearly hadn't given it a minutes thought when the drafted the language in question. You want to call it an "invasion," well I disagree with that formulation, but fine, just don't try to turn that into a legal argument.

- wolf

The irony in this entire debate is that the States can easily solve the very real problems they are facing by going after the businesses. If there is no work there are no illegal aliens. Period.

But those businesses tend to be extremely important to those State Reps reelections so its much more politically feasible to fail at going after the illegals themselves.

 

[fskimospy]

Wouldn't a state busting a pot grower be in conflict with the DEA?

And while I agree that freedom of movement is a fundamental right, the Federal Governments agency, TSA, disagrees.

I don't know either the letter of the law in relation to the federal and state roles in drug enforcement. I find it highly unlikely that busting pot growers runs afoul of federal laws or regulations though. (it's happened so often, if there was a disagreement I'm pretty sure it would have come up by now.)

No arguments about the worthlessness of the TSA from me.