• 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.

US tries to block states' immigration laws

Democrats do not believe in states rights but thats OK because they plan to have the federal government reach out and control all aspects, including state, county and city laws.

Also Obama in particular has made it abundantly clear he loves illegals especially Mexicans. And he wants as many of them as possible to come in so they can take over.

I'm not saying a Republican president would be any better, and I have to admit I like Obamas honesty and openess regarding this matter. Especially when you consider what shady sons of bitches Clinton and Bush were.
 
Lithium381 said:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...-block-South-Carolina-illegal-immigration-law



Just as in Arizona and ALabama, the Federal government is attempting to step in and say "no you can't protect your own borders"

What happened to state sovereignty? DHS has stated it will NOT assist the states in deportation.

Why are they blocking the states from picking up the slack that the US is not doing? Our border is NOT secure. They refuse to do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Nothing happened to state sovereignty, immigration policy is a federal issue, not a state one. The states are attempting to execute a power grab and exceed those powers authorized to them under the Constitution, and it is quite likely they will be slapped down for it.
 
eskimospy said:
Nothing happened to state sovereignty, immigration policy is a federal issue, not a state one. The states are attempting to execute a power grab and exceed those powers authorized to them under the Constitution, and it is quite likely they will be slapped down for it.
Click to expand...

The "power grab" is needed because the Feds REFUSE to enforce their own laws.
 
shortylickens said:
Democrats do not believe in states rights but thats OK because they plan to have the federal government reach out and control all aspects, including state, county and city laws.

Also Obama in particular has made it abundantly clear he loves illegals especially Mexicans. And he wants as many of them as possible to come in so they can take over.

I'm not saying a Republican president would be any better, and I have to admit I like Obamas honesty and openess regarding this matter. Especially when you consider what shady sons of bitches Clinton and Bush were.
Click to expand...

I'll never understand what it is with conservatives. You want the US to spend less, but increase spending on getting rid of illegals. You want the government to adhere to the Constitution, unless you like a state law that interferes with a superceding federal law in a power very much NOT delegated to the states. You want to increase US productivity, but then complain when the illegals you get rid of lower US farm productivity. You complain Obama spends too much money, but then he increases deportations while focusing on criminal offenders (yes, other than the crime of being here illegally) to avoid significant cost increases, you say he's weak on border control.

Jesus make up your fucking minds and quite contradicting yourself. To be a conservative is to want everything while sacrificing nothing and then turning a blind eye to the people hurt by your policies. In other words, to be a greedy monster.
 
thraashman said:
I'll never understand what it is with conservatives. You want the US to spend less, but increase spending on getting rid of illegals. You want the government to adhere to the Constitution, unless you like a state law that interferes with a superceding federal law in a power very much NOT delegated to the states. You want to increase US productivity, but then complain when the illegals you get rid of lower US farm productivity. You complain Obama spends too much money, but then he increases deportations while focusing on criminal offenders (yes, other than the crime of being here illegally) to avoid significant cost increases, you say he's weak on border control.

Jesus make up your fucking minds and quite contradicting yourself. To be a conservative is to want everything while sacrificing nothing and then turning a blind eye to the people hurt by your policies. In other words, to be a greedy monster.
Click to expand...

If the FED would do it's constitutional duty and protect the borders this would not be an issue would it?

Analogy: State bans CCW, saying "don't worry the police will take care of the crime". .. robberies, murders and rapes still occur because the citizens are helpless against criminals with guns. Police show up later and document the slain citizens. State: DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT WE'RE HANDLING IT

ReallY? If it's your job to do it and you're not doing it, it MUST BE TAKEN CARE OF
 
Last edited:
Lithium381 said:
If the FED would do it's constitutional duty and protect the borders this would not be an issue would it?

Analogy: State bans CCW, saying "don't worry the police will take care of the crime". .. robberies, murders and rapes still occur because the citizens are helpless against criminals with guns. State: DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT WE'RE HANDLING IT

ReallY? If it's your job to do it and you're not doing it, it MUST BE TAKEN CARE OF
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what the states think immigration policy should be, it's not their call. You know if you want people to respect the Constitution, you need to respect it yourself.
 
eskimospy said:
Doesn't matter what the states think immigration policy should be, it's not their call. You know if you want people to respect the Constitution, you need to respect it yourself.
Click to expand...
The Feds are not respecting the Constitution - therefore the States need to step up and fill the vacancy
 
eskimospy said:
Doesn't matter what the states think immigration policy should be, it's not their call. You know if you want people to respect the Constitution, you need to respect it yourself.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Fed. They are refusing to do their duty. REFUSING. They want the states to back off and "let us handle the immigration thing".... but then don't do a damn thing about it.

If you hired a body-guard and he stood by idle while a fan rushed you and started punching you, would you wait for the body-guard to do something about it, and just accept the beating that you're receiving because well, eventually the BG will get around to helping you, or would you try to defend yourself against the attacker, even though it's "not your job"????
 
EagleKeeper said:
The Feds are not respecting the Constitution - therefore the States need to step up and fill the vacancy
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's like a free for all then?

Simple answer: The. States. Do. Not. Have. The. Authority.

period.

If the states don't agree with how the Fed is handling something, there are proper and legal ways to address those issues.

This whole "FUCK IT, WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!!1" attitude just makes them look like idiots.
 
No, it makes them look responsible. It makes the Fed's look like idiots - but Everyone already knows that, no surprise there.

Militarize the southern border. Free training ground. Once locked down, amensty for all who remain (American public doesn't have stomach for a proper internal roundup).

Done.
 
This thread is hilarious. It's a whole bunch of conservatives saying "fuck the Constitution". Then again, they've been doing that a whole lot since .... um .... how long have conservatives existed? Since then.
 
etrigan420 said:
Oh, so it's like a free for all then?

Simple answer: The. States. Do. Not. Have. The. Authority.

period.

If the states don't agree with how the Fed is handling something, there are proper and legal ways to address those issues.

This whole "FUCK IT, WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!!1" attitude just makes them look like idiots.
Click to expand...

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
 
ElFenix said:
where exactly is that in the constitution?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have the same question.

I'm a bit familiar with the Supremacy Clause and do not see how states' efforts to deport etc illegals is in conflict with US law.

E.g., if federal law says pot is illegal, a state law saying it isn't is clearly in conflict with federal law. In this case though, I don't see the conflict when state law says illegals are illegal when federal law says the same thing.

So, I don't see the Constitutional problem.

Fern
 
ElFenix said:
where exactly is that in the constitution?
Click to expand...

Under the supremacy clause. The federal government has the authority to set immigration policy from the naturalization clause. The Immigration and Nationality Act describes how this will be accomplished, including the role of state officials in its implementation.

Arizona attempted to have its officers act outside the role that Congress set for them in the INA, and therefore are interfering with the enforcement of a lawful federal statute. By virtue of the supremacy clause, where the state gets in the way, it gets the boot.
 
ElFenix said:
where exactly is that in the constitution?
Click to expand...

Amendment 10 of the Constitution:

"Amendment X

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."

So far as I can tell Article 1 section 8 says of the duties of the federal government:
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
 
eskimospy said:
Nothing happened to state sovereignty, immigration policy is a federal issue, not a state one. The states are attempting to execute a power grab and exceed those powers authorized to them under the Constitution, and it is quite likely they will be slapped down for it.
Click to expand...

Just a point of order: the Constitution does not authorize the States to have powers, it grants them all those powers not explicitly authorized to the Fed. It is, generally, a semantical difference, but it does change the perception of the highlighted statement.
 
Lithium381 said:
Amendment 10 of the Constitution:

"Amendment X

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."

So far as I can tell Article 1 section 8 says of the duties of the federal government:
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
Click to expand...

great, where does that prohibit the states from saying 'the feds say you can't be here so you can't be here'?

article 1 section 8 says the US can tax. that doesn't prohibit the state from taxing. article 1 section 8 says the US can have an army and navy. but it takes article 1, section 10 to say the states can't have an army or navy.

article 1, section 8 lays out the powers of congress. article 1, section 10 says what powers are denied to the states.
 
ElFenix said:
great, where does that prohibit the states from saying 'the feds say you can't be here so you can't be here'?

article 1 section 8 says the US can tax. that doesn't prohibit the state from taxing. article 1 section 8 says the US can have an army and navy. but it takes article 1, section 10 to say the states can't have an army or navy.

article 1, section 8 lays out the powers of congress. article 1, section 10 says what powers are denied to the states.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ElFenix said:
great, where does that prohibit the states from saying 'the feds say you can't be here so you can't be here'?

article 1 section 8 says the US can tax. that doesn't prohibit the state from taxing. article 1 section 8 says the US can have an army and navy. but it takes article 1, section 10 to say the states can't have an army or navy.

article 1, section 8 lays out the powers of congress. article 1, section 10 says what powers are denied to the states.
Click to expand...

"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
 
sactoking said:
Just a point of order: the Constitution does not authorize the States to have powers, it grants them all those powers not explicitly authorized to the Fed. It is, generally, a semantical difference, but it does change the perception of the highlighted statement.
Click to expand...

It grants them all powers not granted to the fed and all those not prohibited to the states. (neither of these is stated as being explicit, btw.) If you say 'you can do whatever you want except for the following things', that to me is authorizing other powers.

But yes, it is largely semantics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top