Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you show me a reference in the constitution that proves the point that states are entitled to enforce immigration laws? And if AZ tries to prove this ain't immigration law, what is it?
As for win or lose, OJ won too. Don't worry about what "they" are telling you. Tell me, what you think, and how it relates to the constitution.
This is simple....the law is unconstitutional, and yes it is clear cut.
No state has the authority granted to it in the US Constitution to form it's own immigration law. Immigration falls under the "foreign autority" of the Federal Government. States have no power to make laws pertaining to foreign relationships. That is the challenge to the law. Not over its clear racial undertones, but because it asserts power to the state, clearly not delegated to it. Re: Article I Section 8: Congress is granted the power to create rules of Natuarlization [ie immigration too]. Re: Article IV Section 4: The United States shall protect them [the States] against invasion. [if you wish to call immigration an invasion].
In fact the Constitution makes no concession to the States to obtain foreign power-dealing with issues of a foreign nature [immigration, naturalization, duty, war, even sessesion].
Arizona over stepped its bounds in this law. No one disagrees that something needs to be done [and if you think building a wall will help---I suggest you get on the other side of that wall]. The problem is economic. Punish the employers, and allow those who are already here a path to citizenship, just like every other Immigrant to our shores, and may enforce the laws we already have in place.
yes article one section eight does grant congress the sole power of setting rules of naturalization ;
Quote:
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States
however no where does it prevent the states from upholding those laws. in fact section ten indicates the powers prohibited to the states;
Quote:
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
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.
police powers were originally set up for the states to have, not the federal government. and yes the federal government has the duty to secure our borders, which they have failed to do since the johnson administration.
and by the way, the arizona law mirrors the federal law, which is already constitutional, and yet the arizona law also adds protections that the federal law doesnt, specifically the arizona law prohibits racial profiling, and the federal law doesnt. the arizona law also sets a standard by which an LEO can begin to determine if a person is here legally or not, where as the federal law doesnt.
Can you show me a reference in the constitution that proves the point that states are entitled to enforce immigration laws? And if AZ tries to prove this ain't immigration law, what is it?
As for win or lose, OJ won too. Don't worry about what "they" are telling you. Tell me, what you think, and how it relates to the constitution.
I think the Arizona law fails on two fronts.
First, Arizona is infringing on a federal power. This is clear because after Arizona exercises this law and identifies an illegal immigrant, they have to notify federal authorities. Immigration is regulated on the federal level, not state level.
But secondly, and more troubling, it provides incentive to police authorities to do racial profiling. For example, a police officer observes someone who doesn't look like an immigrant crossing the yellow line. They only do it once, it's on a curve, so the officer uses his discretion to let it go. Because it's a minor infraction all by itself. But if the same officer sees someone who does look like an immigrant crossing the yellow line, he has an added incentive because of this law to stop this offender. This law raises minor infractions to more substantial offenses by giving an officer additional leeway to look for more substantial offenses. The Arizona lawmakers can write the law as carefully as they want trying to prohibit racial profiling. It doesn't matter, because the law itself provides substantial incentive to do just exactly that. And that is a civil rights violation. I sympathize with Arizona and its problems with illegal immigrants, but I think in order to abide by the Constitution they have to apply the same identification standards to ALL offenders. Requiring EVERYONE who breaks a law to prove citizenship. Even then, there is still some incentive for racial profiling, but because the law is being equally applied, and not just depending on an officer's reasonable suspicion, the law would be much easier to defend as Constitutional.
Can you show me a reference in the constitution that proves the point that states are entitled to enforce immigration laws? And if AZ tries to prove this ain't immigration law, what is it?
As for win or lose, OJ won too. Don't worry about what "they" are telling you. Tell me, what you think, and how it relates to the constitution.
Here is the Supreme Court ruling.
I guess a Supreme Court ruling for the very same issue would have some relevence, even for liberals
yes article one section eight does grant congress the sole power of setting rules of naturalization ;
however no where does it prevent the states from upholding those laws. in fact section ten indicates the powers prohibited to the states;
police powers were originally set up for the states to have, not the federal government. and yes the federal government has the duty to secure our borders, which they have failed to do since the johnson administration.
and by the way, the arizona law mirrors the federal law, which is already constitutional, and yet the arizona law also adds protections that the federal law doesnt, specifically the arizona law prohibits racial profiling, and the federal law doesnt. the arizona law also sets a standard by which an LEO can begin to determine if a person is here legally or not, where as the federal law doesnt.
So does the Consitution give any state the authority to ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW?
NOPE IT DOES NOT. Made it bold so you can read it easily.
And still, what I quoted from the Const. still stands. Naturalization or citizenship [ie immigration] is a power granted to the Federal government. If not then we would need passports to travel between states. And even such, what about states that do not have international boundaries? Should Arizona be granted an extra right [to control immigration] over, let's say Kansas, which shares no international boundaries? No of course not.
Actually, it's not the very same issue. The case you are citing regards employment law and illegal immigrants, but the law focuses on employers, and therefore the immigration issue is peripheral. The Arizona law focuses on identifying illegal immigrants, and so immigration is not a peripheral issue at all, it's the primary issue at hand.
It doesn't help your case. Comprehend something from your own link...
"the fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute does not render it a regulation of immigration"
The state statute is employment related, governed by the state. This was not an issue. In fact, liberals would like to see enforcement of such laws at state level, where illegal immigration is enforced at employment level (taking the incentive away to immigrate).
However, it ain't state's authority to supersede federal authority on immigration matters. Your case doesn't touch on the subject.
I ask again, assuming you abide by the constitution over everything else in governance, where do you see state's authority over federal in this matter?
Can you show me a reference in the constitution that proves the point that states are entitled to enforce immigration laws? And if AZ tries to prove this ain't immigration law, what is it?
As for win or lose, OJ won too. Don't worry about what "they" are telling you. Tell me, what you think, and how it relates to the constitution.
The costitution does not give the federal governamn tthew right and it clearly says that those not nme are rights of the sates. It has been clear for decdes that sates have rights as even those that support gun control have acknowldged. Othe wise their would be no gn laws not federal as its tlked about in the constitution. Ita amattewr of what the law sates and the arizina law includes probable cause which isn't i te federal law. he arizina law actaully gives less authroity on checking illegals than the fedewral law. i think Arizona will also wi easily since sates alos have the right to protect their citizens.
First, Arizona is infringing on a federal power. This is clear because after Arizona exercises this law and identifies an illegal immigrant, they have to notify federal authorities. Immigration is regulated on the federal level, not state level.
But secondly, and more troubling, it provides incentive to police authorities to do racial profiling. For example, a police officer observes someone who doesn't look like an immigrant crossing the yellow line. They only do it once, it's on a curve, so the officer uses his discretion to let it go. Because it's a minor infraction all by itself. But if the same officer sees someone who does look like an immigrant crossing the yellow line, he has an added incentive because of this law to stop this offender. This law raises minor infractions to more substantial offenses by giving an officer additional leeway to look for more substantial offenses. The Arizona lawmakers can write the law as carefully as they want trying to prohibit racial profiling. It doesn't matter, because the law itself provides substantial incentive to do just exactly that. And that is a civil rights violation. I sympathize with Arizona and its problems with illegal immigrants, but I think in order to abide by the Constitution they have to apply the same identification standards to ALL offenders. Requiring EVERYONE who breaks a law to prove citizenship. Even then, there is still some incentive for racial profiling, but because the law is being equally applied, and not just depending on an officer's reasonable suspicion, the law would be much easier to defend as Constitutional.
much speculation, but remember that according to SB1070, once proper identification has been given, be it a passport and a visa, green card, state issued drivers license, state issued ID card, resident alien card, etc. unless the documents provided are fake, ALL QUESTION OF A PERSONS RIGHT TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY ENDS, PERIOD. the arizona law is very specific on this. it also REQUIRES a legal contact and reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally. and there is recourse against the officers who violate the spirit of the law through the court system. but since the law has NOT gone into effect yet, there can be NO racial profiling accusations until such time as it happens which is why the federal government is not suing to stop the law on those grounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmkcin
So does the Consitution give any state the authority to ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW?
NOPE IT DOES NOT. Made it bold so you can read it easily.
And still, what I quoted from the Const. still stands. Naturalization or citizenship [ie immigration] is a power granted to the Federal government. If not then we would need passports to travel between states. And even such, what about states that do not have international boundaries? Should Arizona be granted an extra right [to control immigration] over, let's say Kansas, which shares no international boundaries? No of course not.
the tenth amendment;
Quote:
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
no where in the constitution that i have seen so far grants the federal government police powers, thus police powers are reserved by the states, and that means that the states can enforce federal laws along with state laws. in fact police agencies across the nation enforce, as a matter of daily operation, enforce federal laws.
yes the rule is;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
that is naturalization, being the way to US citizenship.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yes article one section eight does grant congress the sole power of setting rules of naturalization ;
