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.
Well, the federals invaded the last "rogue state(s)." We fought for five years over it, but the rogue state was, in the end, subdued. Personally, this time around, I'd rather the federals just waved goodbye.
Governing the rules of naturalization is a specifically enumerated power of the federal government in Article 1, Section 8. The 10th Amendment clearly says that rights retained by te states and the people are those rights not specifically enumerated to the federal government.
On immigration into any of the 50 states, the federal government rules.
This should get interesting when it goes to the SC. I hope any business owners attacked by this "law" go after the scumbags that passed it in civil court and that they are personally forced to pay any of the businesses costs.
Governing the rules of naturalization is a specifically enumerated power of the federal government in Article 1, Section 8. The 10th Amendment clearly says that rights retained by te states and the people are those rights not specifically enumerated to the federal government.
On immigration into any of the 50 states, the federal government rules.
Correct. And the State is under no obligation to assist the Federal government in enforcing its power regarding Naturalization. Nor is it prevented from passing a privacy law that prohibits the disclosure of an employee's personal information to government officials without a warrant. So there you go.
California’s legislature has decided that it is sound socio-economic policy to encourage the inflow of migrants and has passed legislation accordingly. It’s as simple as that. The State is not obliged to cooperate with the Federal government. Most of the armchair Constitutional scholars on this forum are simply wrong by relying on the premise that such cooperation is required.
If you disagree with the economic belief that the State with the highest agricultural output should increase the number of laborers in it, that’s completely defensible. But it’s a States rights issue.
California may want to take a look at the last big 'states rights' issue, that was contested by the feds. That was the nationwide drinking age of 21.
Some states didn't want to cooperate.
The federal govt. withheld their highway money.
In no time at all, the states started cooperating and raised the drinking age.
California may want to take a look at the last big 'states rights' issue, that was contested by the feds. That was the nationwide drinking age of 21.
Some states didn't want to cooperate.
The federal govt. withheld their highway money.
In no time at all, the states started cooperating and raised the drinking age.
This is not going to end well for California.
The climate is a little different now. While the Media has always been in favor of Democrats, and liberal policies, they are now purely the propaganda arm of the Dems. The Media will spin this so much they will make it seem like it is a state's rights issue, and it clearly is NOT.
Not content with the government supporting illegals, now they say they'll prosecute Americans who help America find criminals. California is a clear and present danger to the United States and especially to the citizens who live in CA.
So how do you expect businesses to be sure to not hire illegals when CA tells them it's illegal to re-verify someone? Liberals keep saying to go after businesses who hire illegals, well in CA they'll be prosecuted for trying to determine if someone is illegal.
California can do what it wants. It’s called “states rights.”
I appreciate you asking that question. Although the spirit in which you asked is certainly not honest or desirous of an honest answer...
Those of us who believe in States Rights, also recognize the supremacy of the Constitution.
STates rights is built upon one simple doctrine:
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.
Also known as The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
No serous person who believes in States Rights, does so at the expense of the Constitution. The answer to your question is that the Constitution explicitly grants powers to the federal government, and to Congress power to determine law as it relates to immigration.
specifically
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4
The 14th Amendment
SCOTUS Chy Lung vs Freeman (92 U.S. 275 (1876)
So. There is your answer. States rights end where the Constitution designates responsibility to the Federal government.
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.