• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Immigration Law Argument

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Many subjects were hashed out in court recently with the Obama side arguing that "Immigration" matters are more or less left to the Federal Gov't.

Well................the other side argued that for instance, Drug cases may be brought to court by both the "States" and the "Feds", and that the Feds should not relieve or pre-empt any "State" Laws in it's duty to it's citizens if harmed by lack of enforcement by the Feds.................

"States" have their drug laws and the "Fed's" have their own. They do not always coincide.

Makes sense to me.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Many subjects were hashed out in court recently with the Obama side arguing that "Immigration" matters are more or less left to the Federal Gov't.

Well................the other side argued that for instance, Drug cases may be brought to court by both the "States" and the "Feds", and that the Feds should not relieve or pre-empt any "State" Laws in it's duty to it's citizens if harmed by lack of enforcement by the Feds.................

"States" have their drug laws and the "Fed's" have their own. They do not always coincide.

Makes sense to me.


Except for the fact the SCOTUS has previously ruled that under Article 1 since the Constitution explicitly gives the power of naturalization to the Federal government- that then it is up to the Federal government (Congress) to determine who is eligible for naturalization or not- and in turn who is illegal or no- therein making it a federal law to enforce...

Article 1 - The Legislative BranchSection 8 - Powers of Congress


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

-----------------------------

The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Oldtimer wrote:

Except for the fact the SCOTUS has previously ruled that under Article 1 since the Constitution explicitly gives the power of naturalization to the Federal government- that then it is up to the Federal government (Congress) to determine who is eligible for naturalization or not- and in turn who is illegal or not...

Hate to burst your bubble but the new State Laws do not decide who is eligible or not for citizenship. They merely give more power to the States for rounding up "Suspected" illegals and then turn them over to the Feds. Most of the penalties enacted by State Law goes toward those harboring, employing, aiding, and abetting illegals. You know, things the Fed Law is severely lacking in.

The State's new Laws also leave the naturalization process to the Feds. No change there either.

Must suck to be you...............................
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Except for the fact the SCOTUS has previously ruled that under Article 1 since the Constitution explicitly gives the power of naturalization to the Federal government- that then it is up to the Federal government (Congress) to determine who is eligible for naturalization or not- and in turn who is illegal or not...

Hate to burst your bubble but the new State Laws do not decide who is eligible or not for citizenship. They merely give more power to the States for rounding up "Suspected" illegals and then turn them over to the Feds. Most of the penalties enacted by State Law goes toward those harboring, employing, aiding, and abetting illegals.

The State's new Laws also leave the naturalization process to the Feds. No change there either.

Must suck to be you...............................

But if the power to determine if they are illegals- or to hold illegals has not been given to the states-- under what authority do they hold them for the Feds... People in the US cannot be arrested and/or held just because they are "suspected" anything- you need probable cause...

Law Enforcement agencies are given specific jurisdiction-- FBI can't enforce state laws- state officers cannot enforce federal or tribal laws...In Montana Highway Patrolmen cannot enforce any law unless its a traffic violation or being violated upon a roadway of the state...
This was done for a purpose-to keep any one organization too much power and develop a police state....

Its long been that if you arrest someone for a crime that you believe is illegal you can notify federal authorities of that belief....But if the Feds don't show up- or tell you to release them on any immigration hold (which has happened for years) they must be released when the state criminal charge expires... But State/Local law enforcement has never had the authority to go out and do illegal immigrant roundups/arrests/holds- altho they often aid under the Mutual Aid law when Immigration authorities ask for assistance...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
When Juan, Pablo, or Julio, get caught with forged or no papers, there is probable cause and no different than Fed law.

The state laws mirror the Feds......................................

But since the Feds refuse to do their job, the States pick up the slack. Just as in drug cases that are not prosecuted by the Feds..............but are by the States.

There is overlapping authority when it comes to drug cases. Why not illegal immigrant cases?

Are you as dense as you seem?
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Mike said:
When Juan, Pablo, or Julio, get caught with forged or no papers, there is probable cause and no different than Fed law.

The state laws mirror the Feds......................................

But since the Feds refuse to do their job, the States pick up the slack. Just as in drug cases that are not prosecuted by the Feds..............but are by the States.

There is overlapping authority when it comes to drug cases. Why not illegal immigrant cases?

Are you as dense as you seem?

Did you really mean to ask that question Mike? :D :D :D
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
States enacting immigration-related laws
State legislators introduced about 1,600 measures related to immigration across the nation in 2011, a significant increase compared to 2010. As of Dec. 7, 42 states had enacted a new law or resolution this year. Five states -- Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah -- passed tough measures that were patterned on the Arizona law now before the Supreme Court.

if the federal government as doing it job,.. this wouldn't be an issue...

but politicians for various reasons fail to uphold the law as it exists..

if a foreign country invaded our shores, should the states wait for the president to act? (Hint, they don't have to wait), Despite only being authorized to appoint and train a militia
All the rest of the authority rest with congress.. but states have been doing more then just appointing and training their militia since day one...




The President may also call up members and units of state Army National Guard, with the consent of state governors, to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or execute federal laws if the United States or any of its states or territories are invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation, or if there's a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the federal government, or if the President is unable with the regular armed forces to execute the laws of the United States.

Sec. 431.002. COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. (a) The governor is the commander-in-chief of the state military forces, except any portion of those forces in the service of the United States, and has full control and authority over all matters relating to the state military forces, including their organization, equipment, and discipline.

Sec. 431.073. DRAFT. (a) The governor, by order to the county emergency board, shall apportion the number of members of the reserve militia called into service among the counties by draft according to each county's population or by other means the governor directs. The county emergency board shall establish fair and equitable procedures for selection of persons to fill the draft according to regulations adopted by the governor. On completion of the selection, the board shall deliver a list of the persons selected to the governor and notify each person selected of the time and place to appear and report.

(b) A member of the reserve militia while in active service is a member of the state military forces under Section 432.001(16), and is subject to the punitive provisions of Chapter 432. A member who does not appear at the time and place designated by the county emergency board shall be punished as a court-martial directs.

Sec. 431.111. CALLING OF FORCES BY GOVERNOR. (a) The governor may call all or part of the state military forces to repel or suppress an invasion of or insurrection in or threatened invasion of or insurrection in the state or if the governor considers it necessary to enforce state law. If the number of state military forces is insufficient, the governor shall call the part of the reserve militia that the governor considers necessary.



isn't common defense a federal duty as well?

if so why can states have their own military and the president must get the consent of the governor to use the states military/guard?


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


yet the states still "control" the militia.. they can call them up to suppress an invasion.. insurrection.. and the president must ask their consent to utilize their army..

seems those darn states have been overstepping their bounds since day one...
cause all they were allowed to do was appoint and train the army.. (guard/militia)
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
If certain states were to pass these laws when Bush was not protecting the border, OT as a good Liberal would have used the Constitution in an effort to blame Bush.

OT, are sanctuary cities Constitutional?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
If certain states were to pass these laws when Bush was not protecting the border, OT as a good Liberal would have used the Constitution in an effort to blame Bush.

OT, are sanctuary cities Constitutional?

Who knows- as they mean little because passing a city ordinance does not/can not stop Federal Authorities from enforcing a Federal Law- especially one that has directly been ruled by SCOTUS to be a federal issue.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
If certain states were to pass these laws when Bush was not protecting the border, OT as a good Liberal would have used the Constitution in an effort to blame Bush.

OT, are sanctuary cities Constitutional?

Who knows- as they mean little because passing a city ordinance does not/can not stop Federal Authorities from enforcing a Federal Law- especially one that has directly been ruled by SCOTUS to be a federal issue.....


except that:



Section 287(g) and relations between federal and lower levels of government

IIRIRA addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Section 287(g) is a program of the act that permits the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement. This section does not simply deputize state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration matters.[1]

This provision was implemented by local and state authorities in five states: California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina by the end of 2006.[2]



Until it is ruled Unconstitutional, it is the law.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
If certain states were to pass these laws when Bush was not protecting the border, OT as a good Liberal would have used the Constitution in an effort to blame Bush.

OT, are sanctuary cities Constitutional?

Who knows- as they mean little because passing a city ordinance does not/can not stop Federal Authorities from enforcing a Federal Laweral issue.....

????

Not one of the ordinances or laws would stop federal officials from enforcing federal laws..


All of the laws are because the federal government will not enforce it's own laws..
 

Latest posts

Top