Comments about ‘Why do feds insist on being in charge of the immigration issue?’

Very well put. I am impressed.

Gary Johnson is a breath of fresh air for those of us yearning for limited government. I hope he has an increased role in politics in the future.

A very sensible, thought-provoking point of view. I totally agree!

I fully agree with the federal judge's ruling on the AZ law, but I question the authority of that judge to rule on an AZ matter. This column makes a good argument to support states' rights. I don't like the law, but I support the right of AZ to govern itself without unconstitutional federal meddling.

In Judge Bolton's opinion, the most important precedent relied on is Hines v. Davidowitz, a 1941 case in which the Supreme Court held that Pennsylvania could not require all non-citizens in the state to carry state alien-registration cards and display them whenever a policeman asked. The Hines opinion, by Justice Hugo Black, is dominated by discussions of the foreign affairs power, the Supremacy Clause, and Congress' plenary authority of matters of naturalization. But Justice Black also alludes to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and warns that requiring aliens to carry papers would subject them "to a system of indiscriminate questioning similar to the espionage systems existing in other lands."

Gary Johnson either lacks knowledge or understanding of the Articles of Confederation and the problems that arose under them that led to the Constitution and federal control of borders both external and internal.

He also clearly does not understand the Constitution.

From the article, "But, where is it written in the founding documents that a state doesn't have the right to enact its own laws and policies relating to immigrants, both legal and illegal, who choose to enter and reside in that state?"

I would refer him to Article I, Sections 8, 9, and 10, Article IV, Sections 1 and 2, and Article VI for an answer to that question. (I would also refer him to his own statement immediately preceding the sentence I quoted.)

The Federal Government gets to determine who is legal and illegal. Legal individuals are entitled to the full and equal protection of the laws. Even illegal individuals have some lawful protections. States don't get to decide what federal laws to follow and which ones to ignore.

Really not a difficult concept.

@ Invisible Hand: The Federal Judge had authority under Article III, Section 1, "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Also, Article VI, Clause 2, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

This is not unconstitutional federal meddling -this is the Federal Courts and the Federal Government acting according to the Constitution.

Q: " My view: Why do feds insist on being in charge of the immigration issue? "

A: You mean other than the fact that its written in the constitution?

I often hear people say we need to adhere to the constitution, that it is hanging by a thread. One would think these people then would want to adhere to the constitution not only cases where they agree but also in cases where they disagree, so it can be said of them, they are people of principal, that they lead by example.

Royland Kayser. lets tear down the borders then...we'll see how you feel about that when the United States is another "3rd world country". other countries have more stringent immigration laws "because they(like us) need them. do you remember when every American criminal would bolt for the "Mexican Border" when being persued by police and federal agencies ? that is why Mexican law became so stringent about unlawful entry. why should we not be just as concerned ? the terrorist who took out the world trade center towers came over the mexican border illegally to get here. are you aware of that? 90%+ of drugs and most of "human trafficking" come over that border too. so lets just stop and think about this. it is the safety and security of "Our Nations People" that is at risk now. we should have a more strict policy of dealing with illegal immigration. as a matter of fact , look up "Mexican Immigration Law". we as a country should adopt "those very laws" , and treat those who violate those laws...just like the Mexican penal system does.

re Invisible Hand | 9:05 a.m. Aug. 1, 2010

Any state what wants to totally govern itself, should have never joined the union. There are advantages and disadvantages with going it alone and of being a member of the union.

The states all decided long ago, membership has its rewards and these rewards are worth it, otherwise they wouldn't have joined.

Part of the agreement of joining is that federal law trumpts state law, also that the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

I agree completly. The more I here about Gary Johnson the more I like him. He was a great Governor in NM that faced oppostion from the Dems at every turn but was very successful. I truly hope he runs for President in 2012.

As a note: Ron Paul said on the Daily Caller a few weeks ago that he would endorse Gary Johnson for President if Ron's decides not to run himself.

Thank you Governor Johnson for your articulate and thoughtful reasoning concerning this every growing concern and burden to legal Americans. There is only one reason this administration is failing to do anything and that is; it is obvious at the polls, that the illegals (with or without legal or forged identification) will vote for this Socialist/Marxist prone leadership and its cronies. They want the votes, period. Gary, you are spot on and I hope your voice is heard nationwide concerning this escalating nightmare!

If states were in charge, i'd never be allowed in Utah.

I certainly believe in limited government, but all the current rhetoric aside, this is clearly a federal issue, the type of thing our federal government exists for. That federal government takes ownership of this issue is not the problem.

The problem is the federal government has failed miserably (for all the reasons Johnson states, boiling down to political cowardice by both parties, most recently Congressional Republicans when Bush was trying to resolve the issue).

When the federal government fails, I'm all behind states stepping and and "usurping" the power to act. Until the federal government does something, let the states manage the best they can, one at a time....

RE: The Sensible Middle | 10:40 a.m.


it actually is NOT in the constitution.

the constitution talks about citizenship and naturalization,

it says NOTHING about immigration.


The States are well within their rights to deal with immigration.


since that right was NEVER given to the federal governemnt by the states or the people.

What are citizenship and naturalization dealing with, if not immigration? Immigration is the province of the federal government. Rightly so. Does it make any sense to have 50 differing sets of rules and regulations for non-Americans to come to American? Let's look at in in reverse: How would it be if you decided to visit Canada, but had to get a passport for every province that you wanted to visit? The whole idea of immigration reform is to make the process simpler and more understandable. Adding fifty state legislatures to the process will not do that. Governor Johnson is wrong on many counts.

This shows the ignorance of 225 years of Supreme Court decisions, the point of the Civil War and the Constitution itself. The states are NOT, I repeat not, sovereign nations. They never really were in the sense of the European nations. I can't believe Johnson doesn't know better. He must be playing politics with this issue.

Just because a State wants/NEEDS to HELP... enforce the law in their state... How does that automatically mean they want to completely TAKE OVER the Federal Government's responsibility???

They aren't taking over the Feds immigration responsibility! They just want the right for local law enforcement to be able to turn people who are here illegally over to the Feds so THEY can do their job and deport them!

What's the big deal?

Maybe it's because the Feds today are acting like the Feds did during the Carter Administration. And the residents of Arizona learned from history and don't want to become the next Miami.

When will we learn from History?

Google "Mariel boatlift"...

Carter said we would accept any boat people from Cuba, and Castro saw this as an oportunity... so he emptied his prisons, death row, their hospitals for the criminally insane, etc... These people became the worst of the worst in Miami crime circles. Miami used to be a quiet resort town until this flood of immigration fuelded by Castro. In the 80's it became a swamp of crime and depression. It eventually recovered, but the Mariel Boatlift was a very bad episode in our immigration history.

There were a lot of similarities.

-At the time Cuba was experiencing a HUGE crime problem, Drug Cartels were taking over many towns, Cuba was in a severe economic depression. America was the solution to CUBA's problems...

Cuba had to get rid of people who didn't contribute enough to the collective. Eventually 125,000 Cubans made the journey to Florida.

After watching this issue grow, I have some questions that I wish the Federal Government would answer.

Why is it that they have decided to act on immigration where the state wants to help the Federal government?

If creating laws that differ from the Federal government is so bad, why have they permitted California and other communities to legalize marijuana?

Why does the federal government allow sanctuary cities to exist, they too are going againt federal law?