Comments about ‘Border security not federal purview’

So...

Fifty states with fifty different sets of immigration laws?

States individually decide what does and does not constitute citizenship?

Of course!

What could possibly go wrong?

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."

I would say that Justice Black has a better understanding of the constitution than the author of this letter.

To all the people who are always clammoring that we need to follow the constitution.

Here is your chance to lead by example. Even if you would like states to be able to enforce immigration laws, oppose it.

Support the constitutions requirement that the federal government is in charge of immigration issues.

To all the people who are always saying laws need to be obeyed. Here again lead by example. Obey all laws yourself. Even when inconvenient. They you will have standing to point a finger at others who don't.

I don't oppose Arizona taking on immigration. I just insist they they fully take on the COST of immigration. They want to put thousands of people in jail? Fine. At their cost, without any Federal dollars.

Immigration opponents somehow believe that enforcement is free. They don't understand that the Federal government has limited dollars for deportations. Let Arizona try. They will either go broke, or raise money through higher income and use taxes.

Well now, in his final paragraph the author of this article says,

"Federal immigration laws have no constitutional authority, and unless an amendment to the Constitution is ratified by the states to delegate that power, the states should retake and affirm their power to manage immigration within their borders. Given that "illegal immigrants" have violated federal immigration laws, which exist without proper authority, the proper action for those who support and uphold the Constitution is to advocate amnesty for those whose only crime is noncompliance with these illegitimate laws."

My question is:
If the Federal Government has "no authority" and if the States "have constitutional authority to manage immigration within their own borders", where does the author get the idea that he is qualified to dictate what the "proper action" should be, having already stated that the States have the power to decide what the proper action should be????

Sorry, my friend, it seems that your entire article is not to enlighten, but is to "grind your own axe" so to speak.

The states are NOT the sovereign entities. The people of the United States are the only sovereign entity as clearly established in the first sentence of the Constitution of the United States. The "Sons of Liberty of Utah County"? Sheesh.

"This Government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. ... But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise so long as our system shall exist. ...

"A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. ... Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

--John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819

The argument that the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to regulate immigration is a creative way to push for amnesty, but it's the wrong way, because it depends on a ridiculously, unrealistically narrow interpretation of the constitution. Supporters of amnesty and open borders would do better to push for formal legislation to that effect.

Mr. Boyack's blog on the website cited in his "by line" is interesting, but I don't agree that his conclusion is Constitutionally sound.

Article 1, Section 8 clearly gives the Federal Government the authority "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,"

If the Federal Government can establish the rules by which immigrants can become naturalized citizens, that appears to me to allow federal jurisdiction for the rule making.

Granting amnesty to illegal aliens, when rules have been set by the federal government, violates those rules.

The Constitution does NOT address what level of government is to prosecute illegal aliens; however, the 10th Amendment clearly states that unless the federal government has been authorized by the people to perform a duty AND if there is no prohibition in the Constitution for the State to handly that duty, that the responsibility to preform that duty is left to the States and to the people.

RE: blue
"Fifty states with fifty different sets of immigration laws?"

Yes, see Article I, section 9 below.

"States individually decide what does and does not constitute citizenship?"

No, 'Congress shall have power to...establish an UNIFORM Rule of Naturalization.' -Article I, section 8

RE: cjb

Would you care to quote the portion of the constitution "that the federal government is in charge of immigration issues."

As far as I can tell there is only one section of the constitution dealing directly with immigration:

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight..." -Article I, Section 9

It is interesting to note that the only phrase in the constitution dealing directly with immigration explicitly left it to the states until 1808.

Mr. Boyack dismisses a federal role in protecting our borders due to a lack of coordinated effort to invade. The facts do not support Boyack's dismissal. According to a House Investigations report given by the FBI, "In December 2002, Salim Boughader Mucharrafille, a caf owner in Tijuana, Mexico, was arrested for illegally smuggling more than two hundred Lebanese illegally into the United States, including several believed to have terrorist ties to Hezbollah". This is one of many examples of coordinated efforts. Both Federal and State responses are required.

Boyack's article seeks to promote Libertarian amnesty by misrepresenting the facts. We are at war, our country is being invaded across open borders, and the Federal Government has a constitutional responsibility to actively defend our security.

"Juan's peaceful and individual migration to America" can be achieved through legal means. Let's make the legal means easier and the illegal means impossible.

Obviously the process of "Naturalization" is the Fed's responsibility. It's outlined in the Constitution.

But SECURITY and SAFETY of the people in each state, is of concern to the STATES and the people residing in the individual STATES.

IF the people in the STATES see a threat... even if it's people coming accross the border illegally and getting involved in crimes there... It's in the perview of the STATES and the STATE law enforcement to protect their people.


Arizona is NOT saying they take over the border crossings, or the immigration process... or deport anybody... they are JUST SAYING they have an OBLIGATION to protect their people.

The law didn't say they could question ANYONE's immigration status. It only allowed a check when the person was involved in a CRIME!!!

What's so WRONG about THAT???

The federal government has the authority to establish naturalization as it pertains to citizenship in the nation. But states should have the right to make their own rules pertaining to citizenship in those states, as well as any other rules regarding immigrants.

People like Blue ridicule states rights. What's the point of even having states if the feds are going to make all the rules? Let the people of the various states make their own laws regarding immigration or anything else to solve their own unique problems. One size does NOT fit all.

Putting aside the constitutional question for a moment, let's consider the issue pragmatically. If each state has its own immigration laws the inconsistencies will be problematic. For example, if Utah has its own guest worker program and other states and the nation don't, won't all the undocumented workers move to Utah?

Another example, on the enforcement side. If Utah has responsibility for border control, will it have jurisdiction to send Utah border patrol agents to border states? Of-course not! So, with the Feds out, will Utah be dependent on AZ, TX, CA, MN, ND, ID, MI, VT, WI etc. to control the border? Or will Utah build a wall so it can enforce its own borders from other states?

I could go on indefinately with examples of how in-efficient and chaotic a state based system would be. Resorces are already a much neglected issue in this debate. It could cost trillions to completely "seal" the border.

Having the states control immigration, each with its own set of laws and enforcement resources, is a really bad idea that will never work in the real world, even if it is found to be constitutionally allowed.

facts_r_stubborn | 11:31 a.m.

Problem with your arguement is... It isn't based on Facts!

Nobody's saying each state should have their own immigration law! Just that each state has a responsibility to protect it's people. And if protecting them from illegall immigration the Feds are allowing to take place... that's a threat to their people and needs to be addressed!



Again... the Arizona law did NOT give Arizona any different Immigration Law than any other state. It just gave local law enforcement the ability to identify violators and turn them over to the FEDS for justice.



Can you point out how the Arizona law changed ANY Federal Immigration Law??? It doesn't!

Who cares if Connor Boyack is the communications coordinator for the Utah County Campaign for Liberty. That don't mean squat, to me, as a outsider that lives in the tropics. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS practical and compassionate solutions for illegal's, they all are criminal's. Liberal's and mormon fools choose to ignore the facts and fear the word of prejudice . They even go so far as to invent more convenient facts to support their activiat cause to hide those fears and prejudices in the name of Jesus. Back them when one tribe crossed into another's spot and land they killed them, they were never compassionate and they dang sure did not deport them either ot take them under their wing. Illegal's LOVE TO JUST start blending into society that's important to them, because they are criminal's. Even though they are breaking the law they still see themselves as Hispanic and as Americans, and see themselves as culturally part of the United States and not a illegal, because they came from a lawless country. Don't YOU think it's time to report, then let ICE deport them all?. I do.

Re: facts_r_stubborn

Having different policies among the states with regard to immigration is a non-issue.

States have different policies in place already on building codes, produce, pyrotechnics, drivers licences, etc.

Just as the certain fireworks deemed illegal in other states are naturally imported into wyoming where they are legal, aliens will naturally migrate from states in which they would be illegal to states where they can legally reside.

Will there be cases where aliens choose to reside illegally within a state? Yes. Will there be challenges with regard to travel from state to state? Yes. But at least states could only blame themselves for immigration problems they may experience.

Let the states set their policies with regard to immigration and let the feds add further restrictions as necessary for constitutional responsiblities.

@Question 12:02 p.m. states "Nobody's saying each state should have their own immigration law!"

The author states, "Federal immigration laws have no constitutional authority, and unless an amendment to the Constitution is ratified by the states to delegate that power, the states should retake and affirm their power to manage immigration within their borders."

This is quite a broad statement for states to "take control" of immigration laws which presumably would also include enforcement. Seems like you are the one who didn't read the editorial.

You also appear unaware that one of the ideas considered by some in the Governor's roundtable was a Utah bill to allow a Utah guest worker program.

My comments were based on the editorial writer's assertions and are quite well grounded in the general discussion taking place. I suggest you do your homework a little more carefully before making accusations without the facts.

There is already a federal program for sharing illegal immigration information between local law enforcement and ICE. It is called "secure communities" or 287-G. So far only two Utah counties have taken advantage of it.

What price will taxpayers be willing to pay?

Brother Chuck,

"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS practical and compassionate solutions for illegal's, they all are criminal's. Liberal's and mormon fools choose to ignore the facts and fear the word of prejudice . They even go so far as to invent more convenient facts to support their activiat cause to hide those fears and prejudices in the name of Jesus."

Do you have any idea just how nuts the above quote by you sounds?

What "facts" are being ignored? What "facts" are being invented?

To say, "they all are criminals" makes no more sense than to stand on a freeway overpass and shout at the cars rushing by beneath you, "You're all criminals!"

What next, Chuck? Utah builds its own fence to keep out the "illegals" that slip into Arizona?

Where does this silliness end?

Don't you get it? The illegal immigration issue is just a campaign strategy employed by conservatives. They couldn't care less about the actual problem - all that matters is that it gets right wingers riled-up for a couple of months.

"Illegal Immigration" is the "flag-burning amendment" of this campaign season. It's cynical manipulation by the GOP.

@ Jash, 1:58 p.m.

Federalism has been an issue since our nation's founding. The answer is "it depends" on the issue. It certainly is not a non-issue. Some governmental responsibililies make more sense at the federal level some at the state level.

For example, one of the reasons for the Constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation, was to "provide for the common defense." Of-course even today there is the National Guard under state control. But the nation needed a national defense, not a state by state defense from common foreign enemies. Why? Because it didn't work on a state by state basis only, for military resource allocation and coordination of forces reasons. There needed to be a balance between state and national control.

Certainly there is a role for state and local goverments to play in enforcement of immigration laws. However, to make it an all or nothing game is silly. To suggest that this is a non-issue is rediculous and flys in the face of common sense and 225 years of our nation's history, where the balance of power and responsibility between national and state control has always been important.

facts_r_stubborn | 2:04 p.m.

You didn't address my question... How did the Arizona law change any FEDERAL immigration statute?



It didn't "Take Over" immigration... they complement Federal_law, and aid the feds.

What's so BAD about that???



YOU said, "If each state has its own immigration laws" blah blah blah... well they aren't proposing each state have their own immigration laws. They already agree that Immigration is the Fed's responsibility. They just want to help the Feds do their job.



I don't agree with the author's Constitutional angle BTW. I think he's loony. I said that in the first sentence of my first post (see 11:13 a.m.).



The reason I said your post wasn't based on facts is... Arizona and Utah are not PROPOSING states override FED immigration_law, or "Take_Over" immigration_enforcement (as you asserted). They are just augmentinting their own state laws so they can help the feds do THEIR job better.

They are not taking anything AWAY from the FEDS... are they?



Niether Arizona OR Utah are saying immigration isn't the FEDS job... they just passed laws allowing local_law_enforcement to HELP the Feds.

Why oppose that?