Arizona Immigration Law not Historically Unusual
For all the screeching about Arizona’s new immigration law, you would think that this is a new question: may a state enforce federal immigration law? I know better than to predict how the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this question, but if we look to history, this should be easy. We have plenty of examples of states enforcing immigration laws that were actually stricter than federal immigration law. Before I tell you about some of these examples, however, it might be good to explain the context of this first set.
When the Philadelphia Convention drafted the U.S. Constitution, one of the great struggles was concerning slavery. Slavery had no friends at the Convention — even though a large minority of the delegates owned slaves. Slavery was an embarrassment — one that even slave owners hoped and assumed would go away in a generation or two. That’s part of why the word “slave” never appears in the Constitution. Instead, we get terms such as “bound to service” that include not only slaves, but also indentured servants and apprentices.
When Charles C. Pinckney, one of South Carolina’s delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, returned home to lobby for ratification, he was besieged with complaints about how the new Constitution did not have a Bill of Rights. (It was added later.) Pinckney explained the lack of a Bill of Rights in the new Constitution by saying that “such bills generally begin with declaring that all men are by nature born free. Now, we should make that declaration with a very bad grace, when a large part of our property consists in men who are actually born slaves.” The best that the slave states could manage out of the Philadelphia Convention was a guarantee that the new national government would not prohibit the importation of slaves for at least twenty years (Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 1).
There was nothing that prevented state governments from banning the importation of slaves — and by 1808, when Congress prohibited the importation of slaves, only South Carolina still allowed slaves to be brought in from abroad. Until 1808, federal law allowed the import of slaves. The states were actually imposing a stricter immigration standard than federal law. If anyone challenged the constitutionality of these state immigration laws about slaves, I haven’t seen it mentioned. By comparison, Arizona is merely enforcing existing federal immigration law.
All of your points are well made, logical and supported by excellent examples. But, what does it matter to people that have and opinion and “feelings” that don’t match reality and reason? Your mistake is expecting people that are dis-honest and wishing to buy votes to act in a honorable manor with the good of the American people in mind.
Anyway thank you for the ammunition to use against idiots that have no basis in reality.
Last night, Charles Krauthammer made a simple point that seems to be overlooked in all this: the executive branch is compelled by the Constitution to enforce the law. To do otherwise is a breach of the Constitution and is therefore illegal.
No President can pick and choose which laws to enforce. Unless you’re Hugo Chavez.
We do things differently here specifically to prevent the governmental abuse of citizens and to protect the freedom of the individual. You must enforce a law unless it has been repealed. If its still on the books, its the governement’s duty to insure enforcement. It either is or it isn’t, and this soft, gooey middle ground doesn’t cut it. Clarity of law should be man’s highest calling if he is to be governed at all.
Saw it too. Krauthammer makes a very powerful arguement. It is crazy that Federal Law Enforcement has decided not to enforce the laws passed by Congress.
The problem is that the Federal government can easily claim to be enforcing the existing immigration laws – just very, very badly and incompetently. How do you prove that their ineffectiveness is intentional and ideologically driven?
So.. we should do it because “many others did it in the past!!!”
Sick reasoning
No, we should do it because the federal government is refusing to enforce existing immigration law, and illegal immigration represents substantial costs to the society, while the benefits accrue to a few businesses that take advantage of illegal immigrants.
The article is to point out that there is no constitutional argument against states enforcing federal immigration law.
Did you get yourself dirty making that strawman?
As was stated several times in the article, this was done to defend against the charge that what AZ has done is unusual and unprecedented.
Maybe if you actually read the article instead of just jerking your knee, you wouldn’t sound so dumb.
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.
When Govenor Jan Brewer told the DOJ the State of Arizona would see them in court she knew she was challenging the DOJ on sound precident. She removed the sitting AG from the representation of the state because he is a Democrat who has repeately said he dosen’t support SB1070. The Govenor had the forsight to get the legislation to give her the authority to set up outside representation for defending the law. The other real good news………Arizona has passed 3 previous laws regarding enforcement of immegration realted activities, Arizona has been challeged by the usual suspect on all three occasions, the results have been stunning. The “Ninth” (the most liberal leaning)Circut Court of appeals have upheld the Ariaona position on all three. I feel the reason that Obama relented and met with the Govenor is the polls are showing active support for Arizona and other states seeking to pass similar legislation.
Obama and the Democratic Party are obstructing the law and using delaying tactics until 12 million illegal aliens are made citizens by amnesty in a clear attempt to gerrymander foreign nationals. He should be impeached. Obama has no interest in state’s rights but in flooding the country with minorities who will vote for him and his in the same way he hires by color.
If you actually go and read the case,it cites chapter and verse how Arizona is going to beat Holder!Section II is just on point.If the lawyer for the state cites this case I don’t think there is any way they CAN lose
I don’t recall anyone on the left complaining when California enacted automobile emissions and mileage standards stricter than D.C. required or clean air and water rules greater than anything the EPA had ever imagined.
Smog doesn’t vote.
In the original Clean Air Act back in the 60′s, CA was given special dispensation to write rules for itself that were more strict than National Standards, due to the special conditions in the Greater Los Angeles area.
“Yet when the U.S. Supreme Court decided this case in New York v. Miln (1837), the Court concluded that unless Congress was explicitly given exclusive authority, or the states were prohibited from exercising that power, states were free to exercise that power as well.” — C.C.
Except that Miln was later overturned by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. California (CA had enacted a law making it illegal to bring in any indigent person into the boundaries of the state.) The majority opinion in Edwards states that transportation of persons across borders (in this case, state borders, though it would be hard to argue that Arizona has the right to decide who crosses international borders) is interstate commerce and can only be regulated by the federal government. Additionally, the Court didn’t like that a state could “isolate itself from difficulties common to all of them by restraining the transportation of persons and property across its borders”.
As an Arizonan, I support this law 100%. And I hope other states join our ranks too. But it’s folly to believe that the Supreme Court is going to let us have our way on this, especially under this administration. I’ve heard some folks down here talk about secession if the feds try and mess with us on this. I hope it doesn’t come to that.
Excellent point about Edwards v. California, though I would argue that neither it nor Miln is applicable in SB 1070′s case, because that law merely enforces federal law, but does not exceed it.
As for secession: oh, please. People need to breathe deeply and calm down. There are plenty of remedies, including kicking the bums out of office in the next two elections.