Arizona Immigration Law not Historically Unusual
Okay, but those were slaves. I would love to see Attorney General Holder make the argument that these restrictions on the importation of slaves weren’t immigration laws, because slaves were more like commodities, and therefore this precedent doesn’t apply. (But I’m sure that he would make it with a straight face.)
We have a somewhat later law that is closer to the situation that Arizona (and every other state) finds itself in today with respect to illegal immigration. In 1824, New York state had become rather tired of poor immigrants arriving by ship and becoming public charges on New York City’s charities. They passed a law requiring that ship captains post a bond “not to exceed $300, for every passenger, to indemnify and save harmless the mayor, &c., of the city of New York, and the overseers of the poor of the city, from all expenses of the maintenance of such person, or of the child or children of such person, born after such importation; in case such person, child or children, shall become chargeable to the city within two years.” (And many other Atlantic Ocean states did likewise.)
Does this sound familiar? Arizona’s argument for this law is that illegal immigrants are a strain on a variety of public services. That was New York’s argument in 1824 as well. But note that New York was not simply enforcing federal immigration law. It was imposing an additional set of requirements beyond federal law. The defendant in that case actually made much the same argument as opponents of the Arizona law: “that this was a regulation of commerce, and that the power to regulate commerce was exclusively vested in congress. Hence this law, passed by a state, was unconstitutional.”
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.
The states passed and enforced laws against slave importation before 1808, when federal law still allowed it — with no apparent legal challenge. This demonstrates pretty persuasively that state authority to regulate immigration was concurrent with federal authority. Even if Arizona’s new law were stricter than federal law, there would be a persuasive case that the state law would be constitutional — like New York’s law upheld in Miln. But Arizona’s law is not stricter; it is only enforcing federal law.
If the history of state laws regulating immigration from outside of the U.S. and how the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with them is any indication, U.S. v. Arizona is going to be a slam dunk.
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.