States’ Inherent Authority to Enforce Immigration Law
By working together, local and federal officers can better identify and remove criminal aliens — which is a tremendous benefit to public safety. — Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Last month, I met Arizona state Senator Russell Pearce, who drafted the state’s common-sense immigration enforcement law. He stressed that the nation needs immigration enforcement not just on the border, but in the interior as well. Over half the country’s illegal aliens entered through the Arizona border. Senator Pearce said he has listened to stories about families living on the border threatened by drug runners and gangs trespassing on their land. Some of these bold thugs even threatened to return and kill the families of anyone who calls the police. Earlier this year, an illegal alien murdered Arizona cattle rancher Robert Krentz on his property.
Arizona is one of 20 states that currently participates in the Immigration and Nationality Act’s 287(g) federal training program. Signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1995, the provision permits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into a written Memorandum of Agreement with state and local agencies to train and to deputize law enforcement officers to identify and detain illegal aliens.
Over 110,000 illegal aliens have been identified and rounded up for deportation under 287(g) since 2006; however, President Barack Obama and his Department of Justice (DOJ) seem to be under the impression that state and local governments can do nothing, apart from 287(g), to protect citizens within their jurisdictions from the burden of illegal immigration.
First, Obama’s DOJ has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld an Arizona employer sanctions law. Ironically, Janet Napolitano, former governor of Arizona and current secretary of DHS, signed the bill into law in 2007. Called the toughest sanction against employers who hire illegal aliens, the law requires them to verify the status of employees through the Basic Pilot Program. First offenders who “knowingly” hire illegal aliens will lose their license for up to 10 days. Second offenders (on probation) face permanent license revocation. Defending her decision to sign, Napolitano wrote (PDF):
Immigration is a federal responsibility, but I signed HB 2779 because it is now abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs. I signed it, too, out of the realization that the flow of illegal immigration into our state is due to the constant demand of some employers for cheap, undocumented labor.
The federal government’s responsibility does not preclude a state from enforcing immigration law when it comes to employers in that state. Under the section of the federal code that deals with unlawful employment of aliens, Congress provided this exception (emphasis added):
The provisions of this section preempt any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ unauthorized aliens.
Second, Obama’s DOJ is suing Arizona, claiming SB 1070 (PDF) violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. According to the complaint (PDF), the law is a “state-specific immigration policy” that attempts to regulate immigration, which is the “preeminent authority” of the federal government.
What is it about stopping illegal immigration from Mexico and other Central American countries that draws such misguided indignation? Why does wanting to impede the flow and to reduce the presence of people who enter and remain without the country’s permission generate such resistance? As far as the federal government is concerned, the primary motive is to maintain a cheap labor class at all costs, including the lives of ranchers and their families on the border.
The primary motive is to capture the votes of Hispanics. When you have most of the blacks and Hispanics you don’t need a majority of the others to get elected. This is why Obama favors open borders, not because he wants businesses to succeed.
The current policy on immigration that has been in place since the last amnesty is the new slavery. By allowing illegal aliens to enter the country and work they become a permanent source of cheep labor that undercuts the ability of poor Americans to earn a living, and allow dishonest employers to gain an unfair advantage over honest employers.When politicians claim they want a comprehensive bill to solve the problem it is a lie. Remember they did this before when Regan was President and they lied then and are doing so again. This is a blatant attempt to buy votes and saddle the tax payers with an immense bill to pay for social services to a group of people, most of whom will never earn enough money to PAY income tax. I don’t mean have money withheld, I mean that at on April 15 the IRS keeps the money.This is another attempt to buy voters by a mostly dishonest Congress at the expense opf the tax payers and the new underclass that this will create. I cannot remember when the government has passed a Bill that accomplished it’s stated goal on time and on budget, and this will be no different.
The one syllable word is cheap.
Sorry you are correct, my bad.
Jerk is another one syllable word.
Just ask the native Americans what happens to people who can’t enforce immigration control or the integrity of its borders.
Nice to see you here La Shawn, I’m a big fan.
“As far as the federal government is concerned, the primary motive is to maintain a cheap labor class at all costs”
Under Republicans maybe. Under the Democrats it’s the swelling of welfare beneficiaries dependant on Democrat largess with our money.
Under Republicans….a cheap labor class that by virtue of their market dominance in entry-level and higher labor endeavors, forces native born Americans to enlist in the military and in turn provide adequate troop numbers for several concurrent military actions with unclear end or endgame.
Glad you’ve got it all figured out. Now go change the bong water.
Yes, because it is sooo blatantly obvious that the Left has no intentions of maintaining a servile, uneducated, poor voting block, completely dependent on government, who will move in lock-step as directed by Mr. Obama.
Never mind the fact that the Democratic party has consistently maintained the biggest economic rift of any party between its voting block: 70% of the richest of the rich and poorest of the poor. Their party is also comprised of 70% of the most uneducated people in our society, as well as the nearly 75% of those with mental and emotional issues, as well as garnering the support of 90% of current and former prisoners who would vote for Democrats and Obama if given the opportunity.
It is a simple, statistical fact: the Left is comprised of the dregs of society, through and through…end of story
How long are the left going to push the lie that the military is filled with those who have no other choice?
It may be too obscure, but what is the source of a local jurisdiction’s obligation to inform an illegal alien that his consulate can be informed of his arrest? Every time Texas sends an illegal criminal alien back to his creator, one reason for almost endless delay is that the Mexican Counsel was not informed at the time of his arrest. Is it only capital cases or any arrest for a crime?
Why do the states and their agencies have to enforce Federal drugs laws, etc?
Ms. Barber asked:
What is it about stopping illegal immigration from Mexico and other Central American countries that draws such misguided indignation?
Conservatives — who claim to be advocates of “limited government” and “freedom” — betray both with their advocacy of government-imposed quotas on immigration.
“Limited government” — as originally conceived in our Declaration of Independence — means a government whose function is limited to protecting individual rights. “Freedom” means the right to act — the right to do as one pleases — without the physically coercive interference of others, including the government, provided one‘s actions do not violate the same right possessed by all others.
But government-imposed immigration quotas massively violate my rights and my freedom — by arbitrarily dictating who I may or may not allow on my land, who I may or may not hire in my business, who I may or may not rent an apartment to in my building and with whom I may or may not freely associate. Nothing on earth justifies the notion that government should have such power over me — and granting government the power to violate my freedom in this manner is the very antithesis of “limited government“.
The government doesn’t own the territory of the United States — it has jurisdiction over that territory to enforce proper laws — but it has no right to make laws that violate my basic right to freely associate with whomever I choose, no matter where they come from.
Government, whose job is to protect our rights, has only one legitimate role to play regarding immigration — and that role is screening those seeking to come here to insure they do not pose a threat to our rights, a threat in the form of an infectious disease or a threat in the form of an association with a criminal or terrorist gang. But it has no right to set arbitrary limits on the number of people who can come here.
The Declaration of Independence says that ALL men are created equal and that ALL are endowed with the same unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not say that only those born north of the Rio Grande have such rights. When conservatives argue against the universal nature of rights, they are implicitly agreeing with the leftist notion that rights are a gift from government — and that one must have government’s permission to enter the country before one can acquire these gifts.
And this argument advanced by Ms. Barber is largely false:
The presence of millions of illegal aliens is a fiscal yoke around the American taxpayer’s neck and a social burden on his back,
Illegal aliens are not a “fiscal yoke” — they are paying much more in taxes than most Americans realize.
See here for details: http://reason.org/news/show/122411.html
Conservatives are on the wrong side of this issue. You cannot credibly advocate freedom for yourself while demanding that millions of other human beings forgo the same freedom and remain under the boot of their government.
Actually Mr. Michael Smith arguements are totally false.
Advocating for “Open borders” is insane.
“Open borders” means, in essence, that there is no border and hence no immigration. Any number of people from any country for any reason can come and go across any U.S. border just as if it weren’t there. Criminal on the run – we welcome you to our country. Disease carrier – please don’t breathe on us. Islamic terrorist – we hope you will live peaceably among us. Advocate of Reconquista – come on down.
With “open borders” it would be entirely permissible for the whole population of Mexico to walk across the border and permanently turn the entire Southwest into a Newer Mexico. It would be aggression against them if anyone tried to stop them. Being indifferent to a massive influx of immigrants – still more massive, surely, than anything we see today – is ludicrous; claiming that it would never happen is evading the issue.
The property along the northern, southern, eastern, and western borders of the United States is owned by individuals, associations of individuals, small businesses, corporations, local governments, state governments, and the federal government. The same goes for the ownership of airports, ports, and any other points of entry. Whether a governmental entity should or shouldn’t own an airport, a port, or property along the U.S. border is immaterial. No one has a right to step foot on any piece of U.S. property (public or private) because no one in any country has the right to trespass on someone else’s property – in his own country or in any other country.
The most diehard proponent of “open borders” and opponent of government as a legitimate property owner must at least agree that no matter who owns or claims to own the property in the United States, it certainly isn’t owned by anyone seeking to immigrate here. The right to immigrate doesn’t necessarily follow from the right to emigrate. The freedom to move does not include or imply the freedom to trespass.
Regardless of where they come from, regardless of why they are here, and regardless of how restricted or unrestricted U.S. immigration policy is, immigrants should be required to enter lawfully. I don’t mind visitors to my home, but instead of hopping my fence, climbing through a window, and then announcing that they are here, I want them to knock, ask permission to enter, and then come through the front door.
Good post and in response to you and Forgotten Man (#2):
Thats why we need a flat tax or consumption tax and/or an end to several deductions like the child tax credit and home mortgage interest. A low and moderate wage earning illegal ends up getting money back, as do many native born taxpaying Americans.
You know one way to kill Social Security? – have a semi-amnesty where citizenship is only provided to illegal parents of anchor babies.
That would mean that single/childless illegals would be subject to enforcement/deportation. They havent made a family to be broken up yet.
No chain-migration of grandparents or aunts/uncles either (an comparable influx of Chinese would not be as problematic because they are a “land without Uncles and Aunts” under one-child mandates).
Another stipulation is that the newly legalized parent would give up any claims to previous social security (earned under false id) and would contribute to SS without being eligible to collect from it – an eternal fine, if you will. That in turn would create a new voting block that would see SS as the entitlement they can’t benefit from and hence will have no romantic New Dealish nostalgia for it.
Well, then, Michael Smith! California should be sitting pretty with all of its illegals paying so much in tax and providing so much to the economy!
I love people who post crap from “reason.org,” because we’re supposed to feel inherently stupid for arguing with anything that has such a lofty name; as if to argue against “reason.org” is to argue against the very concept of Reason itself.
Tell ya what, Mr. Smith: I’ll go find a few poverty-stricken families from violent backgrounds who don’t speak English, have no desire to do so, and are devoid of education, and I’ll just let them into your house to sleep all over your furniture and eat out of your refrigerator. When you find them to be a great boon to your bank account, you can write all about it on reason.org.
“Conservatives — who claim to be advocates of “limited government” and “freedom” — betray both with their advocacy of government-imposed quotas on immigration. ”
First Conservatives are centrists… they “advocate” whatever the wind deems at the time to be fun…. they neither believe in freedom or limited government.
Ppl who truly believe in limited government and freedom are rightwing/libertarian. I like many wouldn’t mind have more guest workers and more immigration if the current system was working correctly… neither is because of the criminal abuse in both.
Our US Constitution is to protect US Citizen and the rights of US citizens first…massive waves of immigration have been a tactics of conquest for 1000s of years…
“But government-imposed immigration quotas massively violate my rights and my freedom — by arbitrarily dictating who I may or may not allow on my land, who I may or may not hire in my business, who I may or may not rent an apartment to in my building and with whom I may or may not freely associate. Nothing on earth justifies the notion that government should have such power over me — and granting government the power to violate my freedom in this manner is the very antithesis of “limited government“. ”
This is a retarded argument. First immigration has nothing to do with your ability “to allow or not allow ppl on your land, who I may or may not hire in my business, who I may or may not rent an apartment to in my building and with whom I may or may not freely associate.”
Your argument amounts to “why can’t i have blacks as slaves” I claim them as my property so they belong to me…. and the government shouldn’t stop me because they belong to me.
The government doesn’t stop you from allowing ppl to come on your land or do business with you. It requires that ppl go through a process to enter the borders of the US. The process can be through a number of systems as everything from a tourist, guest worker, or citizen…. second unless you have land directly on the border your argument is completely moot… if you don’t like where you live MOVE.
“The government doesn’t own the territory of the United States — it has jurisdiction over that territory to enforce proper laws — but it has no right to make laws that violate my basic right to freely associate with whomever I choose, no matter where they come from.”
If you wish to associate with say osama bin laden you do that… or the KKK… or the NAACP go have fun with that. No one is stopping you from moving to where they are and having at it… if you want to be around mexicans move to mexico… no laws are preventing you from doing so expect the mexican laws.
“Government, whose job is to protect our rights, has only one legitimate role to play regarding immigration — and that role is screening those seeking to come here to insure they do not pose a threat to our rights, a threat in the form of an infectious disease or a threat in the form of an association with a criminal or terrorist gang. But it has no right to set arbitrary limits on the number of people who can come here.”
The problem is your completely confusing your own argument… most of the ppl who come here are from 3rd world nazi/commie/collectivist holes… they are the antipathy of a danger to our rights… they bring with the the ideology that is completely opposite of freedom and individualism. So they need to be carefully checked in every way…. open borders not only prevents those checks but openly invites the worse kinds of ppl to cross the border.
“The Declaration of Independence says that ALL men are created equal and that ALL are endowed with the same unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not say that only those born north of the Rio Grande have such rights. When conservatives argue against the universal nature of rights, they are implicitly agreeing with the leftist notion that rights are a gift from government — and that one must have government’s permission to enter the country before one can acquire these gifts.”
So you believe the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution should be enforced globally? So i assume you heavily support invading iraq, afgan and many other countries to include mexico because they treat they’re citizens like crap…
Its a noble view to be sure that the whole world should be taken over by the US and have them obey our laws.
“And this argument advanced by Ms. Barber is largely false:
The presence of millions of illegal aliens is a fiscal yoke around the American taxpayer’s neck and a social burden on his back,
Illegal aliens are not a “fiscal yoke” — they are paying much more in taxes than most Americans realize.
See here for details: http://reason.org/news/show/122411.html”
Normally reason does a good job however this piece is pitiful and does nothing to support your views.
First anyone with even basic knowledge of the topic knows that 90% of the costs of illegal aliens are completely hidden. What we know for sure is that illegals cost the US taxpayer currently huge sums of money and that when you multiply that by 9 you have 100s of billions of dollars…
Anyone who claims that illegal aliens don’t cost huge sums of money has done no research into the topic.
“Conservatives are on the wrong side of this issue. You cannot credibly advocate freedom for yourself while demanding that millions of other human beings forgo the same freedom and remain under the boot of their government.”
I completely agree… conservatives support open borders and thus are on the wrong side of the issue. As for freeing ppl from oppression I also completely agree… the US should take over the world 1 country at a time… however its unrealistic to believe we can save 5 billion ppl from oppression in a few hours… it will take centuries of warfare to take over the planet and free the world from the oppression that collectivism…
RKae being half right can be dead wrong. This element is present in these comments with some very good points canceled by some very bad points. You make a good argument but seem to miss the central point. The controversy is between who owns the land, us or our government. If we own the land as a collective then we have no individual right to that land. It is a free range. If I have title to a portion of that land, as I do, then I am sovereign over that portion. That is the basis of property rights. If I raise a crop and sell it for money, then that money is my property just as the crop was my property. The controversy is over this private property rather than immigration. There is confusion between Liberty and Freedom. Right now, according to Obama the Mexican can freely cross our border. Under the Arizona law, he does not have the liberty to cross our border without permission. Just as we want our visitors to knock.
Ms Barber mentions the law penalizing businesses for knowingly hiring illegals. That is not inconsistent with the sanctuary cities. Business is being targeted rather than the illegal. It shows the hypocrisy in our government. The illegal has the right to a job but I don’t have the right to hire an illegal. Makes a lot of sense. How is he to live unless he can earn a living? Welfare? Illegal activity? Neither are not quite honest.
Next is the fallacy of cheap labor. I have an article published in the May 31, 1930 Saturday Evening Post by Samuel Crowther, “Who Has the Money?” where he shows that the crash of 1929 did not change the wealth of our nation but the monetary valuation of that wealth. Since that day we have been on an inflationary binge, constantly raising the monetary value of our wealth without increasing that wealth. Your wealth is not in your checkbook but your checkbook gives access to that wealth. The ratios between commodities are virtually unchanged. So a hundred bushels of corn has about the same trade value it did in the depth of the depression of 1930. This article also demonstrates the folly of cheap wages. By cheap I mean below averages for the same work. Excessive would be above the earning capacity of the work paid for. Either one will reduce profit. The excessive wage robs the profit and has been the stance of the organized labor unions, which, in time destroys their source of income. Cheap wages reduces the ability of the wage earner to buy the products that provide their employment. There are ratios here that gives optimum return both to the business and to their labor and this is not properly addressed by organized labor. Competition does raise the value of labor rather than union labor monopoly which has a tendency to reduce the purchasing power of labor. Competition allows us to start with a minimum wage and move up through our own abilities and values while a monoply keeps us in thrall.
A few more words on liberty. Liberty takes the rough edges from our rights and give flexibility to the inflexibility of law. We often suspend our rights in order to prevent gridlock and provide order. We all have the right to speak, but not at the same time. We need to take turns for free speech to communicate. We can see where your rights can impact my freedom. To make a profit we must have property rights but that right does not allow me to make excessive charges for my property I wish to sell. A monopoly tries to force me into a position that, to live, I must pay more than something is worth. Competition gives me the freedom to choose my vendor. There are no hard and fast rules. These are more like paths that have obstacles removed and are smoothed out through places that are not smooth. Our liberty removes the brush and stones from the path but we still have to walk is we are going to get anywhere. In order to compete the vendor needs to offer some unique advantage, price, quality, service and the like and we are free to choose. A supermarket is a business with many items being offered but we are not in the market for all of them. The only way the super market gets paid for their service is to mark up the price of their offerings to cover costs of making it available and a little left over for their own use. It is no different than wages which is your living.
This is the basic area of this immigration controversy. Do you have the right to make a profit? How does it connect? If the immigrant, legal or illegal, did not expect to profit more why would he come? Yet the Socialist eschews profit which generates capital, needed to stock the store. The same rules that let us profit and grow will work in his own country and the poverty that he enjoys in his own country will follow him into our country if we do not control immigration. A business cannot hire every one who wants a job and the truth is that many do not want a job but they want the money the job provides. If they can get the money without the job they will.
“Its a noble view to be sure that the whole world should be taken over by the US and have them obey our laws.”
We should be exporting our laws or concepts instead of importing their laws and concepts. That was what the Declaration of Independence was all about and it is based on liberty rather than freedom.
The Bible was the guiding principle in that day and should still be that light unto our path so we don’t stumble around in the dark. We are hearing much about the “Rule of Law” which is strategy and a half truth. RKae, what governs your actions? Is it the law with its penalties or is it your conscience which agrees with the law. Paul, writing to the Romans explains how the law was able to teach the folly of sin but his flesh did not want to submit to that control. We are not controlled by law but by ourselves. This control is so automatic that we seldom think of it as control.
In conclusion our immigration problem is primarily in Washington, where our government has left the guiding principles of our Constitution. It is not racial, although race or origins have played a part all along with Mexico being no exception. The whole thing revolves around private property, profit and capital and is subverted by Social Dogma, which is, itself, an illegal immigrant, one that invades the mind.
“…Illegal aliens are not a “fiscal yoke” — they are paying much more in taxes than most Americans realize…”
That might well be true, but they take more out of the economy than they add, not even counting the money they rendition back to the folks in the old country (second-largest source of “hard-dollars” to the Mexican economy after petroleum sales by Pemex).
They are a net loss to the economy.
Yes my very racist friend it is very cut and dry…. illegal aliens born in the US are NOT citizens period…
Maybe you should read the part “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof(the US)” illegal aliens are no different then any other invading army… They are NOT under the jurisdiction of the US.
Next you have Wong kim Ark which settled this matter beyond any doubt.
“A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,”
Note a few things here. First illegal aliens are not legally able to hold DOMICILE inside the US… they are not able to legally carry on business inside the US, thus they’re children are not US Citizen. Now add in a special case for mexicans because the mexican government has turned illegal aliens into a “diplomatic/official capacity” they are in no way possible for them to be US Citizens.
Anyway you cut it illegal aliens can not give birth to US citizens. In the case of mexican illegal aliens they can and should be classed as an invading army and the as such have zero legal rights to even challenge the issue.
I don’t know why this comment was deleted the last time but if it is not posted this time i will be mailing a statement in about it.
please ignore this comment it was suppose to be posted in ruben thread… it what I get for having 8 news pieces open at same time.
Republican candidate and Harvard Physicist Mike Stopa on the Sean Hannity show says that congress should help states enforce immigration law. The Social Security Adminstration could send its no-match letters to the Attorneys General of the States. The states could publish the no-match letters.
Video, Stopa on Hannity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umx8FFLQGRQ
Has anybody actually read what the Constitution says about which unit of government is to determine who may and may not migrate into the country? This is not as clear as many seem to assume. Article 1, section 9 initially gives that power to the states, and prohibits any law by Congress prohibiting migration “of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit” prior to 1808. Read in context, this provision gave Congress the power to prohibit importation of slaves after 1807, but there is nothing in the Constitution giving Congress any other power to interfere in the states’ determinations of those whom “they think proper to admit.” Congress is given authority to adopt a uniform rule of Naturalization, but that is something very different from regulating immigration.
You might want to check out http://www.azcentral.com (The Financially Troubled Arizona Republic), for some of the silliest and most irresponsible left wing propagandizing ever. That publication barrages the Red State Arizona with endless anti-republican, pro-illegal propaganda, using a handful of paid 24/7 attack trolls to drive off conservative counterpoint. They have recently begun flagrantly censoring all comments by conservative dissenters.
Here’s a sample:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/23/20100723pinal-county-babeu-president-treason.html#comments