New Immigration legislation would mimic AZ law. But oposition to these States taking it on their own to enforce federal laws that have basically been ignored, has been fading and hispanic Citizens are finding themselves agrreeing with such state level laws. The new slogan presented by legislators reads "If you are living here illegally Go home or go to jail".
You might want to consider that most of the legal Hispanic residents of AZ supported AZ's new illegal immigrant law from the very beginning. I know in FL many of the legal Hispanics resent the image that the illegals give them due to the amount of crime that they get involved in.
PA is very Hypocritical. Number one, a lot of the County and State prisons in PA. Get a lot of money to house Illegal immagrants for the federal government. Which is acctuall over crowding the County and State prisons here in the Somerset/Cambria counties area of PA.
Which is leading to them allowing other types of criminals out of jail. On probation and house arrest plans.
Which is leading to them allowing other types of criminals out of jail. On probation and house arrest plans.
Here in Florida, there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant from Cuba. The Cubans get a special deal, because they exert so much political influence in South Florida. The Cuban deal is this: If one foot hits dry US soil, they are allowed to stay. End of story. When other groups of illegal immigrants get their population concentration up high enough & band together, there will be similar deals for people from other countries.
I've been to AZ. I've been to CA. Both of those states are getting close to the tipping point.
I've been to AZ. I've been to CA. Both of those states are getting close to the tipping point.
FREERIDESTL loosely mentioned a states rights to defend itself against illegal aliens.
There are a couple of constitutional elements here. The first is the article 4 section 4 of the US Constitution, which says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." The operative phrase is that the federal government is thereby required to protect states against "Invasion".
Let's turn to the Federalist Papers to gain an understanding of the original intent of the Founders. James Madison, in Federalist 43, which was published in the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York in 1788, declared, "A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article."
In order then to argue that the federal government has a responsibility to seal the borders against illegal immigration one has to make the argument that such immigration is an invasion, which is "foreign hostility", or "ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors". That's a fairly tough case to make, though many believe that they have successfully made it. As you'll see if you read below, the argument is irrelevant.
Set that aside for a moment and let's examine the 10th amendment, which states, "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." This clearly asserts that federal government has the power to, and by implication the responsibility to, do whatever the constitution expressly gives it the right to do. In addition, the states assume whatever powers and can do whatever they want unless expressly prohibited by the constitution.
The intentions of the founders is clear when you read and understand the words of the founders in the Federalist papers. James Madison, in Federalist 45, explains that the intent was that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, in the 1931 case of the United States vs. Sprague, concluded that "The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the states or to the people."
Back to section 4 of article 4 of the constitution. The federal government is given the power to protect the states against invasion. If you successfully make the argument that illegal immigration is the same as invasion, then the federal government has the power, and by implication the responsibility, to stop illegal immigration. That's the lesser part of the argument.
Here's the part that counts. The 10th amendment says the states have any and all powers unless they are strictly prohibited in the constitution from having that power. Neither Article 4, Section 4, nor any other part of the Constitution nor of the Bill of Rights, prohibits the states from exercising a power of border protection of any kind from any threat. Therefore, if Arizona, or any other border state for that matter, wants to enact a law requiring or empowering state agencies to protect the border they have that right under the constitution.
There are a couple of constitutional elements here. The first is the article 4 section 4 of the US Constitution, which says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." The operative phrase is that the federal government is thereby required to protect states against "Invasion".
Let's turn to the Federalist Papers to gain an understanding of the original intent of the Founders. James Madison, in Federalist 43, which was published in the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York in 1788, declared, "A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article."
In order then to argue that the federal government has a responsibility to seal the borders against illegal immigration one has to make the argument that such immigration is an invasion, which is "foreign hostility", or "ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors". That's a fairly tough case to make, though many believe that they have successfully made it. As you'll see if you read below, the argument is irrelevant.
Set that aside for a moment and let's examine the 10th amendment, which states, "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." This clearly asserts that federal government has the power to, and by implication the responsibility to, do whatever the constitution expressly gives it the right to do. In addition, the states assume whatever powers and can do whatever they want unless expressly prohibited by the constitution.
The intentions of the founders is clear when you read and understand the words of the founders in the Federalist papers. James Madison, in Federalist 45, explains that the intent was that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, in the 1931 case of the United States vs. Sprague, concluded that "The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the states or to the people."
Back to section 4 of article 4 of the constitution. The federal government is given the power to protect the states against invasion. If you successfully make the argument that illegal immigration is the same as invasion, then the federal government has the power, and by implication the responsibility, to stop illegal immigration. That's the lesser part of the argument.
Here's the part that counts. The 10th amendment says the states have any and all powers unless they are strictly prohibited in the constitution from having that power. Neither Article 4, Section 4, nor any other part of the Constitution nor of the Bill of Rights, prohibits the states from exercising a power of border protection of any kind from any threat. Therefore, if Arizona, or any other border state for that matter, wants to enact a law requiring or empowering state agencies to protect the border they have that right under the constitution.