Immigration Law and Phony Federalism
Not sure what took so long, but Arizona is finally petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's decision striking down its immigration law. That law, you'll recall, merely adds state enforcement measures to bolster federal immigration laws.
The Obama administration sued Arizona, just as it is now suing Alabama, which also has the temerity to enforce federal law. In both cases, the administration argues that under the Constitution, states can't legislate on immigration, because that is an exclusive federal power. That's a canard, since neither Arizona nor Alabama is creating immigration standards, but merely applying federal laws. And in a federal government awash in red ink, is this really the best use of Justice Dept resources? No, the President is simply using the Justice Dept to shore up the Hispanic vote.
The most laughable part is the idea that the administration is just enforcing the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to establish a "uniform rule of naturalization." For liberals, federalism is a one-way ratchet. If the states get anywhere close to an enumerated federal power, they scream "federal pre-emption!" But if you suggest that the Feds should actually stick to their enumerated powers and respect (or at least read) the 10th amendment, they scream "tea party terrorist!"
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Immigration Law and Phony Federalism
Well said.
Not that everything is about the London Riots, but this reminds me of the issue in London where if you defend your property and harm the intruder you are subject to punishment by the state unless they deem your response proportional to the threat to you (not to your property). Which makes sense on an abstract level but is of little comfort if you are staring down a thug.
In either case, I don't like the argument (no kidding) that the feds can pick and choose when to enforce their laws, but you face sanction if you choose to enforce them. At some level that will not last.
May '10
Re: Immigration Law and Phony Federalism
More proof that smaller central government is preferable: in this case, even good federal law is a bad thing, as it's ignored when it comes to enforcement but used as a bludgeon when states try to handle the problem themselves.
Jul '10
Re: Immigration Law and Phony Federalism
Of course, George III thought the tea partiers to be terrorists as well. And, with Lord North, plotted to subjugate them beneath the heel of the crown to provide the crown a significant revenue source unencumbered by Parliamentary authority. Assuring Britain's German monarch a more absolute, less accountable monarchy and rewriting Britain's unwritten constitution.
The similarities to today are more persuasive than the differences. Paint those Tories blue and those Whigs red and this could be the fourth American Revolution.
Re: Immigration Law and Phony Federalism
Good point. There was a recent law review article saying that federalism is an attempt to deal with what we today would call a "collective action" problem, eg, the Founders empowered the central government to deal with issues that the States would not have the will or means to deal with (or to deal with properly).
Immigration is exactly the reverse -- the States have the will and the means to protect their borders and it is the central government that is standing in the way.
Re: Immigration Law and Phony Federalism
ps - Here's the link to the Law Review piece I mentioned.