Posted on 08/19/2006 2:20:29 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Legislatures around the country are passing state laws to get tough on illegal immigration, but legal experts say many of those laws will turn out to be unconstitutional.
More than 550 bills relating to illegal immigration were introduced in statehouses this year, and at least 77 were enacted, according to a survey presented last week at the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
However, NCSL analyst Ann Morse told lawmakers at the conference that a 1986 federal law forbids states from enacting stricter criminal or civil penalties for illegal immigration than those adopted by Congress.
"The federal government decided it was too complicated for the states to enact their own competing laws on this," she said.
So what about the laws passed this year?
"I believe they'll be tested in court," she said.
State bills aimed at illegal immigration this year have included measures on education, employment, driver's licenses, law enforcement, legal services and trafficking.
"Unique among the states, Georgia introduced a bill that addressed all these different policy arenas, and passed it as one bill earlier this spring," Morse said.
Lawmakers like Tennessee state Rep. Gary Moore are frustrated that proposed federal legislation on illegal immigration has stalled in Congress.
"If we could get the federal government to give us a little more leeway, we would see a lot more reforms at the state level," said Moore, a Democrat, who said a survey of his constituents found immigration was a top concern.
It's unlikely the federal government will want to relinquish enforcement of immigration laws to the states, said Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute.
"This is a prerogative that the feds really guard, particularly in Congress, with a passion that is probably unlike anything else," he said.
Still, the states are likely to try to acquire as much authority on the subject as they can.
"Because the Congress is unable to act, people at your level — and the local level — are beginning to take things into their own hands," Papademetriou told lawmakers at the conference. "I think we're seeing the beginnings of something that will gradually transfer more power to the states."
Papademetriou was critical of enforcement-only proposals to address illegal immigration. Some other proposals, like increasing the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents by 2,000 each year for the next six years, are unlikely to succeed, he said.
"I venture to say, in my humble option, that there is no way ... you can come close to that number and sustain it," he said.
It would take tens of thousands of applicants to have enough candidates to qualify, to pass training and to become experienced border patrol agents, he said.
"And when they're experienced enough, what's the biggest problem with the Border Patrol? Attrition," Papademetriou said. "Because people are not stupid: If they are well trained, they are going to find a better paying job somewhere, and an easier job."
Arizona state Sen. Jake Flake, a Republican and a cattle rancher, agreed that attempts to seal off the border are not likely to be successful.
"I find that if you put a bunch of steers in a pasture and run out of feed, there isn't a fence good enough to hold them," Flake said. "And I think people are the same: When they're hungry, there's not going to be a fence big enough to hold them.
"I don't think we're ever going to change this unless we help build the economy of Mexico."
Immigration activist Dolores Huerta, left, listens to Elvira Arellano, right, during a news conference at Aldalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago on Thursday, Aug. 17, 2006. Huerta arrived overnight from Los Angeles to show her support for Arellano, a single mother and illegal immigrant who invoked the ancient principle of sanctuary and took refuge in the church rather than submit to deportation to Mexico. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)
If true, Congress can fix that little problem as soon as it gets back. And maybe we should have another supply of bricks on hand just in case....
Expert huh.
The Fed insists that it'll take a million or two dead in some large city fore they'll get their head outa their a$$? Message loudly and clearly heard, carry on.
so it's all my fault 'cause I worked all week, and she sat in a church and she wants me and my country to support her and all her country's men and women, because my nation is to blame for her son having been born? honest folks, this could be her logic, I don't know, but anyhow welcome to a world turned upside down, we are all present and accounted for.
It is possible that that statement refers to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. That would seem to be an overly broad description of the law (but I will have to do some research on it - after a quick look, I did not find language similar to that quoted in the article). A lot would depend on the actual wording of the law, and whether there were any court precedents interpreting that law.
For example, if Federal immigration law says nothing about illegal immigrants and education, then would a state law restricting access by illegal immigrants to government-funded education be considered as "enacting stricter criminal or civil penalties for illegal immigration than those adopted by Congress", or since Federal law was silent on the topic, then nothing that the states did would be stricter than a non-existant Federal law? IANAL (although I was once admitted to law school)...
Increase the value of the peso, or decrease the value of the dollar?
I may have missed it when reading the article, but where does it mention any factual basis for claiming a problem with constitutionality? If state laws run afoul of a Federal law, that does not make them "unconstitutional". Is this yet another case of sloppy AP journalism?
be careful what you wish for....
I hear ya. Catchy headline tho, huh?
It was kind of slow here, anyway. :-)
The use of the word "Expert" is in the eye of the beholder, as some politicos and others openly express their views these days.. Murtha and Kerry come to mind,,
For every one person in the United States for illegal immigration, there are nearly 18 who are opposed to it. There is a massive segment of the population, nearly 82% in some polls, who are right to the point of being pushed into counter action against those who would destroy our country and hold up the breaking of our laws.
You will see massive impeachment, recall, and other actions taking place across the land.
Grounds for impeachment of judges.
I have been eagerly awaiting this. I want Texas to implement strict immigration laws. Any person crossing a Texas state line MUST show Texas residency, or provide proof of a valid return itinerary. We will profile New England accents. Not too sure how to handle the drivers license thing just yet, but we know that California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey residents MUST surrender their license at the Texas border, and walk or ride one of our three buses. We do have an Amtrak train that the federal government makes us keep, but it is broken down most of the time.
Everyone coming to Texas MUST learn how to say "y'all", and be able to recite the Texas Pledge. We are going to build a wall on the north side of the Red River, using undocumented Okie labor. Texarkana is going to be a little tricky, but we have retained the services of some dude named "Boris" that says he has hands-on experience dividing cities into sectors using state-of-the-art walls and minefields. The Texas/Oklahoma panhandle area is a little tricky. The last time we jacked with Colorado over a border it did not go so well. We will likely let Oklahoma keep their panhandle.
New Mexico is a challenge. We do not want to spend too much cash on a fence along the New Mexico border. Maybe a nice 4' fence made from discarded well casing pipe will do. Problem is, we found more Gila Monsters, Chaparral, and scorpions than people out there. Maybe we can just move all of them FEMA trailers from Louisiana over there, with the people still in 'em. I keep hearing about how hard-working these FEMA trailerpark folks are, and we should not have to pay them much at all since they already receive money from the government. And there has NEVER been a hurricane flood on the Texas/New Mexico border. Well, not since humans have been able to communicate.
Now I know some of you are gonna say "Aha!, ARMSF forgot about Louisiana/Texas border control". This is not true. We will simply annex western Louisiana through the productive oilfields and along the Gulf coast. Most of the Yankees and undesirable folks that head off through the bayous disappear anyway. Some feller named Beaudroux or somesuch says he will handle everything along the river areas. We take his word for it.
"Congress can fix that little problem as soon as it gets back"
That would be the 535 elected-or-anointed people sworn to protect the Constitution, whose sole loyalty is to the Citizens who elected them and the Flag of the United States of America? I'm so unclear on who's supposed to make law and discipline the INFERIOR federal courts.
/dripping sarcasm.
Can the states bring the Tenth Amendment into play for this?
Argue that the 1986 law is an unconstitutional infringement on States' Rights?
"However, NCSL analyst Ann Morse told lawmakers at the conference that a 1986 federal law forbids states from enacting stricter criminal or civil penalties for illegal immigration than those adopted by Congress."
Which just goes to show you that the federal government has been planning this invasion for a long time now. The states need to join together and put the congress and their courts in there place.
States can only offer in-state tuition to illegal aliens if they also offer in-state tuition to all other Americans in the U.S.. Moreover, States have the authority to withhold benefits from illegal aliens if they so choose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.