[El Gato]

Doesn't the second paragraph of Article VI of the Constitution have some applicability to the "unconstitutionally enforcing immigration laws" argument?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[4Freedom]

Wouldn't the act of enforcing a law be proof in and of itself that your were abiding by that law?

I see what Hazleton is doing as reinforcing the "Law of the Land" and not "Contrary" to it at all.

With a screen name like 'El Gato' it's obvious you must know English better than the rest of here, so please enlighten us as to where you believe enforcement is mentioned in that passage from the Constitution.

Bank robbery is a federal crime, so local law enforcement can't arrest bank robbers according to the way you and the ACLU read the Constitution?

[conservative in nyc]

Does the ACLU's argument more hinge on a claim that Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives Congress the power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization", and "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" thereof, as well as your typical (bogus) ACLU due process claim? Isn't the ACLU arguing that by Hazelton providing additional penalties for illegal immigrants, there is no uniform rule of naturalization (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me - the Hazelton law has nothing to do with naturalization of immigrants, but harboring or hiring people who are in this country illegally).

[Congressman Billybob]

The US could pass a law making it illegal to rent to illegal aliens, or to hire them, or to make English the official language. If the federal government acted on that, the federal law would supersede any state or federal laws. However, in the absence of such federal or state laws, any local government may do what it chooses within its own boundaries.

There's no federal - state - local conflict present at this time.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

If Hazleton passed an ordinance which somehow applied at the Mexican or Canadian borders -- or which purported to decide who was, or was not, eligible to be an American citizen -- THAT would involve Article IV of the Constitution. But Hazleton is doing no such thing.

John / Billybob