Posted on 04/11/2011 10:34:07 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
It's a question of jurisdiction. While the feds can make rules for naturalization, they have no direct authority over people who do not apply for citizenship. Those people are under the jurisdiction of the State in which they reside, not the federal government.
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
Bumpity bumpity bumpity Bump.
The Ninth Circus Court is like a filthy rest stop on the highway to the Supreme Court. You stop there only if you must, get in and out as quickly as possible, avoid eye contact, and scrub your hands real good.
I'm pretty sure that's not correct.
So according to this court, the State of Arizona can no longer enforce federal laws against drug trafficking since this would violate the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause? Idiots.
That quote is not pertinent to this issue.
It is agreed the federal government has higher authority, but that does not mean the state is powerless in the face of an intentional absence of federal action. The means available to a state that wishes to defend its citizens from foreign invasion is not limited to litigating the issue in a courtroom.
To say otherwise is to say that one who perceives imminent danger or actual harm to one’s family is limited to calling 911, which may or may not decide to respond.
Bear in mind also that the legislation passed by the state of AZ was not intended to, and does not supersede the Constitution or federal law.
Actually, since national citizenship was originally derived from that of the State, it is quite correct.
Making a uniform rule is miles away from 'enforcing' anything.
-----
The mode by which an alien may become a citizen, has a specific appellation which refers to the same principle. It is descriptive of the operation of law as analogous to birth, and the alien, received into the community by naturalization, enjoys all the benefits which birth has conferred on the other class.
Until these rights are attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere.
William Rawle
-------
BTW - they are not 'immigrants' unless they file the paperwork. Until they do, they are resident aliens.
I am really shocked!
Actually, no. That's not what the Court is saying, at all. In fact, in both the decision and concurring opinion, the Court reaffirms by citing relevant federal statutory law, the role that states and municipalities can and do play in helping to enforce existing federal law.
The Court however, takes issue with the state for passing its own law on immigration enforcement, even if that law fits perfectly within the scope of existing federal law. The state of AZ is, with the passage of the statute, getting into the foreign policy business, or so the Court opines.
I suspect, reading the opinion and knowing the bios of the two judges who found for plaintiffs (it was partially unanimous), that this will be a compelling argument to the Supreme Court. I have a feeling this won't go the way some think it will go. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a unanimous opinion, depending on who writes the opinion.
And THAT is why getting judges who will overturn Roe on the bench is important.
It is not a religious thing. It is a good government thing.
You would lose that bet. John T. Noonan, one of the judges that held for plaintiffs in this case, is arguably the most outspoken Circuit Court judge against Roe v Wade. He's famous for it, it's his calling card.
Um.... "that quote" is the part of the Constitution on which the injunction was based. I'd say that's pretty pertinent.
It is agreed the federal government has higher authority, but that does not mean the state is powerless in the face of an intentional absence of federal action.
No, but it does mean that the state cannot pass laws that supercede federal laws on a particular topic. The opinion (see link above) deals at great length on the topic.
You should also read Judge Noonan's concurring opinion.
Bear in mind also that the legislation passed by the state of AZ was not intended to, and does not supersede the Constitution or federal law.
The plain language of the law says otherwise. Again, see Judge Noonan's concurring opinion.
Well, I guess you’ll have to take it up with every Supreme Court decision ever made on the subject of immigration and enforcement. Because they all disagree with you.
Yes. You can read details in the opinion, link provided above.
And if anything, Noonan’s concurring opinion in this case is even more dismissive of the Arizona law, than the main opinion. He’s scathing about it.
LOL.
Actually, I was just thinking that right before I read your post. Remember, this is an facial challenge, and not an as-applied challenge. IOW, plaintiffs aren't (necessarily) arguing that the enforcement of this is wrong, but that the statute is wrong, in and of itself.
I don't know why the state couldn't create some other kind of public policy narrative - like an EO, for example - that directs the same exact kind of enforcement. In fact, I think they probably could. It's the codification that has largely gotten them into trouble, at least in this court's opinion.
Now, I'm sure that down the road, that would be challenged as-applied, but from reading this particular opinion, I'm not convinced such a case would prevail.
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.