Justices Decline To Re-enter Immigration Debate

AP ^ | 03/03/2014 | Staff

[BuckeyeTexan]

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A former Pennsylvania coal town and a Dallas suburb lost a lengthy battle to enact anti-immigrant laws Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their appeals.

The high court has held since 2012 that immigration issues are largely a matter for federal agencies, not local governments, to regulate.

[jospehm20]

I believe that Fremont, NE did the same thing.

[OneWingedShark]

Blood of Tyrants:
They didn’t answer a fundamental question: What option do the states have when the federal government refuses to enforce the laws enacted.

RIghtwardHo:
Of course they answered that question. The answer was ... “none”.

Ray76:
We can’t wait. If the Federal government won’t act, we will.

We actually can do something at the state-level... completely legal and while it would throw a monkey-wrench into the national politics it's not itself a political move… it goes something like this:

1. Governor declares a state of invasion (because of illegal immigrants).
   This, in itself, would make a vote for amnesty [very arguably] an act of treason.
2. Governor calls the national guard (and possibly the unorganized militia) to defend the state.
3. Governor demands that the Federal government assist under Art 4, Sec 4.
   This leaves the federal government with three options:
   1. Render Aid
      Highly unlikely, it would result in a good many politically people who have been pushing for open borders to have egg on their face.
   2. Do Nothing
      This is the most likely; the federal government would hem and haw, but do nothing; this would rightly enrage a lot of people.
   3. Attack
      This is unlikely, but possible: the federal government could aid the invaders by force (executive), lawfare (legislative), and/or holding the states as non-sovereign (Judicial).
      ALL of these are Treason, by Constitutional definition.
4. Regardless of the FedGov's response, a lot of people will be impressed with that state's governor.
5. It would likely show that the FedGov has no intent to holding to its Constitutional obligations, even in martial matters.
6. It would flush out a lot of the domestic enemies we have in the federal government.