“If you carefully read the 14th Amendment to the Constitution it does not restrict the states from regulating the conduct of those who are not here lawfully.”
Actually the original constitution states that naturalization is a ‘federal’ matter. The federal government issues the visa to anyone here legitimately, and thus has the authority to enforce the visas issued by deporting anyone found in this country without one.
States have no say whatsoever as to who is issued a visa. This is an important principle.
“When it comes to citizens, who are all here lawfully, the 14th requires that they be treated identically to the way a state’s own citizens are treated and, in fact, declares that an American citizen is a citizen of the state where he is a resident.”
Yes, this is central to equal protection, which is why states can’t pass legislation restricting the natural rights of citizens (though they often do).
As for naturalization, that’s been part of Federal authority since the Constitution was enacted, even before the Bill of Rights, and the 10th amendment. The 10th specifies powers not otherwise enumerated, but immigration and naturalization is an enumerated power of the federal government.
The Constitution does not throw its hands up completely and leave the states without authority of any kind ~ it did, in fact, leave "importation of such persons" to the states AND then only restricted that with a TAX.
Hmm ~ yup ~ there's a darned good question concerning the federales authority to set immigration quotas ~ if that's not also linked to the issue of uniformity of process which is certainly imposed by the constitution.
Some of the things you imagine to be sanctioned directly by the Constitution, or through the doctrine of necessary implication ARE NOT, in fact, sanctioned, nor does that doctrine apply.
You'll find, instead, that the Supreme Court will refer to the IMPLIED POWERS and for that they'll turn to the predecessor standards ~ in this case those of the King of Spain, Philippe II/III as stated in the Treaty of London 1604 (that's our "founding founding document". I was just reading it last evening and the King of Spain dictated equal treatment of foreign and domestic merchants in the market place! He also dictated who was to be allowed in ~ and named the countries.
Mexico claims status as a successor entity to Spain in America. They have some treaties that suggest that to be a fact ~ where Spain agrees to recognize Mexico as an independent state.
Their history is a bit shorter than ours ~ they start out as Spain (in that 1604 treaty), then flip over to Mexico with the same rights and obligations with independence ~ even making the same land claims as Spain.
So, let's say 90% of the illegals are Mexicans. The Treaty of London of 1604 STATES that they will obey the civil and criminal laws of the countries where they enter.
I fail to see where any Mexican is exempt from the rules set forth in that treaty!
They simply can't come and go from the USA without adhering to the same laws we impose on our own citizens ~ you gotta' have a passport to get back in; they gotta' have a visa to get in. Without a visa they're not really here are they ~