Employees have to file withholdings to the State - the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that these witholdings are for actual citizens and legal residents within that State.
There are numerous laws, State and otherwise, on housing. Ensuring that landlords only rent to those who reside within a State legally - and that they do not rent to someone who houses a mob far in excess of reasonable capacity - as illegal alien apartments so often do - is a valid State role.
States have a right and a role under the Constitution to any number of powers that can and should be used to discourage illegal residency within their State and enforce such laws. That does not at all amend or abridge the Federal role (that they have failed at) in determining immigration and naturalization.
So you are OK with “sanctuary” but not with enforcement?
Does making your State or City a “sanctuary” for illegal aliens also abrogate the Federal Constitutional role, in your view?
Agree very much with driver’s licenses. No question there.
As for withholdings the state actually doesn’t have a compelling interest to crack down here because the tax is taken right out of the paycheck.
If the state were restored to it’s constitutional role in having the individual pay his or her own taxes, then it would have an incentive to crack down on illegal immigration.
Right now the state uses the businesses as tax collectors, which is part of why the system is in trouble.
“Ensuring that landlords only rent to those who reside within a State legally”
Where does it say that a state has a right to regulate private contractors? If the landlord owns the property, then it’s his right to disburse as he sees fit. The state has no role in regulating between someone using his private property and the tenent.
“that they do not rent to someone who houses a mob far in excess of reasonable capacity - as illegal alien apartments so often do - is a valid State role.”
Agreed. This is a safety issue. But provided that the landlord abides by the regulations on his property wrt housing, I really cannot see where the state has justification to intervene between a private transaction.
“So you are OK with “sanctuary” but not with enforcement?”
I’m fine with enforcement provided that it doesn’t abrogate the rights of individual citizens in the process.
“Does making your State or City a “sanctuary” for illegal aliens also abrogate the Federal Constitutional role, in your view?”
Absolutely not. States can’t pick and choose which parts of the constitution that they follow, and neither can cities defy the law.
The way to look at it is like this. The Fed has a role in defending the nation from external enemies. If they drop the ball, to what extent does the state have to regulate itself? I understand the frustration that is going on here with Obama and co, but these bills aren’t the solution. The solution is to dump Obama in 2012 and restore sanity.