Obama won't accept 50 different states enacting their own immigration legislation

[bobbyw24]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he agrees that more control must be exerted over illegal immigration, but he won’t accept “a patchwork of 50 different states” acting on their own.

Obama tells CBS he believes immigration control advocates “are absolutely correct.” But he also says “what we can’t do is demagogue the issue.” The president tells anchor Harry Smith he wants to “work with Arizona,” while insisting that national immigration policy cannot be left to “anybody who wants to make a name for themselves.”

Arizona has appealed a federal judge’s ruling striking down key provisions of its law reining in illegal immigration. A federal appeals court has decided not to immediately get into the case, leaving the state to consider other steps it might take in the meantime.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/02/obama-patchwork-immigration-policy-unacceptable/#ixzz0vTRfq2FX

[ctiger2]

This is what Jim Rickards refers to as the Dis-Integration of the US.

http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/7/26_Jim_Rickards.html

[Lord Xar]

This is what Jim Rickards refers to as the Dis-Integration of the US.

http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/7/26_Jim_Rickards.html

I don't want to search all over that site, just give us a link directly to "dis-integration" or give it to us in layman terms.

[oyarde]

States are within rights to raise own militia and use them.This would be a viable option for a border state.Problem is , they would have to fund it.

[Dr.3D]

Well, then perhaps all of the states should get together and make up immigration legislation they can all agree on. I see no need to have the federal government involved.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Well, then perhaps all of the states should get together and make up immigration legislation they can all agree on. I see no need to have the federal government involved.

That's what the Federal government is and does...

I agree with Obama on this one, immigration into the United States is a federal issue and should be handled by Washington. Start by repealing the 1st part of the 14th Amendment allowing for birth-right citizenship, then work your way from there.

[oyarde]

It is the Federal Govt. responsibility to control the border.Individual states would likely have to do this themselves as it does not appear the Feds will maintain its responsibility.

[Dr.3D]

That's what the Federal government is and does...

I agree with Obama on this one, immigration into the United States is a federal issue and should be handled by Washington. Start by repealing the 1st part of the 14th Amendment allowing for birth-right citizenship, then work your way from there.


It is the Federal Govt. responsibility to control the border.Individual states would likely have to do this themselves as it does not appear the Feds will maintain its responsibility.

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give the federal government authority to regulate immigration?

[farrar]

Hmmmmm, I think:

As big of a states rights kind of guy as I am, it is not constitutionaly the right of the states to inact legislation regarding national borders. Although states have a right to uphold their own borders, it appears to me that such a right is really more concerned with the states and how they interact with one another. To enforce immigration law a state must assume souverienty over the Federal Goverment and have the right to interact with foriegn countries, which is really the one thing they don't have (or atleast not without federal approval). I believe that in this rare instance, it is not in the power of the state to create the law, but the federal goverment. HOWEVER, how the state chooses to uphold such a law, and how they wish to devote their resources to do such a thing, is soley matter of their own discretion.

I don't know enough about the Arizona Law, to tell if I think it fits the bill.

And correct me if I am wrong, but the militia you are refering to oyarde already exists. Its the [insert state name here] state National Guard. And border states do use it to enforce borders.

What is everyone else's opinion?

[Dr.3D]

Yeah, I see a lot of people claiming there is something in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate immigration. I just wish they would point it out so I can be informed as to where it is.

[farrar]

Yeah, I see a lot of people claiming there is something in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate immigration. I just wish they would point it out so I can be informed as to where it is.

Its really A matter of your Ideology. Many people and the courts (Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong 1976) assume the the naturalization clause in Article 1 section 8 clause 4, gives the congress the power over immigration laws. This is debatable. I am a Little torn, thats why I asked for other's opinions.

[oyarde]

This section is where responsibility for defense , prevention of invasion is.If the border were secure would there be any immigration problem ?

[nate895]

Its really A matter of your Ideology. Many people and the courts (Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong 1976) assume the the naturalization clause in Article 1 section 8, gives the congress the power over immigration laws. This is debatable. I am a Little torn, thats why I asked for other's opinions.

To me, it just seems from the overall perspective of the Constitution that the Federal government would have authority in the area. They have regulatory control over every other aspect of relations with foreign nations, trade, and ports of entry, and the clause about naturalization seems to indicate that the Founding Fathers intended for the Federal government to get to decide admittance to the union. To argue otherwise would be to take such a super-strict view as to say that the authority to establish a Navy only includes the power to build ships, but not the authority to create an Air Force or Marine Corps, despite that those things are necessary and proper for the maintenance of a Navy, if it is going to worthy of the title "Navy." The necessary and proper clause does, in fact, grant some limited power to Congress, and that would seem to include immigration considering the overarching authority to regulate naturalization and foreign trade/relations.

[Dr.3D]

This section is where responsibility for defense , prevention of invasion is.If the border were secure would there be any immigration problem ?

So should the states along the border control the border, or should they let the federal government come into their respective states to take over that job?

Seems to me, if the federal government isn't keeping the border secure, even after the states have requested the federal government to do so, then the states have no other choice in the matter than to do it themselves.

[nate895]

Seems to me, if the federal government isn't keeping the border secure, even after the states have requested the federal government to do so, then the states have no other choice in the matter than to do it themselves.

On that we can agree. Also, just because the Federal government has authority on an issue, does not negate that states also have authority on an issue. The states on those issue simply cannot contradict the Federal government unless they remove themselves from the Union. The states can have their own immigration enforcement rules and regulations, provided they do not contradict the Federal regulations or any other Constitutional obligations.

[oyarde]

States have the Authority to raise militia seperate from the National Guard.The National guard has been used very rarely on the border.Probably twice in the past five years in one state.The National Guard are mostly now part of the active Army being used to make up for divisions done away with in the 90's.

[oyarde]

Marines are under Navy control , Marines and Navy have aircraft.Air Force was part of Army I believe until recent past.

[oyarde]

The Border Patrol is what is primarily used to secure the border.There is not enough of them.

[Dr.3D]

On that we can agree. Also, just because the Federal government has authority on an issue, does not negate that states also have authority on an issue. The states on those issue simply cannot contradict the Federal government unless they remove themselves from the Union. The states can have their own immigration enforcement rules and regulations, provided they do not contradict the Federal regulations or any other Constitutional obligations.

Unless the federal government has not been given the constitutional authority on the issue, but decided to take it upon it's self to grab that authority.

[oyarde]

The Gov. of the state is responsible to act and protect the citizens of that state.The states could enlist a militia outside of the Guard and use them to control the border.

[nate895]

Marines are under Navy control , Marines and Navy have aircraft.Air Force was part of Army I believe until recent past.

Depends on what you mean by "recent past," (the AF has existed for more than half of the time planes have been flying), but yes. The reason why I drew the comparison is because the reason for having a permanent Air Force is the same as for having a permanent Navy: You cannot build one practically overnight like you can an Army. An Air Force and Navy take several months to get any sort of fighting capabilities at all, and several years to be able to have their maximum effectiveness. An Army can be up to maximum effectiveness in a matter of a few months if we already have a well-trained and regulated militia, and only a week or two to be able to put up a tough resistance to an invader. The only thing in the Army that you can argue would take a while to build up is the Tank and Helicopter Corps, but those take far less time to build up than Navies or Air Forces.

[nate895]

Unless the federal government has not been given the constitutional authority on the issue, but decided to take it upon it's self to grab that authority.

I said that the Federal government needed authority. That is one proof of the superiority of the states in our system of government: The Feds need proper delegated power for everything they do from the states, but just because the Feds have proper authority does not necessarily void any state regulation of an issue.

[libertybrewcity]

Obama is an idiot. What is he going to do about it, sue every state?

[oyarde]

What I really meant was that Marines are Constitutional as they are part of the Navy and that our aircraft were Constitutional at inception as part of the Army.I agree with what you posted . I do think I would prefer to engage the enemy with a soldier that had more than a few weeks or months training though.

[farrar]

This section is where responsibility for defense , prevention of invasion is.If the border were secure would there be any immigration problem ?

Sorry, I meant to specify, Article 1, Section 8, clause 4.

The more I think about it, the more I begin to believe that maybe my issue with immigration law, is its inherent roots in authoritarian socialistic ideology. If we had no minimum wage or welfare programs for foriegners to leech on, then immigration would be an issue of:
Are you healthy? check
Are you a member of a foriegn militia? No?... good.

And that would be it. Or in other words, Immigration law wouldn't really exist, only national defense against foriegn threat or national emergency, which is a federal and state co-op issue.

And in such a case, I would feel comfortable leaving the issue of funneling in immigrants, to the recieving states. (If the individual states want to be sure your not bringing the plague with you, or your not gonna storm the capitol as a member of a foriegn army then that makes sense)

However at the same time, what if arizona does health checks and texas doesn't? then an immigrant who has "the plague" could enter through texas and move into arizona bypassing their system and their assumed rights. In which case, maybe such laws should remain with the Federal Government, and the states be responisible for how they enforce them. As I previously mentioned. Of course, the fed could stick with the texas model, and infringe on arizona rights....

hmmm... The states rights would likely work best, and allow for the best state model to ultimatly prevail and be adopted by others.

What do you all think?

[Dr.3D]

I said that the Federal government needed authority. That is one proof of the superiority of the states in our system of government: The Feds need proper delegated power for everything they do from the states, but just because the Feds have proper authority does not necessarily void any state regulation of an issue.

Exactly, I so far, I don't see where the federal government has been given constitutional authority to regulate immigration. (patrol the border)

If the state requests the federal government to regulate immigration, I can see how the federal government would have the authority to do so. This is where the 10th amendment comes into play.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

[oyarde]

I still think there would be few problems if the border was secure.How it is done is not relevent.The border states should be acting themselves.

[Dr.3D]

I still think there would be few problems if the border was secure.How it is done is not relevent.The border states should be acting themselves.
That is also my view.

[thehunter]

On a curious sidenote, some provinces in Canada have asked its federal government for a say in who is allowed to immigrate into provincial territory. Particularly, Quebec (which has always been paranoid about its society being assimilated by the immigrants nee English nee Indians) and Ontario (which houses Toronto, the city where over 50% of Canadian immigrants end up) began a diplomatic campaign a few years ago along these lines and so far, they might end up with such control sooner than Arizona will.

Now, I realize it's no small understatement to say that the US and Canadian constitutions are different beasts, but on the level of separation of powers, they are similar enough to draw a contrast -- Canada has had its own continuing debate over the role & powers of the federal government but seems to have more momentum at this stage towards open federalism or a looser coalition than the US is.

Just thought this was worth sharing!:)

[farrar]

I still think there would be few problems if the border was secure.How it is done is not relevent.The border states should be acting themselves.

I don't know if I appeared to disagree with this, but I don't. I am merely alluding to the idea that say, in the case of mexico, where 0 immigrants are allowed a year minus the ones who have connections, we ultimatly give them no other option but to come here illegaly. While that may be no excuse, I see the branding of so many people as criminals who often come here in search of a living through hard work, to be an issue more of policy than of security of the border. While securing the border is obviously an important step the best thing we could do is larely what this site is about. Create a healthy capitolistic government with strong civil liberties, so that our current government doesn't need to put a cap on immigration in order to sustain itself as a welfare state and crumble to pieces.

But yes, obviously our best bet right now is border security and to quit granting easy citizenship and amnesty. I like to dream though. :D

[oyarde]

What ways are there to put the violent cartels out of business ? I think I would try a one year moratorium on all drug laws in the mainland states.I think this would be enough to drive down demand for the cartels products.There would be enough weed grown in Appalacia to take care of current demand East of the Mississippi.

[heavenlyboy34]

That's what the Federal government is and does...

I agree with Obama on this one, immigration into the United States is a federal issue and should be handled by Washington. Start by repealing the 1st part of the 14th Amendment allowing for birth-right citizenship, then work your way from there.

Au contraire. According to the Constitution and its authors, the States are well within their rights to pass a "patchwork" of laws and to nullify unjust federal laws.

[Carson]

Yeah, I see a lot of people claiming there is something in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate immigration. I just wish they would point it out so I can be informed as to where it is.


It surely can't be here.


The Constitution of the United States of America

Article IV

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.


This has gone so far that it should be clear to most of you it doesn't matter who you vote into office OR what laws are passed.

This is the New World Order and they are going to continue to do as they damned well please.


Your dog wants its republican form of government back!

[Dr.3D]

It surely can't be here.


The Constitution of the United States of America

Article IV

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.


This has gone so far that it should be clear to most of you it doesn't matter who you vote into office OR what laws are passed.

This is the New World Order and they are going to continue to do as they damned well please.


Your dog wants its republican form of government back!

Now just convince the federal government that our country is being invaded.

Or an alternative is for the states to sue the federal government for not enforcing it's constitutional obligations. :)

[oyarde]

I do not know about the Southern border states , but some states have organized militias that could be asked to help with security until the state formed its own militia.

[oyarde]

Of course if we had annexed Mexico at the end of the war when we were occupying the country we would not have these problems today.That Guatemalen border is small enough that it could be guarded with one US Army or Marine Division.

[libertybrewcity]

I still think there would be few problems if the border was secure.How it is done is not relevent.The border states should be acting themselves.

I am wondering why Texas doesn't build a wall themselves, or AZ and NM.

California's probably hopeless. But If there is along the Southern border it could funnel everyone into California and maybe they would stay there.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

To me, it just seems from the overall perspective of the Constitution that the Federal government would have authority in the area. They have regulatory control over every other aspect of relations with foreign nations, trade, and ports of entry, and the clause about naturalization seems to indicate that the Founding Fathers intended for the Federal government to get to decide admittance to the union.

Admission to the union is not a geographical concept. The matter of allowing tourists and visitors is a matter that has always been left to states. The United States is not a monarchy with a King that has declared national borders. The United States is a system of federalism and jurisdiction with regards to the United States depends on the subject matter or objects at hand not geography. Admission to the union is citizenship not crossing an imaginary line.

Cite where the United States Border is defined.
Cite an 18th century definition of Rule
Cite how a rule has any necessary and proper police power
Cite an 18th century definition of Naturalization
Cite acts of Congress that establish geographical jurisdiction based on a United States border.

You do not advocate the Constitution. You advocate for the same living doctrine that allows Congress to redefine terms and abuse the Constitution.

[VBRonPaulFan]

It surely can't be here.


The Constitution of the United States of America

Article IV

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.


This has gone so far that it should be clear to most of you it doesn't matter who you vote into office OR what laws are passed.

This is the New World Order and they are going to continue to do as they damned well please.


Your dog wants its republican form of government back!

invasion != immigration

the motivation of the person is completely different in each circumstance. immigration is merely the process of someone migrating from one area to another. invasion is the process of someone migrating to a place with the motivation of military conquest for looting or conquering.

[fedup100]

This section is where responsibility for defense , prevention of invasion is.If the border were secure would there be any immigration problem ?

Well, while we're at it, read the part about giving aid and comfort to the enemy (invaders ). Treason is in there for sure.

How come we are only allowed to use the convenient parts of the Constitution.

You must not let state sovereignty be tinkered with under any circumstances. Surely we are under no illusions as to what the Muslim traitor in chief is trying to do.

Every state has a unique geographical location which would mean they all SHOULD have different measures as far as immigration and or defending their borders.

[pcosmar]

I hear several references to "militia" through this thread. A Valid Point,,but,

The Militia already exists..and in every state.
Local Defense/Security IS the providence of local militias.
It is Constitutional. Both in The US Constitution and most state constitutions.

Unfortunately, it has been neglected, and actively discouraged for many years.
It is attacked in the media and courts.
Has been de-clawed by Federal laws.

That sad FACT is that TPTB do not want the borders secured or defended.
They have another agenda entirely, and only give lip service to the issue.
:(

[John Taylor]

I hear several references to "militia" through this thread. A Valid Point,,but,

The Militia already exists..and in every state.
Local Defense/Security IS the providence of local militias.
It is Constitutional. Both in The US Constitution and most state constitutions.

Unfortunately, it has been neglected, and actively discouraged for many years.
It is attacked in the media and courts.
Has been de-clawed by Federal laws.

That sad FACT is that TPTB do not want the borders secured or defended.
They have another agenda entirely, and only give lip service to the issue.
:(

True... but states have let their militias deteriorate... it takes resources to organize and maintain units, and quite frankly, most politicians don't see any material benefit to the presence of a militia.

[pcosmar]

True... but states have let their militias deteriorate... it takes resources to organize and maintain units, and quite frankly, most politicians don't see any material benefit to the presence of a militia.

I disagree, All it would take is repealing the 1934 gun laws in entirety, as well as ALL later laws based on that travesty.
Then encouraging citizens to become involved rather that denigrating , discouraging and prosecuting them.
At that point all it would take is the Governors call, and the militia would respond.

As far as "most politicians". True. They see the people as a threat. to be managed.

[demolama]

State militias, which are under total control of their governor, do not exist anymore. The Dick Act of 1903 outlawed these forms of state protection to create the National Guard system, which is paid, trained, and provided for by the federal government. The governors can not use them for protection against any federal orders. See Alabama & Gov. George Wallas.

The new "militias" were set up so that they could be used for offensive tours outside of the U.S. border. Previously militias were meant for defensive purposes only. The men who took up arms to defend their home refused to go far from their families and especially refused to attack a sovereign country. See militias non-invasion of Canada in 1812 and Mexico in 1846.

[Slutter McGee]

Obama is my daddy.

[oyarde]

I agree that if the states asaked for help from citizens that the call would be answered.