Constitutional arguments against illegal immigration?

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Ok so for this topic, regardless of your views/opinions on illegal immigration or the idea of the Fed Gov being the authority on immigration and naturalization, could you make the argument to a pro-sanctuary stater that by their logic, a state could refuse to enforce having residents pay federal income tax?

After all, we can claim that our tax system is "broken", so a state theoretically could say they no longer want to enforce collecting federal income tax. Much in the same way pro illegal immigrants claim our immigration system is "broken." Does that work as an equivalent argument for states refusing to enforce federal immigration law, or is there a part I am missing?

[Swordsmyth]

Nullification is only valid when the law in question is unconstitutional.

[Raginfridus]

Its each state's responsibility to enforce their borders, per the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Unfortunately, with the 14th Amendment, we're citizens of the USA, not of our states, so repealing this conflicting amendment should be anybody's battle cry for and against the issue of immigration. AZ, Florida, Texas, NY, Cali... all the states' assemblies ought to determine how and who can be naturalized. That and ending the WOD are first priority, and where the effort needs spent 20 years ago, not on walls and ICE, unless the assemblies of each state determines the wall is necessary. That comes after.

[Sonny Tufts]

could you make the argument to a pro-sanctuary stater that by their logic, a state could refuse to enforce having residents pay federal income tax?

I'm not sure how a state enforces the federal income tax other than withholding from the pay of state employees. But unlike the situation where the state refuses to aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws, a state that fails to withhold is personally liable for the tax that should have been withheld, so it's doubtful that a state would refuse to withhold.

In addition, sanctuary states like California get a lot of federal money, so they're not about to do anything to interfere with the goodie delivery.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

I'm not sure how a state enforces the federal income tax other than withholding from the pay of state employees. But unlike the situation where the state refuses to aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws, a state that fails to withhold is personally liable for the tax that should have been withheld, so it's doubtful that a state would refuse to withhold.

I see, thanks for your take

[fisharmor]

Nullification is only valid when the law in question is unconstitutional.

So in your view, does this statement apply to jury nullification? Your wording makes it sound as if there are no conditions.

In your view, who decides whether a law is constitutional?

If your statement applies to juries, then the juries can't be the entities deciding constitutionality, and this renders juries even more meaningless than they currently are.

[Superfluous Man]

Ok so for this topic, regardless of your views/opinions on illegal immigration or the idea of the Fed Gov being the authority on immigration and naturalization, could you make the argument to a pro-sanctuary stater that by their logic, a state could refuse to enforce having residents pay federal income tax?

After all, we can claim that our tax system is "broken", so a state theoretically could say they no longer want to enforce collecting federal income tax. Much in the same way pro illegal immigrants claim our immigration system is "broken." Does that work as an equivalent argument for states refusing to enforce federal immigration law, or is there a part I am missing?

Absolutely. In fact, states positively should do that.

Honestly, if states do enforce federal income tax laws right now, I didn't know that.

But I'll go even further and say that state governments should arrest and prosecute for extortion IRS agents who try to enforce federal income tax laws in their states.

[Superfluous Man]

Nullification is only valid when the law in question is unconstitutional.

So all a government has to do is have some unjust law written in some "constitution" and voila, suddenly justice itself bends to their whims?

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Absolutely. In fact, states positively should do that.

Honestly, if states do enforce federal income tax laws right now, I didn't know that.

But I'll go even further and say that state governments should arrest and prosecute for extortion IRS agents who try to enforce federal income tax laws in their states.

Disclaimer: I could be getting my info mixed up saying that states enforce federal income tax.

[Sonny Tufts]

But I'll go even further and say that state governments should arrest and prosecute for extortion IRS agents who try to enforce federal income tax laws in their states.

Who would you get to do this -- the same people who are enforcing the state income taxes?

[Swordsmyth]

So in your view, does this statement apply to jury nullification? Your wording makes it sound as if there are no conditions.

In your view, who decides whether a law is constitutional?

If your statement applies to juries, then the juries can't be the entities deciding constitutionality, and this renders juries even more meaningless than they currently are.

State nullification is the topic and if a jury determines a law is unconstitutional then nullification of that law would be valid according to the principle I stated.

[Swordsmyth]

So all a government has to do is have some unjust law written in some "constitution" and voila, suddenly justice itself bends to their whims?

If a law is constitutional and unjust then secession is the correct remedy if the constitution can't be altered.

[Superfluous Man]

If a law is constitutional and unjust then secession is the correct remedy if the constitution can't be altered.

Secession is certainly a correct remedy. Other correct courses of action include refusal to enforce the law and various means of impeding its enforcement by those who do.

[Swordsmyth]

Secession is certainly a correct remedy. Other correct courses of action include refusal to enforce the law and various means of impeding its enforcement by those who do.

Which would constitute rebellion and secession.

[Superfluous Man]

Which would constitute rebellion and secession.

It would constitute rebellion, as would any deliberate disobedience of anyone. But the things I said could be done, and are done on a daily basis by millions of people, without secession.

[Swordsmyth]

It would constitute rebellion, as would any deliberate disobedience of anyone. But the things I said could be done, and are done on a daily basis by millions of people, without secession.

If a state did them it would be secession.

[Superfluous Man]

If a state did them it would be secession.

Except all the times states have done those things without seceding.

[Swordsmyth]

Except all the times states have done those things without seceding.

It was secession if the laws were constitutional, the states may have wanted to have their cake and eat it too and the rest of the country may have let them but they were seceding and they should have been expelled if they weren't forced to follow the law.

[Superfluous Man]

they should have been expelled if they weren't forced to follow the law.

Is that supposed to be a punishment?

[Swordsmyth]

Is that supposed to be a punishment?

Not necessarily, it is just logic, if you don't follow the rules you can't be part of the group, if you prefer to be independent then good luck to you, depending on the law in question you might be better off if it was constitutional and unjust.

[Superfluous Man]

Not necessarily, it is just logic, if you don't follow the rules you can't be part of the group, if you prefer to be independent then good luck to you, depending on the law in question you might be better off if it was constitutional and unjust.

You say "logic." But what it really is is just you making up your own rules, which is ironic, since you seem to think you're talking about something that's in the Constitution somewhere.

[RonZeplin]

There is a constitutional mandate for the fed gov to protect the States against invasion.

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.

[Swordsmyth]

You say "logic." But what it really is is just you making up your own rules, which is ironic, since you seem to think you're talking about something that's in the Constitution somewhere.

It isn't in the Constitution because it is more basic than the Constitution, the group has a natural right to expel members who don't obey the rules just as members who don't like the rules have a natural right to secede, that was the south's position before the war between the states and the only alternative is to say that the group is indivisible and the members can be forced to follow rules they don't like, any other position would make the rules and the group meaningless.

[Swordsmyth]

There is a constitutional mandate for the fed gov to protect the States against invasion.

Yes but the OP is not discussing that in this thread, I discussed it in this one:
Article 1 Section 9

[fisharmor]

If a law is constitutional and unjust then secession is the correct remedy if the constitution can't be altered.

How is secession anything but State nullification?

[Swordsmyth]

How is secession anything but State nullification?

It is the separation of the state from the union and all the benefits or drawbacks thereof.
Nullification leaves the state in the union while ignoring an unconstitutional law.

[fisharmor]

It is the separation of the state from the union and all the benefits or drawbacks thereof.
Nullification leaves the state in the union while ignoring an unconstitutional law.

So your position is that nullification is only nullification if it is less than the entirety of the law. Ifyou nullify the entire law that it's not nullification anymore...?

[Swordsmyth]

So your position is that nullification is only nullification if it is less than the entirety of the law. If you nullify the entire law that it's not nullification anymore...?

If you nullify the Constitution the union ceases to exist. (at least as far as you are concerned)