Thread: Federal Failure and Arizona

July 24, 2010

Federal Failure and Arizona

By Anthony W. Hager
12 Comments

Now that the federal government has formally filed suit to block Arizona's efforts to identify illegal aliens, the emotional rhetoric that has controlled the debate should take a backseat to reality. The Justice Department claims that Arizona has usurped the federal government's authority over immigration and naturalization (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sect. 8 ) and the Constitution's supremacy clause (Art. VI).

Odd how Washington becomes concerned with the constitutional delegation of authority only when federal power is challenged. There was little interest in the Constitution's assigned powers when Congress passed the health care bill. Constitutional authority isn't mentioned when card check is debated, or when Social Security and Medicare are discussed. However, despite its disdain for the document by which it is supposed to abide, the federal government seems to be on solid constitutional footing this time.

Congress has the authority to "establish an uniform rule of naturalization." The reason the Founders granted this power to Congress was to avoid conflicts and wars with neighboring nations. John Jay argued in Federalist No. 3 that border states, the ones most likely to be affected by immigration and border disputes, were inclined to act "under the impulse of sudden irritation." Therefore, national control of the international borders provided a greater opportunity for sustained peace.

Alexander Hamilton affirms Jay's testimony in Federalist No. 32. Hamilton contends, quite logically, that if each state enacts individual naturalization laws, then the "uniform rule" demanded in Article I, Section 8 is impossible. Thus, legislative authority over the borders, immigration, and naturalization belongs to the United States government. This power, being granted to the national government, is naturally denied to the states.

The United States is apparently correct in claiming authority over immigration law. Yet there are a few flies in the ointment that lend credence to Arizona's position. Foremost, Arizona hasn't enacted a law that regulates immigration or the naturalization process. What Arizona's legislature has done is authorize state and local agents to address federal crimes. This isn't unprecedented.

Sixty-three state and local jurisdictions, and seven in Arizona alone, currently deal with illegal immigrants via Immigration and Customs Enforcement's 287g program. State and local authorities are instrumental in identifying illegal aliens for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is proximity. Local police are likely to be the first officers at the scene of any violation. However, 287g is based upon ICE, a federal agency, authorizing local departments to enforce federal law. If 287g were the sole example of local authorities addressing federal crimes, the case might be closed. It's not. Rhode Island state police have been enforcing immigration law on the weight of Gov. Donald Carcieri's executive order since 2008.

For a national government to refuse to exercise an authority -- in this case, enforcing the borders -- amounts to abandonment. Nature abhors such a vacuum, so the United States' abdication of naturalization enforcement must be filled. Enter Arizona's immigration enforcement law. In fact, Arizona's action is in keeping with our nation's founding principles.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that when a government no longer meets the needs of the governed, it is open to alteration. Arizona's reaction is therefore mild. Instead of abolishing federal authority, or supplanting federal statutes, the state has upheld both in enforcing the existing national law.

States aren't obligated to tie their hands or turn their heads when Washington ignores its assignments. If that were the case, what would happen if Washington ignored its duties in other areas? Reconsider Article I, Section 8, which not only establishes the federal government's naturalization powers, but also compels Congress to "provide for the common defense ... of the United States."

If a foreign power were to invade one of the several states, the national government would be constitutionally responsible for repelling the invaders. Suppose Washington simply refused to deploy the armed forces to the besieged state? Would that state be constitutionally bound to accept the occupying force, since its defense is an established federal duty? Only the most naïve pacifist would accept such a proposition.

A state so occupied would be well within its right, and obligated to its citizens, to act against the occupiers. The same holds true when the invading force comprises not military personal, but illegal aliens.

Washington's wink-and-nod approach to immigration is a losing position whether or not Arizona successfully defends its immigration enforcement statute. A federal victory will create a tsunami of resentment towards the national government. Congress will then be compelled -- this being an election year -- to reluctantly consider the best interests of the people and the states in regard to action on illegal aliens. An Arizona victory affirms a state's right to act in its own interest in areas not delegated to Congress, or in areas where Congress has neglected its constitutional charge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/ ... izona.html

many links on this post; go to the link above if you wish to view them

I don't think that the Federal Government has just "failed", I think it has been complicit with Mexico at the expense of U.S. citizens.

I think that they just turn their heads and let it all happen, then there will be a crisis and they will get what they want, whatever the actual agenda is. Napolitano's tune changed when she became part of the "club".

How many U.S. citizens have been killed by illegal aliens, that our government has allowed to be here, in the past 10 years?

I know it's just semantics, but when I think "failure" I assume an effort has been made and been unsuccessful. This government has chosen to ignore the enforcement federal law, in furtherance of a global government, at the expense of the American people.

The federal government has no federal authority over immigration in the US Constitution EXCEPT to prohibit it and protect our states from foreign invasions. That is the extent of it. Any other authority must be granted by Congress and approved by the state legislatures affected by it. While Congress through legislation has given enormous power to the federal government to admit legal immigrants, unconstitutionally without approval of the states affected by it I might add, it has given the federal government NO AUTHORITY whatsoever to aid, abet or harbor illegal aliens. No such authority for the federal government has ever been legislated and no such authority rests with the federal government. States and counties and cities have every right under the Constitution to arrest any criminal or lawbreaker present in their jurisdiction, whether the is a county or city ordinance, a state law and most definitely a federal law.

Neither the supremacy clause nor the naturalization clause have a damn thing to do with illegal immigration or immigration for that matter, and the Constitution is absolutely clear in Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 that the states determine migration and importation of labor as they seem fit to admit until 1808 after which the federal government may prohibit it, but not anywhere in the US Constitution is the federal government authorized to admit any immigrant or worker to the United States without the consent of the legislatures of states affected by it.

I don't know who the author of this article is, but he better put his Federalist Papers away, pull out the Constitution document itself, take a long slow read of it in the plain meanings of its actual terms and do so before he spouts off in an article and misleads our nation confusing rules of naturalization for US citizenship with immigration and the supremacy clause regarding international treaties with illegal immigration.

US Constitution
Article 1
Section 9
Clause 1

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

That's it. That's all there is. And it could not be more clear to anyone with 2 live brain cells still connected. There is no authority under the US Constitution for the Congress to "admit" a soul, not 1 migrant, not 1 laborer without the consent of the authority of the state legislatures affected by the migration or the imported labor.

Period.