Thread: Immigration law necessary

The new Arizona immigration law is admittedly extreme, immediately necessary, and ultimately constitutional.

The most common objection I hear is the charge of racism, and the next is that immigration is a federal responsibility. I think neither objection is valid, and Arizona should be allowed to implement its new law.

When I opine the law is constitutional, I simply assert that it appears so to me. The lawyers and politicians can do no more than give their individual opinions. We alike read the constitution through the filters of our political philosophies. Only the Supreme Court can make a final determination, and this is forthcoming.

The law is extreme indeed. None of the Arizona legislators have ever claimed it to be usual, normal, or routine. When introduced, it was exhaustively debated in its chambers as well as throughout the state. Added to this was sought after as well as unrequested advice and even pressure from all directions. Now is added the attack of no less than the president and his justice department. But Arizona has always known what is was doing, and they know precisely why.

No other state has ever attempted to enact such a heavy handed law on immigration. However, eleven states are actively considering such a law. A state shouldn’t need to make the effort or spend its money on federal law. But they do need to do this.

They need to do this, because the federal government — through several administrations of both parties — has just not done its job. It has failed to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants. It has failed to hunt for them after successful entry.

Most inexcusable of all, the feds have failed to pick up illegal immigrants of whom notified by local police. This has happened not just in all the southern border states, but states throughout the country. Local prosecutors have notified ICE, “We are releasing a person held for a crime we have decided not to prosecute, but we have established as fact the individual is in this country illegally. Please take custody as we release her.â€

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:

Section 9.

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.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitut ... i#section9

What is it about this clause that people are ignoring or failing to understand? Migration and imported labor as a states responsibility based on what they think proper to admit. No authority for migration or imported labor into the states was ever given the federal government under the US Constitution. Only the authority to prohibit it after the year 1808 and/or tax the states for each person so admitted.

What is the inflation adjusted value of $10 per person in 1789 today? $100,000? $1,000,000? The founding fathers knew the cost of migration and imported labor. Americans have always known the cost. It's why we've had laws and a Constitution dealing with this issue since the beginning of our nation, because everyone knows whether they abide it or not, that when we have more people than jobs, we bankrupt our nation and every entity and individual residing within it.

That's why the federal government had the right to both prohibit it and ta tax it, but not ever not even for a minute, did the Constitution authorize the federal government to bankrupt the United States by admitting and allowing immigration and the importation of foreign workers without the consent of the state legislatures of the states affected by it.