It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


State Constitutional POWER to enforce immigration laws.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:38 PM
I have been attempting to understand the powers allotted states in the immigration issue. I have come across a component of the Constitution that DIRECTLY addresses the issue that the STATES have MORE power than the federal government.

Let us take a look at a section of the Constitution, SHALL

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.

I do not know if this component has been addressed by Arizona, but I think I am going to send an email to all the states AG's that are attempting to pass illegal immigration laws.

All they have to do is create a ONE line law.

As of today, we the State of _________ hereby deny anymore immigrants that are NOT approved by the State of ________.

That is it, that is ALL it would take.

Directly FROM THE CONSITUTION of the united States of America.

That is all she wrote.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Tyrannyispeace]

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:17 PM
Okay, I am beginning to think that MAYBE I was wrong.

Was this in only regards to the states prior to the date given, or does it mean after also.

I may have read it wrong.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:09 PM
I am going to attempt one more time to get someone to address my supposition, am I wrong in my evaluation?

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:52 PM
Ah yes....Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 is what you bolded in the OP. I just had to look over the Constitution to see it for myself first...

Originally posted by Tyrannyispeace
Was this in only regards to the states prior to the date given, or does it mean after also.

No you weren't wrong: It does specifically say "prior to" that date. One of the primary Maxims of Law, both in writing & court precedence during trials states: "That which is not specifically included must be expressly excluded." In other words, it's the exact opposite of those advertisements for Prego Spaghetti Sauce...The ads say, "It's in there," but as far as the Law goes, "If it ain't there already, you can't put it in there."
In essence, the court judge must apply the law with the original intent of the lawmakers when they legislated it...There's to be no implications or conclusions drawn around the written law that are not already specified in it.

If the law, as written, is still ambiguous or too difficult to understand, then it must be struck down. This is why so many cases are simply dismissed outright: The judge would rather dismiss the case instead of make an actual ruling that would nullify the law itself. In order to keep the "fund-raising" attributes of the courtroom as high as possible, it's better to let one case go & make future use of that law against a defendant that doesn't know any better!

Of course, another method of striking down a bad law is held by a Jury! Yes, a Jury is charged (but rarely, if ever, instructed) about their duty to judge both fact AND law in a case. There's long-standing & numerous historical precedences for this & it stands as a "Peoples' Check" against a corrupted judge.

Now to address your major estimation of your "proposal"...Yes, it could be legislated either as a Statutory Law enforcable within State Boundaries, but it would carry more weight if the State Legislature could properly ratify it as an Amendment to the State Constitution. Of course, exact wording may have to be altered a bit to also pay all due consideration to each individual State Constitution where this might be proposed. However, I think this will work nicely as a general format that can be edited to account for that:

"Whereas State Jurisdiction differs from United States Jurisdiction as defined under the 14th Amendment and furthermore limited to State Lands previously ceded to the United States according to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, federal enforcement of Immigration Laws is lawfully limited to specific United States Jurisdiction.

"Therefore, this State of _____ reserves the right to enforce State Immigration Laws upon all other Lands within State Boundaries, according to the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. This State of ______ hereby reserves the lawful right to deny residency to any unlawful immigrants currently within our State Boundaries and to deny employment, public school facilities and non-emergency public medical facilities to any unlawful immigrants who are not lawfully documented under the provisions of State and United States Immigration laws.

"The State Legislature shall hereby be empowered to create all laws and regulations necessary and within the Due Process to effect lawful and proper enforcement of Immigration Laws, including but not limited to, individual case evaluations."

I really should clarify the reasoning, logic & precedence of law that led to this "template." Yes, it's quite a bit longer than your "one-liner," but still a heck of a lot shorter than most proposals for legislation.

First, the only "sanctuary" an illegal immigrant can take is fleet feet to the nearest US Jurisdiction, such as military bases, forts, buildings that contain federal offices & such (as described in the Constitution), because if they make it, they'll be out of State Jurisdiction. I chose this specific wording to address the lawful boundaries of jurisdiction involved in this whole mess...And also to reaffirm these jurisdictional boundaries already within the Law. When dealing with any kind of LE officers or agents, jurisdiction makes all the difference in the world. Of course, as already said, each State has their own Constitution but they don't really differ too much from each other, because they also cannot directly conflict with the US Constitution. If you intend to use my "template" in your State, you'd be wise to read it & edit accordingly before you introduce it to your State Legislature...Chances are pretty good that they'll edit it a lot more before they even consider voting on it & that even depends upon how well your State Government adheres to both Constitutions (& Oaths of Office) involved.

Yes, State jurisdiction is different from United States jurisdiction...Just as Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 specifies that the States can cede land to the US Government, this means that official jurisdiction is changed. Just as the States are forbidden from interceding into the Powers delegated to the Feds, the US Government likewise have no lawful jurisdiction within State boundaries, unless the State has ceded specified lands to the United States.

The 10th Amendment also delegates a more widely varied range of Powers to the States than the whole of the Constitution grants to the US Government. If you have trouble wrapping your head around the idea of "different jurisdictions," you can see a pretty comprehensive explanation at the Supreme Law School website...Yes, it really is a Law School. At the home page, click on the Supreme Law Library, then select The Federal Zone: Authentic 11th Edition from the list & read through Chapter 3 (this link will take you directly there). The whole book, titled "The Federal Zone" shows how the laws are written & gives you an good idea how very limited the Feds are in their authority, but Chapter 3 explains the specifics of Jurisdiction.

It must also be pointed out that We the People first created our State governments, under specific "charters" that later became the State Constitutions...But the several States were empowered by We the People to create the "general" government! Don't be fooled by government propaganda that implies anything to the contrary of the actual law! You can also look up some videos at YouTube, under the search terms of "Judge Napolatano" or "Andrew Napolatano" to see how a former Judge looks at teh Constitution. You can also run a search for Law Dictionaries that may also help you to understand that "legal terms" have different definitions in comparison to the same words in common usage...This is very important, as these legal definitions further enforce the Maxim of Law I mentioned in my reply to your first quote, up above.

Forgive me if it seems a bit verbose, but I'm not a lawyer & this is my first attempt at writing for a law...I'm more experienced with writing about laws.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:24 AM
Historically, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 refers only to the international slave-trade: it prohibited Congress from interfering in the importation of slaves until 1808. On January 1st, 1808, Congress passed the "Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves" which ended the legal importation of slaves.

Other than this, I don't know that it has ever been interpreted or applied otherwise.

Personally I think Arizona, having decided to deal with illegal immigration, should have declared a state of invasion by Mexicans (and others) and promptly sued the federal government to uphold Article IV, Section 4, Clause 2, "Protection from invasion and domestic violence". This wouldn't be a states' rights issue as the Constitution clearly declares it a federal responsibility. The fact that the federal government refuses to take serious action should be evidence enough of its stance on immigration.

Note: I don't necessarily support immigration policy or specific efforts to enforce it, however the border must be brought under control before fair debate can begin.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:57 AM

Originally posted by EtSolveMundi
Personally I think Arizona, having decided to deal with illegal immigration, should have declared a state of invasion by Mexicans (and others) and promptly sued the federal government to uphold Article IV, Section 4, Clause 2, "Protection from invasion and domestic violence".

Yeah, I noticed that too, but I was writing a post in another thread at the time...Besides, I figured my post here was long enough already.

Originally posted by EtSolveMundi
Note: I don't necessarily support immigration policy or specific efforts to enforce it, however the border must be brought under control before fair debate can begin.

Same here...Arizona has already have to give up ground (literally) while the criminals in DC can only talk about changing the rules. First plug the holes in the dike, THEN work on the engineering to reinforce it.

Only a fool fights in a burning House...Or Senate. Unfortunately, there's over 500 fools there already.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]

top topics

log in