It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).
Originally posted by muse7
Immigration is a FEDERAL ISSUE. If states can make Police officers enforce immigration which is a federal issue, what's stopping them from also asking you if you filed your tax returns on time?
If each state had it's own immigration laws then it would funnel illegal immigrants into another state and the problem would just get worse and worse.
Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1
But ultimitaly the issue of immigration is a federal issue. If other states were to pass laws like arizona's they would be taken to the supreme court and ultimately shot down like most of SB1070.
The United States of America would be the owners of the actual land, no? I'm purely guessing on this, no evidence (i.e. too tired to look it up ). So it wouldn't work with that respect.
Originally posted by boomer135
Since your disturbed by the ruling, are you saying that your ok with police officers being able to pull somebody over because they "think" they might be illegal? Seems a bit like profiling to me. Why didn't other states do the same thing? Such as Minnesota? They could pull over people they "think" are Canadian and are here illegally. Oh wait, Mexican's are a different color. RACIAL PROFILING IS WRONG!!!!
I like the fact that Arizona tried to do this on their own, but it's not their job. It's the job of the federal government to deal with immigration and they are doing a piss poor job of it. But this law in Arizona wasn't the answer. It's just a way to legally profile someone based on the color of their skin. That's all.
Originally posted by OmegaLogos
So with the military in the way its just not going to work the way I originally invisioned! :shk:
But I will still keep looking for a work around!
35. Actions by illegal aliens prohibited
Section 35. A person who is present in this state in violation of federal immigration law related to improper entry by an alien shall not be awarded punitive damages in any action in any court in this state.