Immigration

Federal Immigration Raids in 'Sanctuary Cities' Have Conservatives Abandoning Federalism

Apparently, conservatives believe in states' rights, except when they don't.

|

The Trump administration is continuing its fight against those sanctuary cities in California and elsewhere that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities who seek to deport illegal immigrants. The term is vague, and policies vary, but these localities won't hand over these immigrants for deportation if they've been detained for low-level crimes.

The president blasted these places in his State of the Union address, and has supported various policies from withholding federal funds to allowing crime victims to sue jurisdictions that release illegal immigrants who later commit a crime. The former was halted by the courts and the latter is a proposal that is unlikely to pass the Democratic-controlled House.

The latest: The administration is sending SWAT-like teams of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents to cities including San Francisco, Boston and New Orleans to seek out illegal immigrants. Their argument is that if cities won't cooperate with deportations, then the federal government has little choice but to take a heavy-handed approach.

Local officials have pushed back. "We are not any safer if an entire segment of our population is afraid to report crimes to local law enforcement," noted Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva. As with all of these anti-illegal-immigration policies, the public gets to watch legislatures, bureaucrats and courts sort through this disputatious mess.

My Republican friends mostly want the feds to operate freely within the states, which turns a classic conservative principle on its head. The Right traditionally favored states' rights, as embodied in the Constitution's 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yes, I know immigration law is a federal prerogative, but it's more complicated than it seems. States have every right to place limits on the behavior of authorities under their command.  California, for instance, has passed three major—and constitutionally acceptable—laws that restrict local governments and private employers from cooperating with ICE.

Apparently, conservatives believe in states' rights, except when they don't. That's the mirror image of liberals, who oppose states' rights, except when they do. Please don't tell me that states don't have rights. Of course, they don't. They have powers. But "states' rights" is shorthand for federalism—a founding principle that protects our freedom by dividing government authority.

We don't want a dictator or a national government that simply imposes its will on us. We're supposed to be a self-governing people, who elect our own representatives. They govern—for good or ill, and mostly for ill in California—and within their lanes of authority. As a rule of thumb, states may govern as they choose unless they choose to intrude on our constitutional rights by, say, banning guns, restricting free speech or, as the Southern states had done, depriving an entire group of its civil rights.

In other words, California and its cities have every reason to limit the ability of the feds to round up people who are living (even illegally) within our state's boundaries. I like the concept of sanctuary cities, for reasons that the L.A. sheriff noted in his statement, even if I think some cities, such as San Francisco, go too far and put ideology ahead of public safety. But, as a matter of principle, it's a good thing—and a longstanding American tradition—when states resist federal intrusion.

I also believe ICE has the right to conduct its latest deployment under the doctrine of federalism. Nevertheless, it's a wrongheaded policy that undermines other American notions of liberty. In a free society, people shouldn't have to show their papers, submit to searches without a warrant, or fear having SWAT teams conduct no-knock raids. I'm much less worried about the presence of illegal immigrants than the presence of virtual standing armies.

"This War on Immigration isn't just swallowing up the liberties of immigrants," wrote Shikha Dalmia in a 2018 Reason article, "but also of … red-blooded Americans. Arizona … has created criminal squads to raid employers suspected of having undocumented workers in their employ." She noted that "border-town residents are forced to go through porter patrol checkpoints just to take their kids to the dentist."

I've seen similar actions in California. Do we want to live in this kind of society? Last week, I was shortly detained by police because I was taking photographs of a public structure from a public access road. It wasn't a big deal, but it bothered me that I was "asked" by an officer to show him my photographs.

I'm tired of the surveillance cameras, militarized police forces, checkpoints and all the other police-state nonsense that forces us to behave like sheep rather than free citizens. I'd love to live in a city that provided real sanctuary from endless government intrusions, whether they are imposed by local, state or federal governments.

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

Advertisement

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: February 28, 1966

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If someone not here legally is considered a ‘resident’ for census purposes, that impacts how many congressional seats and electoral college votes a state gets. If the law isn’t applied evenly, my vote is diluted by states that encourage lawbreaking.

    1. That, and I believe immigration and naturalization are actual Federal powers. CA cannot have its own tariffs or its own immigration laws.

      1. Naturalization is not immigration. They shouldn’t even be related, in my opinion.

        1. They aren’t. One is in the Constitution, the other isn’t. Talk about originalism — there were no immigration laws for the first 100 years.

          1. Didn’t that happen under Wilson? Now there was a freedom lover!

          2. How is that true? John Adams admin had the alien and sedition acts which were about deporting among other aspects.

            1. Which were struck down by the courts. You know, back when checks and balances actually worked.

              1. I thought Jefferson let some of them expire and other parts were incorporated into other law, some of which is still in effect today. Judicial review wasn’t really established until Madison vs Marbury.

                1. I could be wrong. Happens a lot.

                    1. But JesseSPAZ is ***NEVER*** wrong! Sarcasmic has at least SOME humility, as can be seen right here. JesseSPAZ has NONE! As regular readers have seen here from time to time… Jesse will make gross over-generalizations and LIES… Such as, the Trumptatorship outranks the USA Constitution, the Trumptatorship has unbounded or infinite powers, and that words cannot be crimes, only actions can be crimes. And Jesse NEVER admits ANY errors or over-statements when he writes these things! NO ONE can persuade Jesse of ANYTHING that Jesse doesn’t want to see! NONE are so blind, as those who refuse to see!

                      Sarcasmic vastly out-ranks Jesse for honesty, humility, and common human decency… New readers, be so informed…

                    2. Hey Squirrely, thanks for the kudos.

                      I’m glad Tulpa is now doing free advertising for me. Let’s people confirm what you just said all by themselves.

                    3. Wait, is Jesse Tulpa? I thought Tulpa was all those novelty accounts. You know, the ones that don’t actually say anything other than insults, empty threats, and suicide wishes?

              2. The Alien Enemies Act remains active. The others were repealed, expired, or had aspects incorporated into other laws.

                The first federal law that explicitly dealt with immigration was the Page Act in 1875.

                1. Thank you for the correction.

          3. They are both in the Constitution. Naturalization is in Article 1 Section 8. Immigration is in Article 1 Section 9.

            1. This is another reason to stick around here and post every once in awhile. unreason and folks like leo try to push a 100% false legal position to further their open border nonsense.

              As of 1808, Congress has the power to regulation immigration which power the states had up to that year.

              1. Look, it’s really simple. Principles only limit your enemies. That’s what principles are for. They don’t apply to conservative positions, because conservative positions are the correct ones. Do you understand now?

                1. Poor ChipperMW.

              2. LOL lc… Great you already beat me to it. IMMIGRATION control IS a Federal Job according to the U.S. Constitution thus it *IS* one of the very few areas which the Supremacy Clause is legitimately used.

                Then again; It is an International issue the very reason the Union of States was created.

                1. You sock trolls crack me up.

            2. What! You claim they are different sections, yet are not distinct?

              Good, keep on thinking like that.

              1. No. I showed that they are both in the Constitution where you claimed they weren’t.

            3. Section 9 doesn’t regulate immigration, it regulates the importation of slaves. And sunsetted by its terms in 1808.

              1. Slaves didnt “migrate”, they were imported.

                Free persons migrated and as of 1808, that was regulated by Congress. Its why we had Ellis and Angel Islands to handle non-American migrants entering the USA.

              2. 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.

                This is NOT a sunset provision in American English. Its a date where the enumerated power shifts from the states to Congress as of 1808.

          4. The first naturalization laws at a federal level were in 1790.

            Before the Act of March 26, 1790, naturalization was under the control of the individual states. This first federal activity established a uniform rule for naturalization by setting the residence requirement at 2 years.

            Claiming this hasnt been the accepted process since the start of the union is naive.

            1. And as far as Visas and immigration. Even Ellis island had requirements for both health and public charge.

              We also had states that allowed indentured servitude requirements on many of the immigrants. Also there was virtually no welfare through either states or the federal government. Pretending we need interior infill like the early 1800s is also silly.

          5. there were no immigration laws for the first 100 years.

            False, the Constitution specifically gave authority over immigration to the federal government. For the first hundred years the federal government *generally* deferred to the states on it, but that changed in the 19th century. But it was always a power reserved to the federal government and therefore it was always a law.

            1. As of 1808, Congress set immigration rules. Which is why we had Ellis Island for the East Coast immigration and Angel Island in the San Francisco bay.

          6. Laws about immigration are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Power” of being able “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. Whenever they decided to do it.
            Read all of Article 1, Section 8. That last portion is really important.
            Immigration laws are completely Constitutional.

        2. US Constitution, Article I, 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.

          Poor unreason. Always making shitty arguments about immigration regulation that are not supported by Article I of the US Constitution.

          1. I thought you were pretty strict with your interpretation of the Constitution, especially with “shall not be infringed” even though it wasn’t part of the 1789 Constitution.

            Prohibiting something until 1808 is not the same as authorizing it afterwards.

            Nice to have such a flexible mind. You should just come out and admit you like when your side has power.

            1. He cited the wrong section of Article I. The proper section states that the federal government can “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, which covers immigration as well as citizenship (since later in Section 8 it also reserves for the federal government the authority to “repel invasions”).

              His interpretation for his argument is just fine, even if he cited the incorrect section.

              1. Section 9, Clause 1 mentions migration AND importation. Free persons migrate, slaves were imported.

              2. No he only cites the incorrect section because I have accused him of promoting a living, breathing constitutional interpretation for reading “Naturalization” as “Immigration.” So he’s grasping at straws to protect his position as both a strict constitutionalist AND a rabid proponent of government regulating people moving around.

                He doesn’t realize the humor in him citing slave trade regulation to support his position.

                It’s like when “interstate commerce” is the same as any and all commerce, and he bemoans that.

                1. Slaves don’t migrate though, they’re imported. So if that is the actual language used, it would seem that the section does give power to the states until 1808.

                  1. And restrictions on powers don’t enumerate powers.

                    If the founders wanted this power enumerated, they would have included it in section 8. Like nearly everything related to the slave trade at the time, it was a compromise to get 13 colonies to ratify the Constitution.

                    1. Hahaha. Leo is super stupid.

                      All the enumerated power congress has are only in section 8 of article I.

                      I mean jesus. Leo is a trainereck for unreason.

                2. “AND a rabid proponent of government regulating people moving around”.

                  Nope. Just moving in. Without asking. Like every other country on the planet does. But we are not supposed to, cuz hey, it’s 1885 and we got a half empty continent to fill, dag nabit!

                  Haha.

                  1. Just moving in. Without asking.

                    They must have asked the person who offered them a place to rent. They must have asked the person who offered them a job. Who else should they have to ask, 50%+1 of the citizens?

                    1. “Who else should they have to ask”? Really?

                      Who should I have to ask to move to Mexico? Or France?

                      You’re right tho. Punishment for people who rent to or employ people in the country illegally would help to clear up the confusion, since they are not in any position to grant visas or green cards. I like where you’re going with this!

                      Haha

          2. You know that you piss off unreason staff when multiple trolls are sent to attack.

            1. They’re not getting their money’s worth from Sqrlsy, Kirkland and Hihn.

          3. Actually, you’re citing the wrong section in Article I. The section dealing with immigration is Section VIII, not IX. IX is referring to importation in the slave trade.

            1. It discusses free persons AND slaves. Slave were imported not allowed to migrate like free persons. Property is bought and sold, not allowed to go wherever it wants.

              Americans Hogs are imported into China. American hogs dont “migrate” to China.

              1. If Congress can regulate migration of free persons, then can they pass laws that forbid you, LC1789, from crossing state lines? If not, why not?

                1. Hahha. Poor leo. Unreason is off the rails after getting smacked down.

                2. The day that my federal taxes don’t get sent to these sanctuary cities/states (and that includes food stamps, education, etc) and the day that the “open border” states’ votes are deemed invalid in my presidents’ elections, is the day I won’t oppose the “rights” of sanctuary cities.

            2. Section 9 covers both importation and migration.

          4. US Constitution, Article I, Section 9:
            The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, …

            Isn’t it fun the way the hacks complaining about federalism are denying the straightforward meaning of “migration”?

            Also, the Constitution *obligates* the federal government to prevent 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”

            *shall* protect
            #BuildTheWall

        3. I won’t disagree that they should be considered separate, but If we are going to have immigration controls, they would have to be Federal.

        4. You cannot have standards of naturalization if you do not have standards of immigration. Also, the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to regulate migration of people.

          1. Also, the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to regulate migration of people.

            Can they pass a law forbidding you from crossing state lines?

            1. No more or less than states can pass a law permitting you to cross national borders.

            2. Migration of citizens between the several states is different than migration of non citizens into the US.

              We don’t do ourselves or our position any favors if we resort to stupid questions like that.

              1. Of course they can’t regulate it, nor did the founders ever intend for it. That’s the point of the question. Everyone knows that A1S9C1 was intended for the slave trade and is irrelevant to this discussion. I’m just trying to illustrate that point.

              2. Poor leo. He was sent in to support unreason no matter what and his ship is sinking.

                Article I, section 9, clause never used the word slaves. I wonder how that happened.

        5. It’s part of immigration. Just stop with that bullshit. That’s Chemjeff levels of sophist bullshit

        6. US Constitution, Article I, 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.

          It’s well after 1808. Feds have explicit constitutional authority to limit migration.

          1. The Constitution *obligates* the federal government to prevent 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”

            *shall* protect
            #BuildTheWall

            1. There was also a Supreme Court decision in the 1800s establishing that yes, the federal government controlled migration and immigration, but I can’t find it right now.

              If someone who knows sees this, please reply with a citation.

              1. Here it is!

                Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 705 (1893).
                “‘accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions.’”

                Sorry, but The Founders were not anarchocapitalists. States have borders. It’s the right and responsibility of a State to defend those borders.

      2. You are correct Ra’s al Gore state gave up their power to regulate immigrants as of 1808.

    2. You are absolutely correct and Democrats know this and use it trying to get votes. I do not trust the FBI any longer and I am a retired Police Officer. But no state law should over rule a Federal Law that protects all of America in every state and these Sanctuary cites definately affect every American Citizen in adverse ways.

    3. Not only do they dilute your vote, they undermine your wage or take your jobs.
      As a contractor, I can not compete with someone who pays less to non citizens who is getting subsidized housing, free medical, schooling and food.

    4. It is interesting to read the comments of those who support the illegal alien invasion. Claims that border security is not a Federal responsibility are spouting illogical nonsense. Sanctuary cities harboring and protecting them are advocating nullification of Federal law.

      By their logic, Poncho Villa should have been able to claim some sort of migrant status and operate his forces without Federal forces confronting him. The drug cartels being protected are doing that now – MS-13 for example. The Mexican cartels are now strong enough to win military encounters with Mexican military. how long before they just take over many US towns?

  2. As my favorite libertarian writer Shikha Dalmia has noted, enforcing a national border is morally comparable to enforcing fugitive slave laws. The good news is we’re less than a year away from 100% open borders. That’s because a Democratic candidate will win in November, and in January will immediately begin implementing Charles Koch’s immigration agenda.

    #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders
    #ImmigrationAboveAll

    1. DRINK!
      Is that you Bernie?
      https://youtu.be/vf-k6qOfXz0?t=24

    2. Sooner or Later, when that happens, it will be the end of the United States of America as we have known it.
      First when the corrupt Socialist Democrat Establishment Elite do gain absolute power, it will cause a World Wide Depression probably followed by a World Wide War.
      They would have us give up our sovereignty, join the NWO, and become the slaves of the Anti-Christ.
      A period of Tribulation will follow and only the return of Christ can save the World

  3. We should encourage more states using their powers to protect individual liberty.

    I suspect the debate would be completely reversed if there were a federal assault rifle ban and states didn’t allow the feds to enforce it within their borders. Or if there were federal hate speech laws and a state protected the free speech rights of the people within its borders.

    Individual rights uber alles. The states and localities have just as much responsibility to their people to protect their rights as any level of government.

    1. Can CA unilaterally declare someone a US citizen, or is that sort of thing explicitly a Federal power?

      1. Explicitly a Federal power. Naturalization and immigration are different things.

        1. No. That is an exercise in sophistry, which no serious person in this debate is going to accept.

          1. No, Leo’s right. Immigration laws regulate who can come over and under what circumstances. Naturalization laws regulate the process of becoming citizens, and who can become so.

            1. Leo’s trying to ignore that Congress has the power to regulate immigration as of 1808 (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1).

            2. He is in a tin foil hat theory area here, like the federal income tax can be ignored because it is illegal

              Even if someone buys that argument (which is based on a dubious word parsing to begin with), no court is going to rule the federal government has no jurisdiction to regulate and enforce immigration law because legal precedent has accepted that it does for so long.

              1. Amendment XVI
                The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

                The US Constitution was amended to allow federal income tax. It’s legal now, whether it was legal before or not.

                1. Yeah, the argument typically isn’t that they can’t levy a tax on income, but rather that you don’t have any “income” to pay a tax on, because you’re being paid in fiat currency, not gold or silver, and the US Constitution doesn’t permit fiat currency.

                  1. I have seen a version th sf t the income tax Amendment was improperly passed the whole thing is invalid. In any case, it s a theory that no federal court is going to buy into.

                    1. I would be up for this argument but it appears that 36 states ratified the 16A between 1909 and 1913, thereby making this a constitutional Amendment to tax income without apportionment.

                  2. Well, that might hold water if we were required to pay our taxes in gold or silver

                  3. Anyone I’ve ever know. That believed in that argument was the worst kind of scumbag.

                    1. Well, it’s a stupid argument.

                      Not because there isn’t a good argument that the federal government violated the Constitution when it went off the gold standard. THAT is pretty reasonable.

                      Because they expect that it would matter to judges who draw a federal salary. Really, like the government actually CARES if something is constitutional!

        2. US Constitution, Article I, 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.

          Leo is a liar without citations.

          1. This is the second time you’ve posted this in this. You do know that this refers to slaves, correct?
            However, you’re partially correct that the Constitution does allow Congress to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article I section 8). The first naturalization laws were created in 1790.

            1. Is residency one of the factors in naturalization or not. This is a hand waive of an argument you’ve presented.

              1. To clairfy… doesnt uniform naturalization rules require a uniform definition if requirements? Can a state modify what counts for residency? Or is residency required to also be uniform among the states? That is why this argument you’ve offered is sophistry.

                1. Naturalization requires uniform rules. Regulation of immigration does not. It’s partly how Trump can deny entry for migrants from countries like Iran.

                  1. Regulation of immigration is also accounted for in Section 8 with the “repel invasions” portion, which is also granted to the federal government.

                    People flooding across the border without regard for the laws of the land qualifies as an invasion under any reasonable interpretation.

                    1. That too.

                      Open border people’s only reasonable argument is that the USA should in their opinion have open borders. It’s an opinion and that opinion is a minority opinion, so it convinces few.

                      The federal government has numerous enumerated powers to control entry and repel undesirable. Americans overwhelmingly support border security at some level.

            2. Slaves involved the importation part of that Clause.

              Migrants are still regulated. Slavery has been outlawed except for prisoners.

              Slaves could have a tax or duty levied on the importation by Congress (as of 1808) but not to exceed $10 per person.

              1. We are now discussing the part of that Clause that still related tot he Congressional power to regulate migrants (immigrants) as of 1808.

                Plus, Congress has the enumerated power to regulate Naturalization.

                Plus, Congress has the enumerated powers to protect against invasion and regulate for the Common Defense.

                Open border really are desperate when they try to say Congress has no power to regulate immigration. It’s a bold face lie. Goes to show that they are not convincing Americans of open borders based on their argument that “we should just do it” or “borders aren’t real”.

    2. States don’t use their powers to protect individual liberties, they use their power to usurp individual liberties for their own purposes.

      There is little difference between state and federal governments. Both have usurped individual liberties far beyond what created the Declaration of Independence.

      1. I don’t disagree with your assessment of reality. But what is certainly isn’t what should be.

        The one or two times that states get it right, even if by chance, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t support it. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not naive to think that sanctuary states or cities care one iota about individual liberty. This is certainly about political expediency. But that doesn’t make it wrong on principle.

        1. I agree with that. The Framers idea of pitting power against power was insufficiently cynical; almost laughable how they thought Congress and the President and the courts would work against each other well enough to keep government as a whole in check. The 17th amendment (? — the one which made Senators popularly elected) didn’t really change much, because legislative elections were all attuned to the federal stage anyway. The better fix would be to allow individuals to bring suit to overturn federal (and state) laws, but that boat hasn’t got a chance in hell of even getting a keel laid, let alone sailing.

          1. They’d need an entire court system for triage of those lawsuits. I’d bring a few myself.

        2. US Constitution, Article I, 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.

          1. Curious, does this mean the feds can charge the illegal immigrants, or more likely, the individual state for each illegal immigrant?

            1. Only importation can result in a tax or duty. Only slaves were imported.

              Migration of free persons could not be taxed under this Clause.

              The Founders from the South didn’t want their slaves to be taxed into being prohibitively expensive in order to get rid of slavery.

              1. Constitutionally, what constitutes “importation?” Only “goods?” “Goods” and “Services?” Can you “import” a non-chattel person?

                1. We use the term immigration for non-chattel persons entering the USA now. The Founders used “migrants”. We use “migrants” pretty interchangeably with emigrant and immigrant. Temporary farm workers that are non-American tend to get called “migrants” too.

              2. Have you read the Democrats The New Way Forward Act? They will actually be importing people if they have a wave election

          2. Spokane is a self declared ‘sanctuary city’. I should call the Ehite a house and see if they can refer me to a deputization program so I can arrest the scumbags on my city council that are participating in this lawless enterprise.

    3. There are already 2A Sanctuary cities/counties in places where the police/sheriffs have vowed not to enforce gun control laws they feel infringe on the RTKBA.

      I know – “But that’s different! RTKBA is a constitutionally-protected right!” Has the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the state laws? No it has not, unless and until the Supreme Court strikes down the state laws, federalism, motherfuckers. There’s a principle involved here – it’s called interposition and nullification and while James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would agree with the principle, Abraham Lincoln put a bullet through that one’s head.

      1. And that’s their right to disagree and argue. These are mostly against state laws where they feel that the laws are overly restrictive or outright unconstitutional (in which case, it’s their duty to not enforce the illegal law). In the case of it being legal but overly restrictive, the argument is to practicality. Attempting to seize the guns of ordinary citizens risks violence unnecessarily. Risking death for no gain is immoral.

        However, while you can argue practicality in the case of illegal immigration, the blanket claim that the enforcement of immigration laws is unconstitutional or immoral is simply not rational.

        1. Article I, Section 9 gives the federal government the power to regulate immigrants as of 1808. States gave up that power.

        2. Argument of Sanctuary Cities: “We are not any safer if an entire segment of our population is afraid to report crimes to local law enforcement,” is flawed when they release known criminals to prey on the people they were sworn to protect.
          Is the entire segment of our population illegal aliens?
          Enforcing immigration law is moral and rational,

    4. Which amendment to the constitution provides free Visas to the world?

      1. The Reason amendment, of course.

        1. Its called the unreason Amendment for obvious reasons.

  4. In a free society, people shouldn’t have to show their papers, submit to searches without a warrant, or fear having SWAT teams conduct no-knock raids. I’m much less worried about the presence of illegal immigrants than the presence of virtual standing armies.

    Yeah, well, that ship has sailed. Virtual standing armies are here to stay. So we may as well use them to round up foreigners who dared to cross lines on a map without permission, or who allowed their permission to expire. After all, this is America! The land of the Free to Ask Permission and Obey Commands!

    1. Idiot.

      1. Retard who doesn’t understand that sarcasm is part of my name.

        1. You wouldn’t know sarcasm if it fucked your mom in the ass. But I bet you’d still watch, wouldn’t you? You little fucking twat.

          1. Sage words of wisdom. Very eloquent.

            1. It’s what you deserve. And certainly no better.

              You know, we spoil you here.

      2. “Derp! Derp! Look at me! I call people names when I don’t understand what they’re saying! That makes me smart! Derp! Derp!”

        1. Says the idiot calling the retard by name 🙂

          1. *hangs head in shame*

            1. You should be ashamed. And it’s not that anything you say is difficult to understand. It’s that what you say is stupid.

        2. You actually do that a lot. Really not one to mock others.

          1. I very rarely just call someone a name and leave it at that.

    2. “In a free society….” – I guess this also explains why we don’t hear much condemnation of China beyond their oppression of the Religion Of Peace™ adherents, they’re not a free society. Is there no Transgendered-Chinese community being oppressively wrong-gendered? Maybe we should start one up, see how fast we can get a BDS China movement going.

      As long as Trump keeps his fat mouth shut and doesn’t let on he supports such a thing, we could probably get something up and running in like a week. Oh, who am I kidding? Trump is constitutionally incapable of keeping his fat mouth shut – he likes to stick his feet in there because every time he takes them out he steps on his dick.

      1. Do you serve dressing with your word salad?

  5. Yes, as the article points out, “sanctuary city” is a VERY loose term. In my small hometown (Bungabuggabong, New Guatemala, a gringo state SOOO small, most people don’t even know of it, sandwiched between New Mexico and Arid-Zona)… The city government, in the face of long lists of ICE excesses, has pass a new law (actually more so a resolution)…

    1) It shall not be a violation of any local laws, if you press an elevator button for a person w/o first asking for “papers please”. As a mere “resolution” (a recommendation only; no enactment of any local-government force), citizens and residents of Bungabuggabong are encouraged to remain civil to one another, w/o constantly asking one another for “papers please”.

    Is Bungabuggabong a “sanctuary city”?

  6. Whether they believe in state or federal rights is a minor quibble; both believe in government rights, and I don’t mean powers. Statists (including Trumpistas, who certainly are statists) do not believe in individual rights very much at all, except when their moral objections are too small to worry about at the moment and the financial gains are too small to worry about at the moment.

  7. I would note that what Mr. Greenhut is describing is not uncommon. We often see political parties supporting power in the level of government that they control. In Wisconsin it was often heard that Madison, the capital city, should not dictate counties and cities in the rest of the state. That changed when Republicans gained control of the Governor’s Office and the Legislature in 2010. Local governments were now expected to be subservient to the state. I am sure that the conservative attitudes about state authority will flip back when the President is a Democrat.

    1. That changed when Republicans gained control of the Governor’s Office and the Legislature in 2010. Local governments were now expected to be subservient to the state.

      Lincoln would approve.

    2. Except for things like trump trying to modify thinks like Medicaid to be block Grant’s, as an example. Or them being against ACA.

      So as long as we completely ignore you’re analysis you’re probably right.

    3. In Wisconsin it was often heard that Madison, the capital city, should not dictate counties and cities in the rest of the state.

      Because the extremely leftist Madison had been issuing diktats for decades.

      That changed when Republicans gained control of the Governor’s Office and the Legislature in 2010.

      Well, no, it didn’t. What changed is that the leftists no longer LIKED the diktats coming from Madison.

      And what, pray, was the purpose of those hated diktats?

      Undoing the decades of power centralization the leftists had put in place.

      1. Kind of like dems these days calling Trump an authoritarian for wanting to reduce the size and scope of the executive branch.

      2. Interesting idea but not what happened. When sanding mining started and small rural communities wanted local control over the mining, the Republican who controlled the Governor’s Office and Legislature decided the state was in better position to decide about mining. These are not issues of centralization of power but rather shifting power to where your party has control.

  8. I’m not sure a strict interpretation of federalism leads to the same conclusions as Greenhut.

    We’re so accustomed to worrying about the federal government stepping on the rights of states, but it’s entirely possible for the states to overstep their bounds, as well. If we’re talking about a power that is specifically enumerated to Congress, cries of “federalism” don’t justify the states usurping the power of the federal government. Meanwhile, the power to set the rules of naturalization is specifically enumerated to Congress in the same place as the power to declare war.

    If sanctuary states were to declare war on foreign countries or make treaties with foreign countries, they would be overstepping the boundaries of federalism. If sanctuary states or cities are right to defy the federal government on one of the federal government’s enumerated powers, it isn’t because of federalism. It’s because of something else.

    1. Naturalization is not the same thing as immigration. Try again.

      1. That’s a distinction without a difference. Because you disagree with Congress or the way the courts have interpreted the law doesn’t mean the Constitution gives the states the right to defy federal law on immigration.

        1. It doesn’t mean the states can declare war or enter into treaties with foreign countries in the name of federalism either.

        2. It’s pretty foolish to think that you can’t immigrate somewhere without naturalizing. That’s what the whole immigration debate is about, by the way.

          https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/2/andrew-napolitano-constitution-doesnt-give-governm/

          1. You seem to be confusing the way things should be with the way they are.

            I support entering into a treaty with Mexico that would allow Mexican citizens to cross the border without a visa–so long as they show an ID that we can use to verify that they aren’t convicted or wanted felons, etc. I support this because I believe it would be in the best interests of the United States both from an economic ans security perspective.

            But that’s about the way things should be.

            The way things are is that immigration laws are set by Congress, which means they’re subject to democracy. Furthermore, setting the rules of naturalization is within the proper purview of democracy because a free society can’t be free if it can be forced to accept taxes, fight wars, enter into treaties, or accept waves of immigrants against it’s will. One of the necessary implications of democracy within its proper purview is that the will of the people should be respected on these points–even when they’re wrong.

            That’s the way things are.

            When Napolitano is arguing for the way things should be, don’t imagine that’s the way things are. Within the proper purview od democracy, if you want things to be the way they should be, then you need to persuade your fellow Americans to change them, and trying to tell them that their opinion shouldn’t matter on an issue within the proper purview of democracy isn’t only, probably, the worst possible way to change their minds. It’s also being argued from a position of elitist authoritatianism.

            That’s the recipe for populism. Wanna see more Brexit, Trump, and populism? Keep doing what you’re doing.

          2. Is interactions between countries a state or federal power leo?

            1. What countries interact when a private citizen in America hires a private citizen from Mexico?

              1. USA and Mexico. But you live in a theoretical world. I suspect you’re quite cloistered. Based on your sophist arguments and complete lack of common sense you display.

                1. Why does the government need to be involved at all in that interaction, aside from… I guess… collecting taxes?

          3. Is border control a state or federal responsibility leo?

            1. He’s like Pedo Jeffy. A broken record of the same sophist arguments that have been made and discredited dozens of times over. Yet he persists.

              1. You mean I espouse the libertarian position on a libertarian website? Sorry to interrupt your right wing echo chamber. Please proceed.

                1. It’s really more of an anarchist position.

                  1. And its an anarchist website.

          4. You can immigrate without naturalizing, but something I never see anyone address is how the Constitution was very concerned with and aimed to resolve interstate conflict. If we are to assume that the Constitution was intended and written to suggest that States maintain sovereign borders and sole authority over who enters the country, this necessarily leads to civil war. How so? Because some states will not want to have certain immigrants, but also have, according to you, power to regulate migration. This means they can deploy a state militia at the border, deport anyone they don’t like, and even kill them to defend their borders.

            Do you honestly believe that the founders ever intended for such a system? A “country” that can’t even decide who enters as a singular body and has 50 disjointed states guaranteeing permanent residence as they please? How is that consistent with any other principle of federal supremacy, such as interstate commerce or the issuing of currency?

            1. Nobody needs to regulate migration. Migrants are pretty good at doing that themselves, labor being a market and all.

              I can’t imagine the founders even thinking that anyone would expect that the US government should be involved in who a private citizen can hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with. If they were concerned with that, they might have set up a border patrol or vested that power directly with the federal government.

              I’m not even really arguing that the US government shouldn’t have limited control over the border. I absolutely think they should keep out known terrorists, criminals, communicable diseases, etc. We should amend the Constitution and go through those rigors of popular support rather than just reading into the clauses that exist carte blanche regulatory power vested in a simple majority.

              1. Poor leo. He was IT today.

        3. It’s got a quite important difference: one is in the Constitution, the other isn’t.

          1. When has a federal court ever ruled against a deportation on the basis that Congress has the power to set the rules of naturalization but not immigration?

            Or is that just you talking about the way you think things should be?

            1. Ken, we shouldn’t even respond to that argument anymore. We’ve all covered it with these types ad nauseam. A hundred times over. They don’t listen and don’t care.they live in a theoretical world and have no real answers for anything.

              No point in explaining to them for the 101st time. They will just be back like it was never discussed next time around.

          2. The constitution does grant the power over foreign interactions to the federal government. Immigration is an interaction.

      2. This is an absurd distinction you are attempting to draw here. It’s like arguing you have the right to determine who qualifies as a “guest” at your house but do not have the right to man the doors. The former is meaningless without the latter.

        1. The country got along fine with that distinction for 100 years after the Constitution was written, and the colonies got along fine for 150 years before that.

          The “country is like home” analogy is inept. It implies collectivism to the max — that the majority gets to decide who visits my actual home, who I get to be friends with, who I get to do business with.

          Immigration restrictionists are collectivists, period. Welcome to your statist club. I hope you like the concomitant duties you owe your State.

          1. Jinx

          2. “The country got along fine with that distinction for 100 years after the Constitution was written, and the colonies got along fine for 150 years before that.”

            You’re right, immigration became more of a problem as the welfare state grew larger. Seems that the more people are forced to pay for each other, the less tolerant they become of immigrants.

            Sounds like a great reason to privatize schools, slash Medicaid, and kill rent subsidies and SNAP benefits.

            That I care less about what you’re doing the less what you’re doing impacts me shouldn’t be controversial in the least.

            1. You’re right, immigration became more of a problem as the welfare state grew larger.

              That may be the case now, but early immigration law was rooted in bigotry and protectionism. Research the Chinese Exclusion Act.

              1. So, not satisfied with talking about the way thiongs should be instead of the way thiongs are, now we’re going to talk about the way things should have been?

                If you want a more tolerant society, stop forcing people to pay for each other.

              2. Because one law is racist they all are. Woke Leo has spoken.

                1. I didn’t say that. It’s easy to debate when you’re creating the strawmen you debate with.

                  I was merely pointing out to Ken that immigration was perceived as a problem long before welfare was also a problem.

          3. What does the country getting along without immigration laws “just fine” have fuck all to do with anything? Does the federal government have the power to enact laws with respect to immigration? Yes.

            Debate over.

            I’m not a libertarian, so you’re puerile attempt to “shame” me, like most libertarians with shit for brains attempt to shame others for not having shit for brains, is pointless.

          4. Open borders is officially a fundamental of communism, so you might want to be careful with the “muh collectivism” bullshit

            1. Open borders to destroy America is a fundamental of communism. Communists only want America to have an open border so more non-Americans can slip into America and destroy us from the inside out. We would not even need these tight restrictions on immigrants if we had not let so many Socialists come to the USA already to influence politics.

              Communist nations have closed borders where very few people can leave or get in.

            2. Open borders is officially a fundamental of communism

              LOL. Communists are known for allowing people to easily cross their borders. Just ask East Germans, North Koreans, Cubans, etc.

          5. The reverse is also true. Open Borders also implies collectivism to the max. The majority gets to decide who gets to just walk through my “home,” leaving used needles in common places, taking money out of my wallet (welfare/”universal healthcare/education”), and getting to change the terms of my lease/mortgage (courts ruled ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS get to be counted for determining congressional representation).

            Welcome to your statist club where people get the benefits of a contract without having to uphold their end. I hope you like your one-sided tax slavery.

          6. The Constitution is collectivist. Get dunked.

          7. I mean, there’s a rich history of the US blocking immigrants from different places around the world nearly since the beginning of the country, but sure, everything was all rainbows and kittens for 100 years.

            I’m all in on easy, cheap, and wide open immigration. We have to acknowledge that there are a lot of things that are different about today versus 100-150 years ago that raise valid concerns for people that don’t agree with us.

        2. Yet somehow we survived for 100 years with that distinction intact.
          https://www.fairus.org/legislation/reports-and-analysis/history-of-us-immigration-laws

          Any time you conflate individual property rights with collectivist property rights, as your analogy does, you show your inner collectivist leaning.

          1. We also survived just fine without child labor laws, without voting rights for women, and without a 14th amendment.

            What’s your point?

          2. What does this have to do with federalism?

            What does this have to do with the proper purview of democracy?

            Are you saying that it’s wrong for people to vote with their individual property rights in mind, or have you completely changed the subject?

            1. Ah, but you deny the individual property rights and associative rights of the others who would let immigrants onto their property.

              And yes, I’m arguing along with the change in subject from the OP’s analogy that conflates immigration with individual property rights.

              1. The point was to demonstrate that the enumerated power over naturalization gives the federal government the power to control immigration.

                “The Congress shall have Power To … establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

                If Congress passes a law saying that in order to be naturalized one has to enter the country under certain conditions, it is plainly constitutional. The point was not to conflate immigration with individual property rights but to illustrate that power to create rules pertaining to naturalization implies the power to control immigration. Is control is immigration NECESSITATED? No. But is it within the power of Congress? YES.

                End of debate.

                1. You sure like to declare debates to be over.

                  I could go into a long discussion to refute your points, by Judge Napolitano did if pretty well already.
                  https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/2/andrew-napolitano-constitution-doesnt-give-governm/

                  1. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

                    Yes, the debate is over.

                    When Judge Nap is on the Supreme Court (which is never), his opinion will matter. You may as well cite to Judge Judy as an authority. Nap is a complete fucking moron.

                  2. Article I, 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.

                    1. You’re wasting your time with them. They aren’t capable of learning. They just want open border no matter what.

                    2. Just making sure any new viewers dont mistake u reason sock trolls for actual libertarian facts like article I, section 9 clause 1 enumerating the power of congress to control immigration as of 1808.

              2. “Ah, but you deny the individual property rights and associative rights of the others who would let immigrants onto their property.”

                That is factually incorrect. I don’t support the government penalizing people for letting immigrants, legal or otherwise, on their property or for hiring illegal immigrants to do whatever they want. But just because I support freedom of association doesn’t mean I have to oppose Congress setting the rules of naturalization. That’s an association that only exists in your head.

              3. I think it is relatively well understood as common sense that individual property rights stop being “individual” when you start affecting someone else, specifically infringing upon their rights and thus violating the NAP. That’s why you don’t have a right to murder, a right to have child sex slaves, a right to a private army, a right to have nukes and operational ICBMs, or any of the other AnCap meme privileges.

              4. Ah, but you deny the individual property rights and associative rights of the others who would let immigrants onto their property.

                Not at all. You are free to open your home and business to as many immigrants as you like. Have at it.

                But they can’t touch MY property–or any property I hold in common with other owners without our democratically arrived at permission, up to and including the entirety of the nation save for the parts individually owned.

                I think that’s more than fair.

            2. Nothing at all.

              “Immigration laws didn’t exist in the past, therefore, the federal government doesn’t have the power to control immigration” seems to be argument.

              It is a thoroughly stupid argument which not only ignores the Constitution, but a plethora of controlling precedent.

          3. We survived for 150,000 years with no laws written down. It got better once we did

          4. Any time you conflate individual property rights with collectivist property rights, as your analogy does, you show your inner collectivist leaning.

            My wife and I collectively own a house. Do we not have property rights?

            Members of my country club collectively own a golf course. Do we not have property rights?

      3. US Constitution, Article I, 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.

        Congress controls immigration as of 1808. Leo has been smacked down with this citation over and over. Leo uses authority of unicorns to make legal arguments. That is what unreason does to.

        1. That clause has never been cited in any relevant decision on immigration. I challenge you to show me one.

          As I’ve explained to you before, and any constitutional scholar can attest, A1S9 is a list of limitations of Congressional power.

          But go ahead and keep citing a clause related to the slave trade to make whatever point you think you’re making.

          1. Weird.. because no court has ever ruled states have power over immigration. Guess by your assertion this argument is over.

            1. That’s because the SC has read the power out of thin air as being tied to the “Naturalization clause.” Try to keep up.

              1. Poor leo no citations to back his and unreason’s assertions that are not based on legal fact.

                1. Libertarians don’t need citations to facts, or laws, or anything else. They have their dogma and everything that contradicts it is wrong and immoral and evil.

                  If tomorrow China decided to arrange for the deposit of 500 million of its citizens on the shores of California, Leo would shrug his shoulders and smirk. They have every right to be here.

                  1. Uh, Leo is NOT a libertarian. Just look at what his positions are.

              2. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it is out of “thin air.” The basis for federal control over immigration is solid and logical. The naturalization clause is simply one of several sources for this power.

              3. Typical Leo, moving the goalposts. The bottom line is you will never accept anything less than open orders no matter what. So there is no point to discussion with you.

                You’re just wrong, and wish it was otherwise. But it’s not.

              4. Leo: “That clause has never been cited in any relevant decision on immigration. I challenge you to show me one.”

                Leo: “That’s because the SC has read the power out of thin air as being tied to the “Naturalization clause.”

                On the one hand he rejects explicit constitutional language without a SC say so, on the other he rejects the actual SC ruling as reading the power out of thin air.

                Clown.

        2. Poor leo Your citations fell off. Its in plain American English.

          As of 1808, Congress controls regulation of all immigration.

          1. “Importation” is what I think you actually mean. As in bringing in goods (ie slaves aren’t people after all, they’re property!)

            And it also says migration. Would you accept that the Congress can regulate who can cross state borders? If not, why?

              1. Nice try.

                Kennedy’s opinion embraced an expansive view of the United States Government’s authority to regulate immigration and aliens, describing it as “broad” and “undoubted.” That authority derived from the legislative power of Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” enumerated in the Constitution,[41] as well as the long-standing interpretation of federal sovereignty in areas pertaining to the control and conduct of relations with foreign nations.

                I don’t argue that the SC declares that Congress has the authority to regulate immigration. But they are citing Article 1 Section 8 enumerated powers (Naturalization clause specifically). No mention of A1S9C1 because it’s absurd to claim that a congressional limitation of power is a enumeration of power.

                Also, the SC has given Congress plenty of power out of thin air. Interstate commerce means almost any commerce. “Congress shall make no law…” means they can make some laws. “The right of the people… shall not be infringed” means it can be infringed under certain circumstances. Those are also SC precedents.

                1. Poor Leo. He cannot understand American English where the Founder combined both a limitation AND A POWER all into one Clause to save time and space.

                  Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, is a limitation AND power of Congress to regulate gifts from foreign officials.
                  No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

                  Poor unreason. So sad how shitty you writers are.

                2. Nice try what? Implicit in the power of naturalization is the power to control immigration. Even a textualist reading of Article I, Section 8 would support this conclusion since the only restriction on Congress’ power over naturalization is that any rule by “uniform.”

                  The Supreme Court has certainly had it’s fair share of batshit crazy decision, but this is not one of those instances.

                  1. We can differ on the Naturalization Clause w.r.t immigration. I accept that your interpretation is different from mine. I simply disagree and we can leave it at that. Plenty of people fall on both sides of this one.

                    But that’s not the debate of this part of the thread. LC continues to incorrectly claim that article 1 section 9 clause 1 is pertinent to this discussion, when everyone but him realizes it’s not.

                    1. Seriously, if China decided to ship 500 million civilians to the western coast of the United States for permanent habitation, it is your position that these people would be entitled to stay?

                    2. I’m not an immigration absolutist. I think we should implement laws that keep out actual security threats. Health threats should fall into this same category. So your scenario should be covered under US immigration regulations. But I won’t pretend that we shouldn’t amend the Constitution as such, as opposed to simply reading it into whichever clause it most conveniently fits in.

                      But I’m also a realist. What we’re doing in severely limiting healthy, non-violent people from coming here to work is a major hindrance to securing our borders from actual threats. Your side seems to agree as well. The 100,000 people crossing our border sure make it hard to find the ones who are actual threats. I think you would agree with that statement.

                      It’s my opinion that you’ll have more success in securing the border, not by expecting human behavior to change to fit your worldview, but by realizing that the vast majority of immigrants aren’t a threat to individual liberty. Prohibition, the drug war, and now the war on labor don’t work for this very reason. The immigration system is broken, on that I’m sure we can agree. But doubling, tripling down on failed restrictionist policies isn’t working either.

                    3. Poor Leo no citations to counter my plain American English reading of Article I, Section 9, Clause 1.

                      The Leo tries to say that the Founders did not add limitations and enumerate powers in the same Clause. The Founders were far better at Americans English than Leo (and unreason) will ever be.

                    4. loveconstitution1789,

                      No doubt in my mind, Kovalensky is picking his preferred solution and seems to be willing to accept most any justification for it.

                      That ain’t the way to persuade people.

            1. Have you read the constitution leo? Because it addresses interactions of the states.

            2. Leo we have smacked you down before, but I am up for doing it again today.

              Importation relates to slave property. Migration relates to free persons who immigrate according to the rules and then maybe request naturalization.

              1. Migration is plain English and means movement of people (or animals)

                I’ll ask you again. Under A1S9C1, would you accept that the Congress can regulate who can cross state borders? If not, why not under your interpretation?

                1. HAHAHAHAHAHA poor Leo He finally gives in. See him switch gears because his argument is shit and the US Constitution citation is too authoritative for him to counter.

                  1. Why do you keep dodging my question?

                    1. Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.

                      Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

                      Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
                      The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

                      Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

                      Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

                      Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

                      Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

                      Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

                      Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

                      Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

                      Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

                      Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

                    2. What limitations to Congress’ supposed power to regulate migration after 1808 exist? Is it only for non-citizens? There’s very little case law on this topic that seems so important to your case. I’d just like to understand what migration you think Congress is allowed to regulate?

                      It’s really not a difficult question for a Constitutionalist like you to answer.

                    3. At least unreason finally admits that the constitution grants powers to congress to regulate immigration as of 1808.

            3. SCOTUS said they can regulate economic INACTIVITY as interstate commerce…Wickard v Filburn means they have the power to regulate ANYTHING that isn’t specifically exempt…(not that I agree with the decision, but if Wickard is “settled law,” the Feds can regulate almost EVERYTHING, including immigration)

              Import workers -> Labor supply in CA increases, driving down wages -> CA workers legally cross into NV for higher wages = Interstate Commerce

            4. You misspelled migration.

            5. So much sophist bullshit. Will you next insist on proof that the color blue is blue? You’re almost as bad as Pedo Jeffy.

              Don’t go full Pedo Jeffy.

    2. “Apparently conservatives believe in states’ rights, except when they don’t.”

      It doesn’t occur to him that states might genuinely have the right to do some things, but not others?

      1. You are assuming he’s being remotely honest.

        Bad assumptions.

        1. +10000

          The reason states and local jurisdictions can have Arms sanctuaries is because all gun control laws violate the 2nd Amendment already. If you are protecting a right you already have against illegal laws, you have the legal high ground.

          Immigration regulation is the sole power of the federal government. States are preempted from regulating any immigration that Congress has chosen to regulate.

          1. Reason’s take is this:

            When the federal government cracks down on immigration in the absence of cooperation from liberal state governments, liberal states have the unfettered right to #resist.

            When conservative state governments crack down on immigration in the absence of enforcement by the federal government, conservative states can go suck a fat cock because the federal government is supreme.

            1. unreason and the people who want open borders cannot convince the majority of Americans of their position, so they lie to try to get their way.

              More and more Americans are sick of it. This trend is why leo and unreason act so desperate. They are in deep shit as America is not moving toward destruction as they had hoped.

            2. Reason’s take is this:

              Heads: Progressives win

              Tails: Anyone else loses

              That’s their notion of libertarian.

    3. If sanctuary states were to declare war on foreign countries or make treaties with foreign countries, they would be overstepping the boundaries of federalism.

      I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. The states are resisting federal law enforcement. What you describe is proactive. A better comparison would be states refusing to enforce federal marijuana laws.

      1. The powers of the states are limited in certain areas, for various reasons. The motivations of the people who are overstepping the boundaries aren’t as important as the location of the boundaries,

        I don’t happen to think much of federal law that allows the federal government to regulate everything we do under the guise of regulating commerce, but when California sets emission standards for automakers based in Detroit that are far above those of the federal government–I think they’re stowaways on the commerce clause.

        When California tries to enter into the Paris Climate Treaty without the consideration of the U.S. Senate, much less than their consent, they’re trying to usurp the federal government’s power to enter into treaties.

        The important aspect of those examples isn’t whether they’re international in scope. It’s that they overstep the boundaries of federalism. Feel free to support sanctuary states for other reasons, but the federalism objection gets it all backwards. Save the federalism argument for when there’s a real wolf.

        1. I don’t normally disagree with you, but I going to again. As numb as those policies are, the problem isn’t California. It’s all the businesses that value California’s market so much that they end up forcing California policies on everyone. If companies would say “Fuck you Cali, your rules are dumb. We’re not doing business in you state anymore” then it would stop.

          1. Ronnie Barrett did that…I just wish the rest of the firearms manufacturers would do the same and starve garbage heaps like CA, CT, MA, NY, etc. of any equipment for their LEOs…

          2. The reasons they cave to California’s demands don’t justify the fact that California has no business setting emissions standards for the rest of the country or the world.

            1. California sets emissions standards because businesses cafe to their market. If Wyoming did the same thing do you think they would dictate policy for the world? No. Companies would tell them to pound sand, as they should to California.

              1. Because they can doesn’t justify it either. Serial killers do what they do because they can and they want to, too.

                1. Look at the logic of Wickard vs. Flburn and tell me that California has the right to act like the federal government that way.

                  1. As much as I disagree with Wickard v Filburn AND California’s stranglehold on automotive standards, California isn’t dictating that ALL cars meet their emissions standards, just cars SOLD in California. They aren’t forcing auto manufacturers produce all models to meet their ridiculous standards, but they do control an enormous part of the domestic market, so companies cave. I wish the manufacturers didn’t, but they’d be less competitive and less profitable if they didn’t.

                    I would love to see ALL the companies stop selling in CA. It would starve the state (and municipal) government of vehicles, the electorate in the state would either riot OR everyone would buy vehicles in Oregon, Nevada, or Arizona, starving the state of registration fees and sales taxes. In response, the state would either have to loosen up OR crack down EVEN HARDER, which drives a beautiful cycle of either liberty OR acceleration toward the (non-violent, democratic) overthrow of the state government. Either way, I’d enjoy my popcorn and the show.

              2. The states of the old confederacy, (substitute Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Kentucky for Virginia and North Carolina) have a lot more people and clout than California, were they to act in concert. Maybe this should be a new tactic, a confederacy of states within the United States of America to promote 2A rights, sensible immigration policies, markets for pure gasoline with no corn squeezins, protect children from harmful Trans ideology, etc

        2. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is the transfer of power to regulate migrants from states to Congress as of 1808.

      2. Marijuana laws are a similar, absurd situation. You have a substance that is both banned and licensed. It’s a ludicrous quagmire that needs to be resolved and quickly.

        1. Ah, but that “ludicrous quagmire” permits lucrative wiggle room. 8-(

      3. Or abortion. Imagine, say, Alabama saying fuck you to Roe v. Wade.

    4. Reason hacks are denying the federal government’s right and responsibility to control migration.

      Here is some useful law to counter that bullshit.

      US Constitution, Article I, 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.

      It’s well after 1808. Feds have explicit constitutional authority to limit migration.

      The Constitution *obligates* the federal government to prevent 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”

      *shall* protect
      #BuildTheWall

      Supreme Court: Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 705 (1893).
      “‘accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions.’”

      The Founders were not anarchocapitalists. States have borders. It’s the right and responsibility of a State to defend those borders.

  9. Federalism has never stood for the proposition that states can retard the expressed powers of the feds.

    1. Amen! And there’s even a well-known Supreme Court case emphasizing the fact that states cannot interfere with federal officials in the execution of federal law.

      Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1859), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that State courts cannot issue rulings on federal law that contradict the decisions of federal courts, overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Constitution, the federal courts have the final power to decide cases arising under the Constitution and federal statutes, and that the States do not have the power to overturn those decisions. Thus, Wisconsin did not have the authority to nullify federal judgments or statutes. For example, it is illegal for State officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals acting under federal laws. The Ableman decision emphasized the dual form of American government and the independence of State and federal courts from one another.

      Fuck Wisconsin and fuck their fucked-up idea that they could just decide that the Fugitive Slave Laws didn’t apply in Wisconsin. If the slavecatchers wanted to come into Wisconsin to recover stolen property and return it to it’s rightful owner, Wisconsin has no business trying to stop them. That’s just aiding and abetting the crime of Grand Theft Human.

    2. Well stated… but just to clarify a little, “the expressed U.S. Constitution powers of the feds.”

  10. One could argue republicans/conservatives never cared about state rights. Lincoln certainly didn’t. Also far more republicans voted for the Civil rights act than democrats. Federalism is just a small wing of the conservative/republican faction.

    1. Federalism is also distinct from Libertarianism, though one is a good starting philosophy, and the other a much better operating governing tactic

    2. Federalism in the U.S. IS SPELLED OUT CLEARLY in the U.S. Constitution. The enumerated powers of the Fed is their JOB NOT the STATES and CLARIFIED TO BE THAT WAY by the Supremacy Clause.

      ALL those other things they are doing NOT listed in the enumerated powers is UN-Constitutional and is left to the States or to the People.

      1. Good thing immigration regulation is a power enumerated to congress as o f 1808.

  11. A few years ago when Arizona wanted to use its law enforcement agencies to look for illegal aliens, Reason’s editorial stance was that states had no authority to enforce immigration law and supported the Court ruling upholding that. Please make up your minds about this, and not use whatever argument gets you to the policy result you want.

    Reason supported how this bed was made, now you have to lie in it.

    1. Definitely not the same. In the case you mention the states were acting as agencies that enforce federal law with state powers. In this case the states are resisting federal law enforcement agencies. Not the same thing at all.

      1. The ruling was thatthe federal government had sole authority to enforce immigration law. A state helping was interfering with that authority which means a state has no authority to actively hinder federal immigration enforcement.

        The arguments you make have consequences down the road, and calling out Republicans for not respecting States Rights on this is holding them to standard of federalism the editorial voice of the magazine does not believe in itself.

        1. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 describes states giving up the power to regulate immigrants to Congress, as of 1808.

          California is violating federal law and the US Constitution on this issue.

          1. Arizona v US cements that idea by claiming states have no right to enforce immigration law even in the event the feds refuse to, so either immigration is the solely the responsibility of the feds OR there is no power to control immigration at either level, and since municipalities are political subdivisions of states, they also lack the power.

            This leaves the three possible conclusions:
            -There is no authority within the USA to control immigration
            -Immigration control is the Feds responsibility and duty
            -Immigration control is accordingly reserved to individual people (pursuant to the 10th Amendment)…this one is the most interesting to consider

        2. “The arguments you make…”

          What argument? I’m pointing out a distinction without making judgment.

    2. Oh, Bernie, please say in mid-debate that all immigration laws are unconstitutional and you will pack the Supreme Court to get them all struck down. Let your freak flag fly.

    3. thank you. Reason only wants open borders all else doesn’t matter to them

  12. “California, for instance, has passed three major—and constitutionally acceptable—laws that restrict local governments and private employers from cooperating with ICE.”

    OK, this statement is just flat out insane. Those laws ranged from the constitutionally acceptable direction to state employees that they not assist ICE, to the constitutionally outrageous order that private employers actively obstruct ICE. By, for instance, mandating that private employers warn their employees if ICE expresses interest in their workforce.

    1. States gave up their power to regulate immigration to Congress as of 1808.

      States aiding and abetting illegals are in violation of the US Constitution and federal law.

      All state employees acting to violate federal law should be arrested and sent to district courts in other states, like they do to other defendants.

    2. I’m assuming it’s only been found “constitutionally acceptable” because the 9th circuit has been packed with proggies for the last few decades. That they’re trying to affect the census by packing Cali with illegal immigrants has to be criminal in some way.

      1. Actually, a good trend is that Trump has replaced 10 of 29 justices for the 9th Circuit.

        Obama nominated 7 justices.
        W. Bush nominated 3 justices.
        Clinton nominated 9 justices.

        Trump has flipped the 9th Circuit — and some new judges are causing a ‘shock wave’

        1. I knew that happened recently, but I’m guessing that this stuff happened prior to that.

          1. NO, you’re correct that Commifornia was doing this while Obama was in office. It was not an issue really because the Lefty Propagandists didnt want to raise a problem when Chocolate Jesus was in the White House.

        2. Giggity!
          #winning

    3. Some of that would seemingly be a violation of the 1st Amendment as it compels speech, meaning it is clearly unConstitutional…

  13. “Apparently, conservatives, liberals, and libertarians believe in states’ rights, except when they don’t.”

    You forgot the rest.

    1. The fundamental issue with states’ rights involves the right of one part of a sovereign state to declare themselves in turn sovereign and unfortunately we have conflicting precedents for the proposition. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and their buddies argued in the affirmative in 1776, Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S Grant and their buddies argued the negative in 1861. In both cases, the debate turned on the finer points of argumentum ad baculum and we may be forced to go best two out of three to clarify the issue.

      1. …I can’t say your wrong…though, some might disagree that two out of three is a sufficient sample size…

    2. We believe in States rights anywhere the Constitution doesn’t gives those power to the FED. It really is that simple.

  14. Federal Immigration Raids in ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Have Conservatives Abandoning Federalism
    Apparently, conservatives believe in states’ rights, except when they don’t.

    Fuck off Greenhut. Regulation of migrants is the power of Congress as of 1808 (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). Regulation of naturalization, common defense, and protection from invasion are all enumerated powers of the federal government.

    States gave up their power to regulate immigrants in the Constitution, as of 1808.

    1. This. Leo can pretend that ‘migration’ does not refer to immigration, but that’s just him being Leo.

      Else, why does the clause say “migration or importation” rather than just importation? If they were only trying to address slaves – owned persons – then importation would have sufficed.

      That they specifically included migration indeed matters. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to agree with it, but you cannot ignore it.

      At least, you cannot ignore it without revealing yourself to be a dishonest hack.

      1. Careful, or Leo might start citing Judge Napolitano to prove immigration laws are unconstitutional.

        The same brilliant Judge Nap that gave us this gem:

        https://thehill.com/homenews/media/479704-fox-news-judge-napolitano-there-is-ample-and-uncontradicted-evidence

        1. Plus, judges are NOT the ultimate authority on Constitutional powers, rights, and protections when they are written in plain Americans English.

          The People’s right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, yet judges allow this right to be infringed on. That protection is written in plain American English and should be protected as the absolute right that it is. It hurts nobody to have any Armament that you want.

      2. Why do they put this one enumerated power in a list of restrictions on Congress?

        It’s a real head scratcher for sure.

        1. Same reason they put naturalization and bankruptcy in the same clause. Because they did.

    2. Supreme Court: Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 705 (1893).
      “‘accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions.’”

  15. OT? Maybe only slightly…

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/trump-administration-social-security-disability-access
    Trump administration limits Social Security access
    The change limits non-English speakers’ access to benefits

    End of title imports above…

    Critics of too much immigration say welfare / entitlements etc. cloud the picture… Please come here to work, not to mooch! And I agree!

    Current rules say, you never learned English (or can convincingly FAKE not knowing English very well!), and so that makes it harder for you to find a job, so you are more “disabled”, and so “deserve” more preference to sign on for Social Security Disability… Which is already over-stressed and abused too much!

    So Donald wants to END preferences (for SS Disability) for those who speaken zee Engraisch oder Spanglish nicht ganz-zoo goodly…

    I am firmly with The Donald on this one!

    1. Note that legal immigrants have to learn English. Legal immigrants also have to pay taxes on their worldwide income. Illegals are exempted from all of that.

    2. unless you are related to his wife or one of his friends or someone he owes money to

      1. Yes, The Donald will bend and break rules and laws to suit Himself… Honest people (excludes those with pro-trump TDS) are aware of this, if they read the news to ANY significant degree! But even a broken clock is correct, twice per day!

  16. the public gets to watch legislatures, bureaucrats and courts sort through this disputatious mess.

    But enough about government in general.

  17. US Constitution, Article I, 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

    How does the 10th Amendment even apply?
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Clearly the Constitution gives this right to Congress it is specifically delegated after the year 1808. If California really wants to push the states rights issue, then don’t ask the federal government to help put out fires. Fighting fires is not a power specifically delegated to the federal government. Apply the same standard to electrical power, they are on a national power grid not a state one.

    1. the certain persons were slaves

      1. …and immigrants.

        Slaves didnt “migrate”. They were imported like personal property.

        Keep trying unreason. Its funny.

      2. Add to Article I Section 9, Section 8

        “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…” Both Immigration and Naturalization are powers delegated to the Federal Government.
        “The Trump administration is continuing its fight against those sanctuary cities in California and elsewhere that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities who seek to deport illegal immigrants.”
        Why do we have a distinction between legal and illegal? Is that a state distinction or a federal distinction?

        1. Congress who has the enumerated power to regulate immigration and naturalization, created categories of non-Americans for immigration purposes. Resident alien, illegal alien, nonresident alien, enemy alien, Naturalized American, and Natural Born American.

          “Alien” refers to a person that is not a citizen of a given nation. It is synonymous with “foreign national”.

    2. Supreme Court: Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 705 (1893).
      “‘accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions.’”

  18. ” Yes, I know immigration law is a federal prerogative, ”

    But I really don’t give a damn because it interferes with the narrative.

  19. Apparently a big beautiful wall will keep those airborne invaders like Corona Delgado-Sanchez Modelo out!

    Sevo witty reply in 3…2…1…

  20. We’re supposed to be a self-governing people

    What is this “self” of which you speak?

  21. States do not have the right to aid people in breaking federal law. Period.

    1. they do not have any obligation to support the enforcement of federal law

      1. States are actively violating the US Constitution and federal law.

        It is a lie when Propagandists say that illegals sanctuary jurisdictions are simply not “supporting enforcement of federal law”.

        1. If the police show up at your home to arrest joe and you know joe is there but tell the police he is not there or do not respond at all it is obstruction and you can be arrested
          The sanctuary cities /states are actively obstructing federal law enforcement.

          1. Interestingly, I think the charge of obstruction *should* fall flat in a scenario like this.

            If the police claim that you knew where Joe was and you DIDN’T actively call them, they could easily claim you were aiding and abetting by helping to hide him. By telling them where he is, you’re admitting you know where he is (thus implicating yourself in aiding and abetting). If you just claim the Fifth, I don’t think they could do anything, legally (or at least SHOULDN’T be able to do anything, legally) because you are concerned with being compelled to be a witness against yourself in a potential charge of A & A.

            *I am not a lawyer

            1. It would be something entirely different if cities or states just said that they were not helping federal agents. They are not going out of their way to aid or abet illegal aliens. That might be considered perfectly constitutional.

              That is not what is taking place. The Lefties are actively trying to thwart federal agents from enforcing immigration laws in their states/cities.

              1. Oh, I agree. I wasn’t really making a point about that, just pondering the legality of an obstruction charge (and how to avoid it).

                Or you might have responded to the wrong comment.

        2. Damn it! I agree with you again. States never should have been allowed to have their own State Constitutions.

          1. Poor unreason. States can and do have their own state constitutions with limitations and those were agreed to when they ratified the US Constitution and/or joined the United States of America as a state.

      2. Their actions go beyond merely “not supporting”; they are harboring, aiding, and assisting illegals, and that is against federal law.

  22. “In other words, California and its cities have every reason to limit the ability of the feds“

    That’s patently untrue. Sure they can limit state assistance but since immigration is unquestionably a federal responsibility, how does the state have any ability to limit the actions of federal agents in enforcing federal law?

    1. limiting is the same as obstructing which is illegal so states can not limit help when it cost nothing

  23. “But “states’ rights” is shorthand for federalism”

    Then it’s bad shorthand. Federalism means answering on a *case by case basis* the question “is this something the feds should be doing?” Another issue is whether the states should cooperate with the feds – they can’t obstruct the feds’ legitimate powers, but need not help.

    In Democratic states and cities, why should the authorities go after illegal aliens, when we’re talking about a large pool of Democratic voters (the aliens and their descendants)?

    1. Exactly. States want federal money but don’t want to obey the US Constitution and federal law?

      The Constitution has something to say about that.

      Article VI, Clause 2:
      This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

  24. Failure to enforce immigration laws because, if we do, people wont cooperate with law enforcement makes about as much sense as failing to enforce any law because
    criminals won’t cooperate with law enforcement. This logic carried out would extend to forbid the arrest of any criminal, so that they could conceivably be a witness to a potential crime – which would result in no arrest of course, because that criminal too could one day be a witness, and so on.

    News flash, criminals, and people in general in high crime areas, don’t cooperate with law enforcement because they are criminals. Moreover, not arresting criminals does not make them witnesses, because criminals have little to no credibility in a court of law. People who lie and cheat, lie and cheat.

    1. The Constitution *obligates* the federal government to prevent 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”

      *shall* protect
      #BuildTheWall

  25. Because ‘conservatives’ have always viewed Federalism as a means to an end. They have never been shy about abandoning it when it suits them

    trump is not a conservative

    he is just a moron

    one cannot be simultaneously radical and conservative

    1. poor unreason.

    2. Some examples would be nice.

  26. “California, for instance, has passed three major—and constitutionally acceptable—laws that restrict local governments and private employers from cooperating with ICE”

    No, they haven’t. Any state that forbids or restricts cooperation with ICE is a rogue nation that is enforcing its own immigration policy. Restricting cooperation != resisting commandeering.

    One day, sanctuary mayors, councilmen and governors will be held accountable and charged with treason. They are knowingly seeking the assistance of foreign agents to increase the population of their district for the express purpose of stealing electoral votes, Congressional seats, and funding that was intended for US citizens and legal residents.

    1. baloney
      they have no responsibility whatsoever

      In your New Fascist Republic, we will just wait until they come for you

      Never give your side the power you do not want your adversaries to have

      1. I don’t want the “other side” to be able to jail me, does that mean we shouldn’t have laws?

        Sometimes, we have certain national or collective interests, even as libertarians, that are more important than our own self interest. In this case, maintaining our somewhat libertarian constitution and culture so that future generations can enjoy it as I have and have more freedom than we do at present.

        1. Freedom isn’t Free.

      2. Disagree…when a govt of any level refuse to act to protect our liberty then it is the duty of the “States” acting through its instrument the Federal Govt to remove official who will not act to protect our life and liberty which the States have agreed to in the Declaration of Independence. If a govt does not act to protect us…it is by definition illegal and should be removed.

      3. Never give your side the power you do not want your adversaries to have

        Yes: I want, and expect, all US governments to enforce US law as written, Democrats and Republicans. I also want, and expect, all people in the US to obey the laws as written and go through the political process to change them. By and large, Republicans are doing that. It’s time we force Democrats to do the same.

    2. +10000

      California and other sanctuary jurisdiction are violating the US Constitution and federal law.

      Commifornia is aiding and abetting illegals not simply refusing to enforce federal law.

  27. I love how our political debates now are arguments over clearly obvious things. I mean, we have become so polarized that the truth is so amorphous anymore that we actually debate things like walls not preventing people from crossing borders, that the federal government has no right to regulate and enforce immigration laws, that it’s a good thing when unelected officials overrule the elected officials, and that the government will be completely efficient and cost effective in operating a single payer medical system.

    What

    1. It’s Lefty ideology 101.

      Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.

      Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

      Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
      The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

      Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

      Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

      Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

      Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

      Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

      Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

      Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

      Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

      Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

      1. Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.

        #DemocratPresidentialCandidatesSoWhite

    2. LOL!! Travel restrictions will not affect the spread of disease, but only the spread of information. It’s amazing how much has changed in only a short matter of time

      1. LOL! Good addition! The amount of stupid is getting out of hand.

  28. What else is new? Conservatives have always been against limited government except when they weren’t just the same way liberals are always for freedom except when they aren’t.

    Against gubmint-mandated vaccinations but all for gubmint-mandated womb-control.
    Against land theft by the EPA but all for it by the CBP.
    Against free-stuff for fereners and city-folk but all for free-stuff for old people and farmers who don’t grow anything.

    If only there was a political camp that was against government intrusion and handouts as a general principle.

    1. HAHAH. Commifornia is looking for limited government. HAHAHA

    2. Do you find boiling things down to such simplism so as to remove much of the truth is helpful for you to understand things?

    3. Lot of straw in your men there

  29. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Yes, I know immigration law is a federal prerogative, but it’s more complicated than it seems. States have every right to place limits on the behavior of authorities under their command.

    It’s not really that complicated. I’m going to put aside all of the other arguments for a moment. Like exactly who’s getting deported and why.

    But if states or cities become ‘sanctuary cities’, then by definition, the United States no longer controls its borders, San Francisco does. There are lessons to be learned here from the EU and the controversies during the refugree crisis and Germany’s response to it. The issue that became so contentious was that with Germany opening its border, that meant GERMANY controlled immigration for the ENTIRE European bloc, and that’s not a healthy political situation.

    When I discuss this with people who think it’s all about racism, I describe is as thus.

    Imagine a you entered into a rather unusual neighborhood association. And in that association, people in the neighborhood allowed each other members to walk through yards and properties with free access– But ONLY members of the association.

    Then a couple of neighbors decide to allow drug addicted homeless people to live in his yard, and by doing so, said homeless people are automatically now members of the association and as such, enjoy the rights of free movement within the rest of the neighborhood.

    Essentially, that ‘couple of neighbors’ now control membership and property policy for the entire association. That’s a problem.

  30. I like the idea of eliminating the artificial limits for legal immigration. I however feel that all immigration to be documented.

    I believe that all immigrants need to be screened for violent crimes, disease, etc. This should not take more than a couple weeks and more due diligence should be performed when a country of origin is a known terrorist state or where there is a likely chance that there could be transmission of disease.

    When allowed into the country, they should be on a non-citizen visa and not be granted the same benefits and rights as a citizen would. They should be allowed to become citizen by taking language and history classes to become more assimilated.

    Failure to assimilate by committing crimes, lack of becoming a productive asset through hard work and effort should be taken into consideration for citizenship or deportation. This should not take decades or cost a lot of money.

    While they are living in the country on a non-citizen visa they would be eligible for a non-citizen drivers license. They would not be eligible to vote or any government assistance programs (which should be eventually reduced or eliminated).

    They would be required to pay taxes at the same rates as citizens (which should be reduced or eliminated). They should also be required to adhere to social norms and expectations of our society.

    Children born to documented non-citizen in the country should be granted citizenship, but a child born to a non-documented immigrant should not be granted citizenship. Children born to a citizen in another country should be granted citizenship.

    1. Failure to assimilate by committing crimes, lack of becoming a productive asset through hard work and effort should be taken into consideration for citizenship or deportation. This should not take decades or cost a lot of money.

      Check out Racist McHitler over here.

  31. Naturalization and immigration go hand in hand. When the country was young, and there was little competition for massively abundant resources, there was little reason to limit immigration. Individuals could pose no real danger to the citizenry and movement of people was dangerous and difficult.

    However, Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” In the 1870’s after states began passing their own laws regarding immigration, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to regulate immigration vested solely in Congress under that article. Since the 1870’s it has been settled law that states have no right to regulate immigration.

    Therefore, the entire premise of this article is balderdash. It is not anti state’s rights to oppose individual states and localities setting up their own systems of immigration. To the contrary, it is Libertarian in the extreme to support the proper roles of the federal and state governments, as defined in the Constitution, and exactly no more and no less.

    1. However, Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

      Shut your mouth with historical facts. It’s best to just demand the borders be opened while doing a finger snap applause.

    2. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, already gave Congress the power to regulate immigration of migrants and importation of slaves, as of 1808.

  32. Federalism was never intended to prevent cooperation between the different levels of government.

  33. “has supported various policies from withholding federal funds to allowing crime victims to sue jurisdictions that release illegal immigrants who later commit a crime. The former was halted by the courts…”

    Ahem…

    At the time, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said: “So-called ‘sanctuary’ policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes.”

    In 2018, the Justice Department imposed additional conditions on the grant money, though challenges to those have not yet reached the appeals court in New York.

    The 2nd Circuit said the plain language of relevant laws make clear that the U.S. attorney general can impose conditions on states and municipalities receiving money.

    And it noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the federal government maintains broad power over states when it comes to immigration policies.

    In the past two years, federal appeals courts in Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco have ruled against the federal government by upholding lower-court injunctions placed on the enforcement of some or all of the challenged conditions.

    “While mindful of the respect owed to our sister circuits, we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue,” the 2nd Circuit three-judge panel said in a decision written by Judge Reena Raggi.

    “These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations. But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight,” the appeals court said.

    1. I haven’t looked at this particular statute, but a contemporaneous decision on the “public charge” made me look at U. S. C. §1182(a)(4)(A).

      Congress handed the keys over to the executive…so stop whining about the executive being a big meanie and change the law so that the abrogation of power is removed!

      The Public Charge section of the LAW AS WRITTEN leaves the decision up to the Attorney General. No specific rules, just “in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible”. The Attorney General can make those decisions based on pretty much anything he wants, so long as he can properly say that he considered the statutory factors. Which is why even the 9th Circuit rules against plaintiffs trying to stop implementation of the new rules.

      (4) Public charge
      (A) In general

      Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

      (B) Factors to be taken into account
      (i) In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s—
      (I) age;
      (II) health;
      (III) family status;
      (IV) assets, resources, and financial status; and
      (V) education and skills.

      1. I wonder how many of those complaining about the Trump Administration’s interpreting “public charge” the way it does complained even more bitterly about the far more extreme overreach under the Obama Administration when creating DACA — a formal program with forms and processes to subvert the clear intent of federal immigration law by allowing people not eligible to work in the US to work and inoculating employers should they hire those individuals.

        My guess few whining now whined about DACA (and many I know actually celebrated that particular clear overstepping).

  34. This is not a STATES RIGHTS ISSUE! This is CLEARLY a FEDERAL IMMIGRATION Issue! If they want federal money, they have to abide by the federal rules! PERIOD!

  35. Such a silly article! Sanctuary cities have nothing to do with states rights and conservatives are true to their beliefs stating that the Federal government should exercise its authority to secure our borders.

  36. Gosh Reason — I thought Libertarians believed in the U.S. Constitution not only when it fit their narrative.

    1. The US Constitution is not the be-all and end-all of libertarianism. The Constitution is great and all, but in areas where it impedes liberty, it is as problematic as other systems which impede liberty.

      That said, I don’t think this is an area that impedes liberty. Yes, one can argue that borders impede freedom of movement and free association, but unless/until it gets to a point where the whole world is all one big happy libertarian paradise, borders need to exist so that those nations which are more free can continue to guarantee the freedoms of their own citizens.

      1. The Constitution doesn’t, “impede liberty” anywhere — Heck, it doesn’t even hardly apply to “the people” at all…. It’s a law over the government! The Supreme Law.

        The only problems I see is the blatant and purposeful ignorance of it.

    2. Per Nick, Reason believes in Open Borders Uber Alles!

  37. Most of the programs/proposals raised here have nothing to do with “states’ rights” or “federalism”.

    The federal government has a right to enforce federal laws where ever necessary.

    For example, if a ring of counterfeiters are openly running presses in California, the State of California can’t prevent federal agents from shutting the operation down and arresting those involved and hauling them to federal prison and charging them with federal crimes.

    The State of California of course doesn’t have to help the federal agents in any way. However, the State of California also has no innate right to federal law enforcement grants. If Congress (or their delegate if they have delegated discretion to the Executive) has decided that only states that cooperate with the federal government’s anti-counterfeiting efforts receive such funds, so be it.

    If the State of California actively interferes with the enforcement of the federal government’s anti-counterfeiting efforts, those state actors are subject to arrest and prosecution just like a private party would be (such as under RICO statutes).

    Enforcement of federal immigration laws is no different. The Constitution makes it clear in Article VI that

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Of course, the federal government, including the Executive branch, must follow federal, but not state, laws so if Congress hasn’t given the Executive branch leeway to withhold law enforcement funds because states or cities won’t actively cooperate with ICE, the funds can’t be withheld.

    1. “The federal government has a right to enforce federal laws where ever necessary.” — The Supremacy Clause.

      It doesn’t have that right when they pass UN-Constitutional laws; Demonstrated today by the Supreme Court but liberal judges have thwarted most of the Constitution – so today we see States resisting those laws and rightfully doing so.

  38. By joining the union, a State has committed itself to protecting our natural rights as outlined the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a state does not protect a citizen’s life or liberty willfully, the state has failed in it’s compact with the Federal Govt and has no legal authority. In this case the rest of the States acting through the Federal Govt must intercede and protect American’s natural rights. By definition an illegal alien is her illegally and if not reported for deportation can commit a crime against an American Citizen…hence the State by allowing “sancutary cities” is not adhering to what it is obligated to do by being part of the union. Federal troops should be sent in and remove the local govts and if necessary put in Federal Marshalls to run these cities to ensure citizens are protected…end of story..

    I am very disappointed Reason would support States willfully acting to threaten our life and liberty by inaction….

    1. Do you have any legal basis for your first premise?

      1. The DOI was not superseded by the Constitution and was signed by 13 States and specifically stated “United States” hence any State joining has to adhere to this. Now I realize this is not accepted by the “organic” view of the Constitution or even the “original view” but it is irrelevant. No State to my knowledge has ever withdrawn it’s support for the DOI. So it stands. I honestly don’t care what “constitutional” experts or the SC says about this as they have mangled the Constitution since Marshall. There is something more fundamental here…when a govt refused to protect it’s citizens through willful inaction it has no moral or legal right to exist. I think Jefferson pretty much said this in the DOI

    2. LOL… The Declaration of Independence???? You must be joking right? It has ZERO legal weight – it was a declaration to ‘Declare’ us Independence from Great Britain… July 4; Independence day ring a bell?

      I swear; what in the world are they teaching these days.

      1. Who decides it has zero legal weight? The SCOTUS? Ha ha…boy they have a great record protecting our natural rights and limited govt..this is not a legal consideration but a natural right consideration…if an elected office declined to protect it’s citizens it has not right to rule…

  39. my god, Reason get more intellectually lightweight by the day….the federalism stuff is just too funny

  40. in the matter of immigration, the states gave up all rights to opinionate or do anything except enforce settled Federal law regarding immigration… this was re-affirmed by the civil war; therefore, all elective, appointive, tier 1/2/3 administrative government employees federal, state, county, local who are involved in the sanctuary RICO operations have violated their Oaths of office thus reducing themselves to being de facto : illegal occupiers of offices of government employment… they are just crooks operating an Organized Crime Family out of the offices of the American government… what are you going to do about it ?

    1. The Civil War did not legally re-affirm anything. It was an unconstitutional war waged by an insane President usurping basically every Constitutionally limited power in an attempt to crush state independence by killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.

      1. It is Constitutional for the federal government to defend any State or States against uprising or invasion. I consider the Confederacy an uprising perhaps you don’t.

  41. Could having millions of voting immigrants from Latin America lead to changes in our form of government? Many of our southern neighbors have been through coups and violent upheavals, and many have experimented with communism or socialism. A “revolution” like the one Bernie is trying to foment may look familiar and desirable to many of these folks.

    1. “Could having millions of voting immigrants from Latin America lead to changes in our form of government?”

      — Well, it’s not suppose to; bus since the liberal judges of the Supreme Courts threw out the Constitution years ago and decided to play willy-nilly on gut reaction judgements……

      YES, yes it could/does very much so.

      1. California is a one party Big Government state because of mass immigration imposed on Californians over the express will of the California people in Proposition 187.

        1. Huh… That’s a good read/interesting – in 1994 CA residents voted/passed the “Save the State” bill from mass-immigration and it was thrown out as UN-Constitutional. I think AZ had the same episode happen during the Obama Administration trying to enforce border control.

          Granite the Fed has supremacy on international migration control BUT I would be eagerly interested in hearing a really good debate on what the Constitution says about State’s enacting bills BECAUSE the feds won’t do their assigned job. (i.e. ICE)

          I can only hope that CA (& AZ) natives will get their wish through President Trump’s administration and get the invasion taken care of and under control.

          1. Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I was born in LA in the 40s and have lived in California most of life, so I’ve seen the whole cycle. I hate to be pessimistic, but I think it’s too late. The liberal outlook on immigration was well-meaning, but naive. We have a culture now that is very hispanic, negative about small government, and tilted toward the kind of socialistic political solutions that have plagued Latin America for the last half-century. I expect we’ll see this reflected in California’s support for Bernie in the primary on Wednesday. In November, the size and strength of the hispanic vote could give Bernie the presidency.

  42. “As a rule of thumb, states may govern as they choose unless they choose to intrude on our constitutional rights by, say, banning guns, restricting free speech or, as the Southern states had done, depriving an entire group of its civil rights.”

    Just when I was hoping someone would actually come out against the phony incorporation doctrine. Nope, all that federalism stuff turns out to be only a tool for someone’s agenda, because apparantly Mr. Greenhut believes in states’ rights, except when he doesn’t.

    1. +100000000000000 – They really missed the Constitution on this article.

  43. The premise of the article is slightly flawed. Firstly, Immigration and Naturalization is supposed to be regulated by Congress. The President Executes via the tools Congress gives the President. Unfortunately, Congress has abrogated so much of their duties that it’s almost statutorily the President’s job to regulate Immigration. We see this in the Unconstitutionally created agencies that became apropos after the 1942 Wickard V. Filburn case. We should add that 5 short years later Congress passed the 1947 Administrative Procedures Act, thus we have Agencies granted “Title of Nobility” so that they can arbitrarily perform “Bills of Attainder.” However that’s not the case with Immigration. Technically it’s on the up and up, with historical precedent.

    Thomas Jefferson, who was sworn in by Chief Justice John Marshall, literally would not allow the Barbary Pirates to land on US soil. Not only that, but he took the fight to Tripoli shores, much like our war on terror today. When you consider Jefferson’s stance on State sovereignty (as evidenced by the “Alien and Sedition Acts”), and a seemingly hypocritical stance on the Tripoli Pirates, it gets a little confusing.

    Why the heck did he mention John Marshall? Great question! John Marshall was the first Chief Justice, a Culpepper Militia Member, a staunch States rights supporter, and the presiding chief justice on the 1833 Barron V. Baltimore case, which attempted to define State Sovereignty. That very same year a book was written by Joseph Story “Judicial Supremacism and Federal Supremacism.”

    Up until that book, the Constitution was taught via a book named “View of the Constitution of the United States. With select writings” by a person who was there, St. George Tucker. Slowly the teaching started to lean towards Story’s version and ultimately his Unconstitutional version is taught today. Ultimately, even though people say the 14th Amendment nullified Barron in the manner it started to be used, it is cited often in cases today. The lawyers have perverted the decision to be its inverse to this day. Famously the McDonald V. City of Chicago case in 2010, would be a great example.

    Point is, it only took 58, or 44, or 39 years to screw it up depending where you consider the starting point of Liberty. We need to go back that far to fix it, that’s for sure.

    1. You sound like you really know your Constitution so I’ve been a little fuzzy on recent details I’ve picked up.

      Wasn’t it Barron that wrote the 14th Amendment to clarify what exactly “the people” of the Constitution consisted of?? From my understanding the founders didn’t include an original definition of what “the people” consisted of until the 14th Amendment was put in place. Is that correct?

  44. It has been at least 5 years since I read that 1833 Barron case. The link to the info is on another drive with Win 7. The 14th Amendment was adopted during “Reconstruction,” and I almost wrote to you that it was adopted in 1873, but it was adopted in 1868. That’s important because the 14th coupled with a case in or around 1873 is where they got the “people’s” clarification. To be honest I don’t know who the drafters of the 14th were by name.

    Where the Barron case is concerned, the Supreme Court determined that the Bill of Rights could only be applied to Federal Cases. It seems like an attempt to grant State Sovereignty, but it is flawed. Here’s why.

    The Constitution is a Compact (series of several contracts) signed onto at that time by 13 individual States, or Sovereign Countries if you like. Within the Constitution there is well defined duties of Congress, President, and the Supreme Court. Within the Congressional duties (Article 1, Sec. 8) it outlines what the Federal Government can oversee and regulate. In Article 1 Sec. 9 it tells congress what they are forbidden to do, but more importantly Article 1, Sec. 10 tells the State Governments that they forbidden to do most of the very same things that the Federal Congress is forbidden to do. Read those two section and the “Bill of Rights” and you will find that anytime they violate those two sections, they are violating the BOR. Especially, if you throw in the Article 4, Sec. 2 “Immunities Clause,” and the Article 6, Sec. 2 “Supremacy Clause.”

    It would make no sense for the 13 States to be signatory to something that was to only be applied in Federal Jurisdictions, which were only to be 10 square miles each. The Constitution was designed for protection of Liberty for the most minority and vulnerable of the population. The individual.

    TJJ, a good place to go learn the Constitution is KrisAnneHall.com. She knows her stuff, and backs all of it up with the founders’ writings. BTW, I have watched her youtube on occasion, and she will tell you that the future lawyers are being taught this crud incorrect for a reason. BTW 2.0 it’s not that I’m a Constitutional Scholar, I do like history, so digging in is fun to me. :))

    1. So many thanks for that explanation; most of it I had already got a grasp on but this statement is what I was really looking for.

      “That’s important because the 14th coupled with a case in or around 1873 is where they got the “people’s” clarification.”

      Reading Article 1, Sec. 10 was quite enlightening too; as I always thought the “Among-st the States” commerce clause was entirely put there to avoid State’s running a “Tariff” racket against each others. But this Section really makes that already UN-Constitutional.

      1. Awe — The “Commerce Clause” is but a single enumerated power of Article 1, Section 8; whereas Section 9 and Section 10 just clarify details of those powers… Perhaps my initial “thought” was correct all along.

        Just as “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” enumerated power is followed later by the 14th Amendment for clarification.

  45. Bernie is buying hispanic votes by promising to grant citizenship to 22M illegal immigrants through an executive order on the first day of his presidency, abolishing ICE, giving present and future citizens free health care, free education, welfare and so on.

    Most Latin American countries have been through violent changes in government and experiments in socialism and communism. If enough hispanic immigrants are convinced by Bernie, or anyone else, that our system of government is a bad one, they can vote it away.

  46. It hilarious HOW QUICKLY conservatives jettisoned a core principle.
    States rights were only good until it started being inconvenient for GOP big business donors.

    Now the policy of PREEMPTION of federal law over states rights is the new GOP mantra. Example now big data companies want a (weaker) federal data privacy law that will supersede stronger privacy laws such as California’s. Other federal laws with preemption have already passed.

    1. You see this LINE here in the Constitution called “enumerated powers”? That is the “core principle” and there’s no “jettison” going on around it. Get this… The GOP also believe in a federal military instead of State Military’s.

      It is quite hilarious HOW QUICKLY those against conservatives jettison (more like ignores completely) the U.S. Constitution for some abstract, undefined and flat out buzz-word “core principal.”

      1. Lefties are trying to use states rights and federalism to keep their bastions of socialism afloat yet they dont even understand how federalism, preemption, or the auS Constitution work.

        They cannot afford to have quality education so they can dupe some people. unfortunately this leads to many of their Sheeple not having the education to stand up to American patroits.

        1. Well Said! +1000

  47. Actually, I think it makes sense for the federal government to enforce immigration law. A person does not become a citizen of a state, they become a citizen of the U.S. As a citizen of the U.S. you can become a resident of any state. It wouldn’t make sense if states could all have their own laws about immigration, because once a person becomes a citizen they can go to any other state.

  48. An author who cannot tell states right from federal duties should not be writing for Reason.
    It is not a states right to defy federal authority on matters that are federal concerns, why o dolt to think it is.
    The entire article seems based on confusion, ideology and ignorance and that Reason published it , shows the further reduction in the quality of material Reason prints.

    1. Exactly. Makes as much sense as Reason celebrating “sex workers”. Just when you want to subscribe to their magazine, they slip in a stupid story or two.

  49. “Apparently, conservatives believe in states’ rights, except when they don’t.”

    That is a strawman argument. Those who believe in states’ rights do NOT assert that those states are individual sovereign states. Therefore, they do not have control of the borders. Immigration policy belongs to the Federal Government and always has. Just because some Dems want to keep illegals here to become voters or vote illegally doesn’t mean that they cannot be rounded up and sent back. Eisenhower did it in “Operation Wetback.” Time to bring the American troops home from every desert rathole and put them on the borders.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.