Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Constitutional Case for California's Sanctuary State Laws

The feds may commandeer local police into administering neither federal gun control nor federal immigration policy.

The Justice Department has taken California to court over its status as a "sanctuary state," a term that refers to places where state and local officials refuse to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. In a speech announcing the suit, Attorney General Jeff Sessions accused the Golden State of creating "an open borders system," something he denounced as "a radical, irrational idea that cannot be accepted." Unfortunately for Sessions, his case appears to suffer from a significant constitutional defect.

In the complaint filed in March, the Justice Department asked a U.S. District Court to invalidate several state laws, including parts of the 2017 California Values Act, which stops state and local police from providing certain assistance to federal immigration authorities. Among other things, the act prohibits them from "detaining an individual on the basis of a [federal immigration] hold request"; "transfer[ing] an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination"; and "providing information" to federal immigration authorities "regarding a person's release date…or other information unless that information is available to the public, or is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in accordance with" California law.

According to the Justice Department, those provisions violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by "making it more difficult for federal immigration officers to carry out their responsibilities in California" and by "obstruct[ing] the United States' ability to enforce laws that Congress has enacted." In effect, the attorney general wants to force local police to participate in the administration of federal law.

But that would run afoul of both the 10th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States (1997), "the Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program."

At issue in Printz were parts of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required local police to help implement a federal gun control scheme. The Clinton administration argued that obstructionist local officials should not be allowed to thwart duly enacted national legislation, but the Court disagreed. The provisions were struck down as an unconstitutional "federal commandeering of state governments."

Sessions' case against portions of the California Values Act involves the same constitutional failing that Scalia identified in Printz. The feds may commandeer local police into administering neither federal gun control nor federal immigration policy.

Photo Credit: Curtis Perry

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.

  • damikesc||

    Isnt Arizona v US (2012) a more concrete precedent here?

    States cannot precede federal immigration law...even if they are actually following the law verbatim.

  • John||

    No because it is different when Reason does it. Reason's position is the open borders position always wins no matter what. The rule of law be damned

  • sarcasmic||

    In principle, states standing up to the feds isn't a bad thing. It's a check on power. Checks on power are a good thing from a libertarian point of view.

    Hatred of immigrants is not a new thing. Hating Irish or Italians was once very fashionable. Now hating Mexicans is the ticket into certain social circles.

    I'm happy for you that you can get invited to parties that would exclude me because I don't blindly hate brown people.

  • damikesc||

    You can continue believing that it is a hatred of darker skinned folks running this.

    The biggest reason people advocate open borders is for them to get their low-paid darker skinned help for their house.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "The biggest reason people advocate open borders is for them to get their low-paid darker skinned help for their house."

    Yeah, either that or maybe the principle that individuals should be free to move around and conduct business with each other without a permission slip from the government.

  • Lord_at_War||

    Like a tax return?

  • sarcasmic||

    The biggest reason people advocate for open borders is liberty. One of the founding principles of this nation. Liberty includes people offering their labor for less money than their competition. And yes, competition sucks. To prevent competition people ask for minimum wage laws, licenses, tariffs on imports, and of course restrictions on immigration. None of which are consistent with the principles of liberty and freedom of exchange.

  • damikesc||

    And the biggest reason people oppose open borders is the belief that a country has every right to determine who is and who is not permitted to be a citizen.

    Our citizenship is not a universal right and this is not an argument modern-day slavers such as you will ever win. Sorry.

    Watch your own kids. Mow your own lawn. Darker skinned folks are not here to have you underpay them to do menial chores for you.

  • sarcasmic||

    Darker skinned folks are not here to have you underpay them to do menial chores for you.

    That was the same argument made by the racists who enacted the minimum wage in an effort to keep niggers from stealing jobs from good white folk.

    Same old story, same old song and dance. Except now it's spics not niggers, and immigration law not minimum wage.

    I'm the slaver for supporting liberty? That's a good one. What do you do for an encore?

  • damikesc||

    That was the same argument made by the racists who enacted the minimum wage in an effort to keep niggers from stealing jobs from good white folk.

    And slavery --- sorry, indentured servitude --- is your desire. A group of darker skinned folks who do not really have any ability to fight you over unfair practices to use and exploit.

    I'm the slaver for supporting liberty?

    No, you're a slaver for wanting "employees" you can exploit with no risk of punishment for doing so because they cannot fight you without you having them deported for doing so.

    I'd be ashamed, personally, to call myself anything LESS than a slaver if I was, in fact, a slaver...but YMMV. Any way, I don't have to live with myself for advocating such nonsense.

  • sarcasmic||

    No, you're a slaver for wanting "employees" you can exploit with no risk of punishment for doing so because they cannot fight you without you having them deported for doing so.

    Um, no. I never said that.

    Any way, I don't have to live with myself for advocating such nonsense.

    You got one part right. Nonsense. When you get tired of flogging strawmen let me know.

  • Lord_at_War||

    I'll ask you why when the Income Tax was enacted after the 16th Amendment passed and the Gov't passed a 1% tax on incomes over $3000 (Which would be over $200K today when adjusted for inflation)- and now the middle class making $60K a year are paying 20% to the Gov't...

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "Our citizenship is not a universal right and this is not an argument modern-day slavers such as you will ever win. Sorry."

    Nobody is saying that it is. You understand that there is a difference between requiring a government permission slip to live and work somewhere and being a citizen of said country... right?

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Nobody is saying that it is. You understand that there is a difference between requiring a government permission slip to live and work somewhere and being a citizen of said country... right?"

    It seems to me these have become inextricably linked though so I am not sure it is a politically realistic viewpoint at this time. There seems very little to zero debate on either side advocating this, it seems either to be blanket amnesty and citizenship on one side or deport everyone on the other. We will likely have one or the other in our lifetimes imho.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    You might be right, but that shouldn't be the libertarian viewpoint. In fact I think that the Democrats hypocrisy on immigration would become apparent if there was an immigration policy that allowed more freedom of movement and no guarantee of citizenship.

    I suspect, like many conservatives do, that the Democrats don't care about freedom but really just want to expand their voter base. But just because that's their policy, doesn't mean that everyone that promotes free movement of labor is necessarily for automatic citizenship.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    And the biggest reason people oppose open borders is the belief that a country has every right to determine who is and who is not permitted to be a citizen.

    Untrue. It is bigotry with sides of selfishness and fright.

    Bigots generally don't like to be known as bigots these days -- one of the great achievements of our liberal-libertarian alliance during my lifetime -- so they cloak their intolerance in phrases such as "traditional values" and "colorblind," and save the overt bigotry for "safe" spaces such as militia meetings and Republican committee meetings.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Do you do stand-up dressed as a Reverend? Because if you deadpan it, I bet you could make some money. As an additional benefit, it will allow you to spout all of your racist nonsense openly. The audience will laugh thinking you cannot possibly believe your crap, but for a arrogant insecure idiot like you, you'll feel a sense of power tricking people into believing it's all a joke.

    And just like other unstable comedians, this should keep you free of prison and/or the mental health system.

    Of course you're likely to kill yourself with drugs or more directly, but given your obvious mental illness, this would likely be one of the best lives you could possibly live.

    Otherwise, people will start figuring it out, that you're actually insane, and I don't think someone as fragile as you can take the ego hit once you realize that all of your beliefs in your cognitive abilities are false.

    You're not smart, have zero insight, argues as incoherently as someone having vivid consistent delusions, has a glaringly paranoid/racist worldview, and it's all due to how your brain functions.

    So your ramblings aren't due to you having greater intellect than others, it's simply delusions of grandeur.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Absolute Liberty? You're right. The USA does not have absolute liberty. No country does.

    The Constitution was created to give up as little Liberty as possible to provide for the common defense and to form a country that respects property rights and the pursuit of happiness (for Americans).

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    >The biggest reason people advocate for open borders is liberty.

    And that's the biggest reason I advocate against open borders, as long as we have "democracy" (read: 3 wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner) then I'll oppose more likely Democrat/left wing voters and/or welfare recipients. Even though I'm a Rothbardian deontologist AnCap.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Considered opposition to, and rational arguments against open borders are "hatred of immigrants"? Way to reduce and falsely characterize the anyone with a divergent opinion from that of your own. Open borders is a utopian ideal, and there is nothing inherently bad about "immigrants", but there is a real world libertarian argument against open borders. Someone else make it, though because typing this out on a phone is booooring.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe has done so. Not conclusively though, IMHO.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic, its not about hating people.

    Americans come in every shape, size, and color. Most of these Americans want to control the USA border.

    Be an American not an American't.

  • sarcasmic||

    Most Americans are opposed to liberty and justice. That doesn't make them right.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Open borders does mean liberty and justice for Americans.

    /s

  • sarcasmic||

    I support liberty and justice for all.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Absolute liberty and the United States will never have that.

    Absolute liberty is only possible with anarchy. No rules!

  • sarcasmic||

    Actually, anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It means no archon. No one enforcing rules with violence. But that doesn't mean no rules. There are plenty of instances where there are rules without an archon enforcing them with violence.

  • Mickey Rat||

    That requires self-enforcement of the rules and an honor and shame culture that goes with thst.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    How are rules enforced?

    They're not. Theoretically they are through a really stern talking to. In reality, some people refuse to follow rules. Remember, you cannot physically remove someone from your anarchy utopia because that would be force. You cannot take their land because force.

    There are no punishments for not following the rules besides shunning someone. Good luck with that.

    Anarchy: The theoretical political utopia that can only theoretically work after centuries of Rule of Law have formed a like-minded group of Americans.

  • sarcasmic||

    How are rules enforced?

    What about engineering standards? There isn't anyone with a club whacking people on the back of the head when they don't conform.

    Rules are enforce when people only do business with those who follow the standards.

    Rules without violence. Amazing.

  • Mickey Rat||

    When an engineer violates standards he can lose his license to practice and his company can be sued. If the violation is flagrant enough and the consequences dangerous enough, criminal charges can apply.

  • sarcasmic||

    When an engineer violates standards he can lose his license to practice and his company can be sued. If the violation is flagrant enough and the consequences dangerous enough, criminal charges can apply.

    I mean interoperability as opposed to buildings falling down. If the parts won't fit nobody will buy them.

  • Mickey Rat||

    There is plenty of equipment that compatible with other brands because there is a perceived advantage that it is so. There is also plenty of equipment that is propriety for the same reason.

    You have a problem when it is advantageous to break the rules in such a system.

  • sarcasmic||

    By the way I'm not an anarchist. I accept that there will always be a gang of assholes with the last word in violence who will use that power to steal. In absence of such a gang, a new one will appear. It's human nature.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are an anarchist, you just call it Nanarchist.

    It's like socialists calling themselves progressives or liberals. They're still socialists.

    You don't want any government? Anarchy.
    You don't want rule of law? Anarchy.
    You don't want property rights (no government to enforce that right)? Anarchy.

    I know its cool to be something different.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm a minarchist.

    Minarchism is a libertarian political philosophy which advocates for the state to exist solely to provide a very small number of services. A popular model of the state proposed by minarchists is known as the night-watchman state, in which the only governmental functions are to protect citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud as defined by property laws, limiting it to three institutions: the military, the police and courts. The word "minarchist" was coined by Samuel Edward Konkin III in 1980.[1] It differs from anarchism in that it is not completely based on voluntary association.

    You can tell me I'm an anarchist all day long, but that doesn't make you right. It just makes you an asshole.

  • Mark22||

    By the way I'm not an anarchist. I accept that there will always be a gang of assholes with the last word in violence who will use that power to steal ... I'm a minarchist. You can tell me I'm an anarchist all day long, but that doesn't make you right. It just makes you an asshole.

    Your "minarchism" comes down to two things:

    (1) get rid of laws that inconvenience me

    (2) have the "gang of assholes" called goverment point their guns at other people to extract money from them for my benefit

    That's not really "minarchism", it's just mainstream American "liberalism".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    sarcasmic|5.22.18 @ 10:36AM|#
    I'm a minarchist.
    Minarchism is a libertarian political philosophy which advocates for the state to exist solely to provide a very small number of services. A popular model of the state proposed by minarchists is known as the night-watchman state, in which the only governmental functions are to protect citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud as defined by property laws, limiting it to three institutions: the military, the police and courts. The word "minarchist" was coined by Samuel Edward Konkin III in 1980.[1] It differs from anarchism in that it is not completely based on voluntary association.

    You can tell me I'm an anarchist all day long, but that doesn't make you right. It just makes you an asshole.


    An asshole like you refuses to accept reality and makes up words that most people do not acknowledge.

    You're NOT a libertarian because you want zero government. That makes you an anarchist and a mini-asshole.

  • sarcasmic||

    What makes me different is that I try to understand other viewpoints, even if I don't agree with them. Too many people feel that if you try to understand something then you must agree with it. You are a sympathizer or something. While there are others like you who only understand enough of an opposing viewpoint to erect straw man arguments. Like calling me an anarchist. Whatever. If you want me to write you off as an asshole I will be happy to do so. Keep it up and that's exactly what I will do.

  • Mark22||

    What makes me different is that I try to understand other viewpoints, even if I don't agree with them.

    Obviously you don't try to do that, because you keep misrepresenting a desire for legal immigration as a hatred of Mexicans.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic. You're an anarchist because you don't want any government.

    if you want limited government, then Libertarian is the term for that. Classic liberal is the old term for that.

    You are choosing Narchist for a reason and that is because there is not government to enforce rules. Libertarians have a small limited government.

    Your like the stupid socialists who try and change what they call themselves yet they still want government to control the means of production. They try and call themselves progressives, liberals, and Democrats but they are socialists.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Sarc, you seem to be confused about the meaning of the word enFORCE. AnCapistan has many ways to ensure compliance with the polycentric evolved law. Violence is one of them.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    > Absolute liberty is only possible with anarchy. No rules!

    You say that like it's a bad thing. AnCapistan isn't a place with No rules, it's a place with more than one Ruler, i.e., polycentric (competitive) law. This is how English common law evolved.

  • damikesc||

    Well, except for darker skinned folks. They need to learn their place and do my chores for me for way below market rates.

  • Mark22||

    Hatred of immigrants is not a new thing. Now hating Mexicans is the ticket into certain social circles.

    No, only disliking people who violate our borders and the people who enable them.

    I'm happy for you that you can get invited to parties that would exclude me because I don't blindly hate brown people.

    With your racist mindset, racism becomes the explanation for any one of your personal failings.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I'm not a lawyer, but I think there is a legal difference.

    Arizona vs US said that the states can't usurp federal enforcement of immigration laws. They basically said that the state government can't require people to be required to carry documentation of their legal residency status because that's a federal government responsibility (which a strict interpretation of the Constitution would say that it's actually not, but that's a different issue than the one at hand).

    In the case of sanctuary cities/states, the question is whether or not the federal government can compel the states to enforce federal laws. The California law prohibits police from detaining immigrants based only on their immigration status.

    The difference as I understand it is that AZ vs US is about the supremacy of federal law as it relates to immigration, while the California issue is about whether local police are compelled to uphold federal law. I think the precedent in Printz vs United States applies in that it was determined that it's a violation of the 10th amendment for the Feds to compel state governments to uphold gun control laws. I don't know why this case would be any different.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It is different because states enforcing immigration law has been preempted by Congress enforcing its enumerated power to regulate immigration and naturalization. Article I, Sections 8 & 9.

    Arizona's claim was that the federal government was not enforcing the immigration laws on the books, so Arizona could.

    Arizona was wrong but it publicized the concern some states have with Congress not doing its job.

    Trump was partly elected on this issue.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Yeah, I think we agree on the relevancy of the findings of the court, although as you know we disagree whether the court was actually correct in its interpretation of A1S8.

    By the way. A1S9C1 is NEVER mentioned in the AZ vs US ruling. The SCOTUS held that the federal power over immigration is part of the Naturalization Clause and it's sovereignty over foreign relations. Talk about a "living" interpretation of the Constitution....

    Held:
    1. The Federal Government's broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The court is wrong a lot. Even when the SCOTUS is "right" in its decision, it can be wrong on how it got there.

    The court writes long winded opinions when simply referring people to the "x" part of the Constitution would suffice.

    States can do things that are enumerated powers of Congress if Congress choose not to execute on that enumerated duty. States cannot complain if they have some rule and then Congress decides to act on its enumerated power and it messes up the state's law. That's the deal states made when they gave up some power in the Constitution.

  • John||

    If Arizona cannot enforce federal law, then California cannot impede the enforcement of federal law either. The bottom line here is that the state of California is saying that it can refuse to turn over information that it has about people who are violating federal laws. It is one thing to say "we are not going to ask". But California is not doing that. They are saying "even if we know, we are never telling the feds". More than that, they will make it a crime to tell the feds. California may not have the power to enforce federal law, but it also does not have the power to impede the enforcement of federal law and refuse to cooperate with the feds in the enforcement of federal law. If they can, then federal supremacy means nothing. And if federal supremacy means nothing, then Arizona should be free to enforce immigration law because federal supremacy is the only thing that prevents it.

    Basically you are saying federal supremacy works when you don't like what the state is doing but doesn't apply when you do.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "If Arizona cannot enforce federal law, then California cannot impede the enforcement of federal law either."

    Look at the supposed proponents of federalism and limited government advocating giving MORE power to the feds over states and individuals because it's their pet issue.

    Cute...

  • John||

    Look at the supposed proponents of federalism and limited government advocating giving MORE power to the feds over states and individuals because it's their pet issue.

    No, pick a position and live with it. Is immigration a federal issue or a state one? If it is a federal issue, then the states have to cooperate and cannot aid and abet people violating federal immigration laws any more than they can aid and abet people who rob banks or commit espionage. If, however, it is a state issue, then Arizona is free to go the other way and spend all of their resources helping the feds.

    If it is a federal issue and Arizona cannot help them, then California cannot impede it either. You can't have it both ways. You just want it both ways because you are a hypocrite and are willing to run over the rule of law to get what you want.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "No, pick a position and live with it."
    I did. Below.

    The semantics of why I disagree with the AZ decision is different than yours. But I also believe compelled enforcement of a law is different than usurping enforcement of a law by a local government.

    Speaking of which, do you think that the decision in Printz is correct? Should local law enforcement be compelled to enforce federal gun laws?

  • John||

    What you did below was lie about the nature of the law. No one is forcing LEOs to enforce immigration laws. That is not the issue here. The feds are not saying you have to ask the immigration status. They are saying that when they show up and want to check the status of the people in your jail, you have to let them.

    Stop pretending the law is different than what it is.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "If it is a federal issue and Arizona cannot help them, then California cannot impede it either."

    This seems fair to me. Let states do as they please and deport or harbor whoever they like.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Article I, Section 8 & 9 enumerates that power from states to Congress.

    States cannot constitutionally deport or harbor whomever they like unless Congress abdicates that power and they have not.

  • Mark22||

    Look at the supposed proponents of federalism and limited government advocating giving MORE power to the feds over states and individuals because it's their pet issue.

    I'm all for more limited government, but not every arbitrary reduction in federal powers results in more limited government. Reducing the power of the federal government to enforce borders does not result in more federalism and more limited government; rather the opposite.

    We can open borders, after we get rid of federal social programs, federal entitlement programs, and the federal income tax.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I should add, I agree totally with the Printz decision. State and local governments can't be compelled to do the jobs of the feds. That's the issue at hand here. The California law doesn't attempt to usurp the federal law, it simply makes it illegal for the police to detain someone solely based on their immigration status. It doesn't try to stop ICE or the FBI from upholding immigration law.

    Also, I DON'T agree with the Arizona vs US decision, because I don't believe that the Naturalization Clause gives the feds "broad and undoubted" power over the movement of peoples across an imaginary line. I do think that the feds have the power over establishing citizenship (naturalization) but not over residency. But again, that's a separate issue that I've debated with LC1789 too many times to count.

  • John||

    The California law doesn't attempt to usurp the federal law, it simply makes it illegal for the police to detain someone solely based on their immigration status.

    That is completely untrue. If it were just that, there would not be an issue. What the California law does is make it illegal for a California law enforcement officer to inform or cooperate with the feds on an immigration issue. It means that when someone is arrested for a crime and the police know they are in the country illegally, it is illegal for the police to call ICE. It is also illegal for the police to even tell ICE that they have someone here illegally even if ICE asks. The law makes it a crime not to impede the enforcement of federal law.

    Stop pretending the law is something that it is not. And by the way, the law also makes it a crime for a private citizen to cooperate with ICE or do anything but assert the right to remain silent if questioned by ICE. California is telling its citizens what they can say to the feds and that it in effect owns those citizens' rights and will tell them when they will assert them. Are you okay with that? I guess those people's first amendment rights and 5th Amendment rights don't matter because God damn it you want open borders.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I don't agree with forced speech in either way. So if the California law makes it illegal to inform the feds, then I would be against that portion.

    My understanding might have been incorrect or limited. I'll admit that.

    I do agree that it should be illegal for state and local police to hold a suspect in custody for simply not being able to produce documentation of being allowed to be here. Having dark skin and no papers isn't probable cause, and shouldn't rise to the standard of arrest or custody.

    But the premise that these two things are the same, AZ vs US and California's law, is laughable at best. They aren't the same thing, legally.

  • John||

    I do agree that it should be illegal for state and local police to hold a suspect in custody for simply not being able to produce documentation of being allowed to be here.

    That is again not what is happening here. What is happening is ICE calls the police and says "Pablo Moralez is an illegal and in your jail, keep him there until we can come get him". And California is saying no they will not do that. And that is actively impeding the enforcement of federal law.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Indeed, if tipped off ICE is on the way, California is actually releasing criminals ahead of schedule, to prevent ICE from catching them.

    It goes well beyond simple non-commandeering, and it's dishonest of Reason to pretend that's all that is going on. California is actively impeding federal law enforcement, and compelling private citizens, and their own employees on their own time, to also impede it.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "and compelling private citizens, and their own employees on their own time, to also impede it."

    That's wrong, and should be unconstitutional limitation on speech, as agreed to above.

    "California is actively impeding federal law enforcement"

    You say that they are actively impeding law enforcement by not holding someone for ICE, but that's no different than ICE compelling the law enforcement to detain someone. I'll ask again, do the conservatives arguing against California agree with the ruling in Printz or not? Specifically, should local law enforcement be compelled to uphold federal gun control laws?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Law enforcement uses a thing called a "detainer". It is a hold request by another law enforcement agency that an inmate can be held for "x" amount of time until the requesting LEO can pick that inmate up.

    ICE is sending in detainers and California is saying fuck you. Only fuck you to ICE mind you. Not fuck you to other law enforcement. California also would expect federal authorities to deliver inmates to California.

    Commifornia is wrong in this and their desperation is getting worse and worse.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    That sounds much different than what you describe above as compelled speech. You're all over the place on this argument.

    "Keep him there until we can come get him" is compelled law enforcement. It's not right for the local police to be compelled to detain someone simply because they don't have papers. If ICE has obtained a warrant, then the situation would be different. If the local law enforcement has him in the jail then they must have probable cause for some other crime that is within their jurisdiction? If so, then they should be keeping him there anyway. If his only "crime" is not being able to produce legal status documentation, then he hasn't committed a crime within the local jurisdiction.

    This seems consistent to me.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its called a detainer and its a request. Honored by all law enforcement agencies among themselves.

    California wants other agencies to detain people for them but do not want to detain illegals for ICE.

  • John||

    No Leo you are all over the place. California is refusing to cooperate with ICE but will cooperate with the FBI or other state and local authorities. That is a direct affront to federal supremacy. If California can refuse to cooperate with ICE, then states can refuse to cooperate with any federal agency over any federal law. Surely even you are bright enough to see the problem with that.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "No Leo you are all over the place."

    I'm just trying to keep up with you. I haven't seen an answer yet to your position regarding Printz.

    I'll ask again, do you think specifically that local law enforcement should be compelled to enforce federal gun control? If ATF said "we believe Pablo Smith has violated the federal gun laws, could you please detain him until we can get there," would you agree that my local sheriff would be compelled to hold him?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Still no response from LC1789 or John on their view on Printz?

    Could it be that it might expose your hypocrisy on this issue in that you support limiting federal overreach on gun control, but not on immigration control?

  • John||

    Still no response from LC1789 or John on their view on Printz?

    My response is above. You keep lying and pretending that the feds are compelling the states to arrest people for violations of federal law instead of just holding them when the feds ask.

    You are a lying sack of shit on this issue. You confirm the rule that no open borders Libertarian has any principles or is capable of making an honest argument.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    John, Leo is not a Libertarian.

    Leo's an Nanarchist like Sarcasmic.

  • John||

    I'll ask again, do you think specifically that local law enforcement should be compelled to enforce federal gun control?

    No one is saying that they should. Yes, if someone has a federal warrant for a firearms violation, the state and locals should hold that person for BATF. No one is saying that they should be forced to arrest people for federal firearms violations. You keep claiming that we are. It is dishonest as hell. The facts of this law have been explained to you multiple times. And they do not involve forcing any state LEO to arrest people for immigration violations. So stop claiming that it does.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Holding without another (state/local) charge is the same as arresting in principle.

    I can't believe that California LEO's would release an illegal immigrant who has violated some state/local law, simply because you claim that it could be the case. Do you have any real-life examples of this happening?

    In fact, the article you're posting under is specifically saying that the Justice Dept has issues with local LEOs not holding detainees under detainer requests. Printz is pretty clear. State/local LEO's can't be compelled to hold anyone for any reason by the federal government. Holding someone absent a state/local charge is no different than compelling them to enforce federal laws.

    I've already conceded that compelled speech should be found unconstitutional, that includes compelling someone by state law to not comply with federal agents.

  • Mark22||

    State/local LEO's can't be compelled to hold anyone for any reason by the federal government.

    You might have an argument if California generically required its LEOs not to hold criminals sought by the federal government. But even that weak argument breaks down when California picks and chooses which federal laws it holds people for and which federal laws it does not.

  • Ron||

    " What is happening is ICE calls the police and says "Pablo Moralez is an illegal and in your jail, keep him there until we can come get him". And California is saying no they will not do that. And that is actively impeding the enforcement of federal law."

    in all other cases thats called obstruction and California can not make people within its state commit a crime by obstructing the federal government from doing its job.

  • Mark22||

    Also, I DON'T agree with the Arizona vs US decision, because I don't believe that the Naturalization Clause gives the feds "broad and undoubted" power over the movement of peoples across an imaginary line. I do think that the feds have the power over establishing citizenship (naturalization) but not over residency.

    As long as the federal government has the power to compel Americans to associate with residents, not to discriminate against residents, and to pay for the social welfare of residents, the federal government ought to have the power to decide who actually becomes a resident.

  • ||

    So California is going rogue AND they have 55 EV? Quite the cake and eat it too, eh?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    California also want the feds to go after local bakers for refusing to bake cakes but they dont want the feds to go after illegals.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    A state (not to be confused with a State) most certainly has the power to refuse to cooperate with the Feds. That's exactly what the Printz case was all about.

    All of these arguments are ignoring Article 1, section 8, clause 17, which describes federal jurisdiction. There is no general federal jurisdiction within the states. Congress has usurped state jurisdiction on this topic by arbitrarily expanding the "border" to 100 miles from the actual border.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "As the late Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States (1997), "the Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.""

    Not a lawyer so pardon me. If this reads the way I think it reads then how does the Fed make states follow drug laws, driving laws, trade laws, gun laws, alcohol laws, states prohibiting or deporting immigrants by themselves, segregating their schools, etc. Really any Federal law. Or is this just some arbitrary, loose phrase that only applies to laws we like and laws not explicitly prohibited by the Constitutuion?

  • Longtobefree||

    Add Medicare/aid to the list - -

  • sarcasmic||

    how does the Fed make states follow drug laws, driving laws, trade laws, gun laws, alcohol laws, states prohibiting or deporting immigrants by themselves, segregating their schools, etc

    By making it a condition of receiving federal funding. That's how the feds force states to do things that the feds do not have the legal authority to demand. Funding.

  • Mickey Rat||

    And there is precedent thst says that is unconstitutional as well. One of the arguments in the ACA exchange case was that ACA legislation trying to force the states to create exchanges was legsl in the first place, so the executive was free to fund the federal exchanges as it saw fit.

    We are increasingly getting results oriented jurisprudence with contradictory precedents from the left and swing justices which is compromising the rule of law.

  • sarcasmic||

    There has never been rule of law. The job of a judge is to creatively interpret plain language to mean the opposite of what it actually says. It has always been rule of man.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Then we just as well give up and hail Caesar.

  • sarcasmic||

    I just keep my head down and try to stay under the government radar.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That's why they use radar. To find people like YOU.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Errant judges are a thing but that's not the same as there being an absence of the RoL. In the future, all but the highest levels of judicial authority will be surrendered to AI. Judgebot 5000 cares not what might get thrown out at appeal. The algorithms say sneezing during proceedings is comtempt, and thus the fine will be automatically deducted from your e-credits. As for sentencung, Judgebot209 ain't called "Maximum Bot" for nothing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The fed did the same thing with drinking age and speed limit.

    No highway funds unless states raised their drinking age and set their speed limits to 55.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Yes, but that is something the majority of the political class likes, so it goes through unquestioned.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That is why this is so AWESOME.

    This corruption of dynamic between the states and the federal government has been so twisted for decades and now its being corrected. The left hates it.

    This would have never happened under Hillary.

  • Mickey Rat||

    That is just it. It will not be corrected. This argument will only apply to protect sanctuary policies. It will not apply to any othet federal meddling in state matters.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some stuff will be corrected. The open border people think they can have federalism when it suits them and not when it comes to things like ObamaCare.

    The system set up by the Constitution is so messed up, it will take time to fix.

  • Chipper Jones||

    In none of those cases are state officials mandated to enforce federal policy. Most criminal violations end up being violations of state or local laws.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly. The fed are not demanding that local police arrest illegals for violating immigration law. These criminals are are already being arrested for violations of state law.

    The fed just wants a fair crack at the criminals to deport them.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I get what you are saying... but my question is why can't states tell the government:
    - We want to segregate our schools, you Feds can't compel me to follow your laws.
    - We want to mandate a citizenship card and require them to produce them if we are suspicious you are illegal and if found to be not a citizen, dump you in jail or deport you. You Feds can't tell me to follow your laws
    - We want to ban bump stocks, pistols with magazines of more than 2 bullets, all shotguns, all rifles besides bolt action single shots. You Feds can't tell me to follow your laws

    Why can't states effectively do as they please and tell the Feds we have our own laws and you can't tell our state employees to follow your laws. I realize the above examples may have Constitutional issues, but even if that is true, what if my state judges deem it not a violation of the Constitution, why should we have to listen to some Federal judges? They can't compel us to follow their interpretation, we are states.

    What I am getting at is it seems rather arbitrary and a bunch of horseshit. Either the Fed has certain powers to compel states to follow certain rules or they do not have any power to compel compliance.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Schools were deemed a right and the states were violating the 14th Amendment. Federal troops enforced that right.

    The federal government forcing all Americans to have a National ID cards is not an enumerated power.

    The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the People to keep and bears Arms. All Arms including bump stocks, machine guns, grenades, ships, planes, swords, knives, nukes, and any other weapon that can be created.

  • JoeBlow123||

    My state judges say you are wrong about everything and I don't feel like deferring to he Federal government and the Federal judges because they are wrong. Who is going to force me to not ban all shotguns and card everyone for citizenship? The Federal government? The same guys who said Federal employees cannot compel state employees to follow their laws and regulations?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The People dude. The people force the government to abide by the Constitution. The Constitution creates the power for government and lists protections for specific rights. Without the Constitution there would be no US government as we know it.

  • JoeBlow123||

    What if all my states citizens, a majority of the states in my geographic area, want something. Can the Feds force me to comply?

    What I am getting at is I believe the Feds can unless powers are specifically delegated down to the states that the Feds cannot interfere with. It seems silly to insist Federal employees cannot force states to follow certain regulations unless it is a power specifically in the states hands and not the Federal government. What Scalia wrote seems silly, it can justify all sorts of actions by states that are not in line with Federal statuettes.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Depends on what it is.

    If its an enumerated power of Congress then, yeah. Your state and surrounding states already conceded that power to the federal government by becoming a state.

    You can amend the Constitution. Unfortunately you need more than your state and states in your region to do that. You need 2/3 of the states to convene a constitutional convention and 3/4 of the states to ratify an Amendment. Currently 2/3 is 34 states.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Where does Reason stand on pardoning violent criminals (and I mean convicted of specific violent crimes in a courtroom) to keep them from being deported?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anything...and I mean anything to prevent deportation.

    Reason considers illegals NOT criminals.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm reminded of two pertinent cases--both initiated both initiated by California.

    1) Ruling on Prop 187

    It was held that California is unable to decline services to illegal aliens because enforcing immigration laws is the sole purview of the federal government.

    2) California's suit to force the federal government to reimburse them for the costs of educating, providing medical care for, and imprisoning illegal aliens.

    It was held that the federal government is not responsible for those charges because they're administered by the state.

    ----

    The general rule seems to be that no one except the federal government can do anything about illegal immigration. If the federal government can't enforce immigration aw with the cooperation of the states, then things are likely to get real ugly--as a function of natural law. If the only way to deal with this is through the federal government, and electing a federal government to enforce immigration law doesn't make any difference either, then people probably won't just quietly accept new norms in the name of tolerance. We'll probably see true anti-immigration parties arise in the U.S. like they have in the UK and France, and a large group of Americans become increasingly convinced that liberal democracy and tolerance for multiculturalism and pluralism has failed. This is not a recipe for an increasingly free society.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Local, county and state police can enforce all laws, including federal law.

    Federal law enforcement cannot enforce any laws but federal law.

    In other words, FBI agents cannot stop people for speeding (unless on federal land) but the California Highway Patrol can arrest people for being in the USA illegally.

  • Chipper Jones||

    Tell that to the state of Arizona.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Unfortunately for Arizona, Obama wanted to act on federal preemption of immigration law over state law.

    States were just in a fucked position because the court probably should defer to federal preemption with regard to immigration.

    Which is partly why Trump was elected. The Executive was not taking immigration laws on the books seriously but demanding that states could not do anything either.

    Americans got pissed.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    What the courts should have done was notice that the supremacy clause makes federal "law" supreme, and doesn't say squat about federal "policy".

    In the Arizona case, federal "law" was squarely on Arizona's side, only federal (Obama's) policy to not enforce that law opposed them.

    If the judges cared what the Constitution actually said, it would have been Arizona citing the supremacy clause, not the Obama administration.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    State police can enforce all laws inside that state but no other state law (unless states have a compact for law enforcement crossing states lines).

    City police cannot typically enforce laws outside its city limits but can enforce federal law.

    Sheriffs and county police can enforce laws inside that county but typically not outside that county or state.

  • sarcasmic||

    One of the things I will miss the most when I move out of this town is the fact that there is no police force. Some of property tax money pays for sheriffs and state troopers to be available (mostly all they do is give out speeding tickets), but there is no town police force. This means that the town council can pass all the ordinances that they want, but no one will enforce them. Troopers and sheriffs don't give a shit about local ordinances. They enforce state law. That's it. Which reminds me, I killed Alvin, but Simon and Theodore are still on the loose. Time to shoot some rodents!

  • FlameCCT||

    Not enough meat on chipmunks, need at least squirrel size like Rocky.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Until another city jurisdiction annexes your property into their city.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Put them together, and, yeah, the states can't deny services because immigration is the purview of the federal government, and the states have to pay for those services, too--because paying for immigration is not the purview of the federal government.

    They make it seem as though the federal government can only enforce immigration law at the border--but then building a wall is all wrong and using the military to defend our borders? I've heard that's unconstitutional, too.

    The general rule seems to be that no matter what the Constitution or common sense dictates, if enforcing immigration laws is right, the courts would rather be wrong.

    This is why people turn to populists and away from the rule of law. There's this thing called legitimacy. It can be won by vicious dictators (see Putin) and it can be lost by democracies (see the Weimar Republic).

  • FlameCCT||

    ...it can be lost by democracies (see Venezuela.)

  • Mickey Rat||

    Does this mean that the Civil Rights Act, the EPA, and the rest if the federal alphabet soup are dead letters?

    I did not think so.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Justice Department has taken California to court over its status as a "sanctuary state," a term that refers to places where state and local officials refuse to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

    It is not refuse to participate. Its actively violating federal law.

    8 U.S. Code § 1324
    ...
    (1)(A)(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
    ....

    States do not have to enforce federal law but actively trying to aid and abet criminals subject to that law is a crime.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It will be fun when the feds are serving federal.court warrants on state and local governments to release suspected illegal aliens to.them.

  • damikesc||

    Arizona vs US said that the states can't usurp federal enforcement of immigration laws. They basically said that the state government can't require people to be required to carry documentation of their legal residency status because that's a federal government responsibility (which a strict interpretation of the Constitution would say that it's actually not, but that's a different issue than the one at hand).

    No, they said that if the feds decide to not enforce the law, states cannot override that decision.

    The same works vice versa. If the feds decide to enforce the law, states do not have the power to override that decision.

    Oakland's mayor undoubtedly openly violated federal law. And it is time that when the DoJ has to give out grants for CA to receive literally none of them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "But that would run afoul of both the 10th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States (1997), "the Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program."

    At issue in Printz were parts of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required local police to help implement a federal gun control scheme. The Clinton administration argued that obstructionist local officials should not be allowed to thwart duly enacted national legislation, but the Court disagreed. The provisions were struck down as an unconstitutional "federal commandeering of state governments."

    Run afoul of the Tenth 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."

    ----Tenth Amendment

    Are we sure that congress' enumerated power to set the rules of naturalization can be reduced to the status of a regulatory bill?

    Surely, there's a difference between powers that are not delegated to the states (regulation of handguns) and those that are enumerated to congress (naturalization).

  • John||

    The theory is that Congress' power of naturalization only extends to citizenship not actually preventing aliens from entering the country. This is an absurd position that would mean Congress would not have the power to detain aliens in times of war or regulate the conduct of foreign aliens and even agents of foreign powers within the nation. If Congress does not have the power to prevent the admission of foreign nationals, how does it then have the power to expel ambassadors? How would aliens convicted of felonies ever be deported? Remember reason swears up and down they are okay with deporting criminal aliens. Really?

    Beyond that, if you believe this position, then Arizona absolutely has the power to do it. It was a power to left to the states right? Yet somehow all of that was forgotten when we were talking about Arizona. Then it was all about the big bad federal government and its total control over immigration law.

    You can't overstate how craven and hypocritical reason is on these issues. They have absolutely no principles whatsoever beyond no one can ever be deported for any reason.

  • Ken Shultz||

    However big they want the term "naturalization" to be, setting the rules around it is enumerated to congress in the same place as the power to declare war and the power to tax is enumerated to congress. That's because inflicting an unpopular immigration policy on the American people is like inflicting an unpopular tax or an unpopular war--the framers made naturalization (whatever it means) subject to the approval of congress for that reason.

    That is specifically not like rights that are protected by the Constitution, such as in the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law . . .".

    To my mind, citizenship confers nothing more than the legal right to vote, the legal right to hold office, and the legal to be within our borders. The idea that the right to be within our borders isn't a feature of citizenship strains credibility in a number of ways. I'm thinking about extradition among others. Surely there's a difference between citizens and non-citizens in terms of contesting extradition. How can that be if citizenship (naturalization) doesn't also include the right to be within our borders?

  • Libertymike||

    If the framers had intended to give Congress the power to regulate immigration, they would have so said. They chose otherwise.

    Nevertheless, you endorse the progressive philosophy of liberally construing federal powers.

  • Ken Shultz||

    In response to the suggestion that naturalization includes immigration, this argument is childish--especially given that I spelled out why one includes the other, gave an example, etc.

  • John||

    They did say so. Naturalization meant the ability to enter the nation. Also, the war powers necessarily gave Congress that power.

    If you want to believe that, fine. But don't then turn around and tell me Arizona doesn't have the right to round up and deport anyone who is not a citizen it wants to. Stop trying to have it both ways.

  • Libertymike||

    John, why would you want to indulge the feds with more power or liberally construe their power?

    At the time of the founding, there was no uniform understanding that a central power had the right to regulate who could enter and who could be deported. The Articles of Confederation certainly did not confer any such power upon Congress.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    At the time of founding the USA under the Constitution, Article I, section 8 & 9 grant that power to Congress.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "Naturalization meant the ability to enter the nation."

    Naturalization is immigration now? Is that kind of like saying "the right of the people" only applies to the militia?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So you're just going to ignore section 9 now?

    Your position is clearly untenable.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Nope. Section 9 clearly says that prior to 1908 Congress can't regulate the slave trade. 13A has sort of made it a moot point though, hasn't it?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Oh poor Leo has now read Article I, section 9 and tried ignoring what he read.

    Migrants are immigrants and their entry was never made moot by the abolishment of slavery in the 13th Amendment.

    And its 1808, after which Congress can regulate slavery and migration of free persons.

    This is fun.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Additionally, the Constitution enumerates the power to Congress to regulate migrants after 1808.
    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 Kovalensky II||

    Simply, wrong.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Unfortunately for you, understanding written English makes YOU wrong.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You have a citation for why you are right?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Don't you find it interesting that none of our immigration case law EVER cites A1S9C1? Wouldn't some clever anti-immigration lawyer have made this argument?

    EVERY link that I've ever read specifically about A1S9C1 has made it clear that it's a limit on federal power (not an enumerated power, which are contained in A1S8) and it's only applicable to the slave trade.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I find it interesting that you think YOU are right yet have zero citations. You FEELZ it.

    The courts ignore the 2nd Amendment too. It is literally in English that: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Yet the courts and other government think that "shall not be infringed" means its okay to force background checks, limit guns and accessories, and other unconstitutional gun control.

    They are wrong. Even worse it that these courts are purposefully usurping the Constitution and people are sick of it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Article I section 9 is applicable to the slaves and migrants (immigrants).

    The fact that courts ignore this and you ignore this is very telling that your position is untenable.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Keep licking that government boot. They and they alone are the ones that can control the flow of people and labor. I mean, they're doing a smashing good job of it already!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is fun.

    You literally are like a little kid kicking and stomping their feet because Article I, section 9 gives the power of Congress to regulate migration of free persons after 1808 and you don't like it.

    You cannot even come up with anything to contest this except to ignore it.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Since immigration and naturalization are federal responsibilities, the 10th amendment should mean that a state cannot develop its own immigration policy independent of federal law. Arguably, a sanctuary policy would put a state in violation of the 10th amendment.

  • John||

    It absolutely does. The worst part is that the open borders people are claiming that states can develop their own immigration policies but only if those policies are open borders policies. California can make it a crime to talk to ICE but Arizona can't enforce immigration law even though they all claim this is really a state issue. It is the most audaciously dishonest position I have ever seen anyone on the Right take.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "Since immigration and naturalization are federal responsibilities"

    Citation needed.

  • John||

    Fine, then explain to me why Arizona can't deport people on its own? If it is a state issue, why can't they do it?

    You refuse to pick a position other than "whatever gives me my pony."

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    What makes you think that they should deport someone for simply crossing a line? Where does anyone get that power? Is it enumerated to AZ within its Constitution?

  • John||

    What makes you think that they should deport someone for simply crossing a line? Where does anyone get that power? Is it enumerated to AZ within its Constitution?

    The Constitution governs the federal government not the states. The states do not get their power from the Constitution. And Arizona gets that power from being a sovereignty. If you want to claim that the states never gave that sovereign power to the feds, then you can't then argue they don't have it. States have always had that power and had it at the time of the Constitution's writing. Why don't they have it now? Because people like you want your fucking pony and don't give a fuck how you get it. Well fuck you. The law means something. You don't just get to change it because you want it that way. And that is all you are doing here. You are no different than a Progressive.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "The Constitution governs the federal government not the states."

    Wrong. Naturalization immigration.

    "You are no different than a Progressive."

    He says in defense of his own state-worshipping, liberal interpretation of clear constitutional language. Next you're going to tell me that immigration is interstate commerce?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    HTML scewed that up. I meant to say that naturalization (does not equal) immigration

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Arizona joined the Union and gave up some of its power to the Constitution. In this case the power to regulate who stays, enters and leaves Arizona.

    Congress controls that now. Article I, section 8 & 9.

  • Libertymike||

    The individual right to travel, protected by the 9th amendment, trumps an implied power to regulate immigration.

    Don't be a slaver to federal power.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertymike|5.22.18 @ 10:55AM|#
    The individual right to travel, protected by the 9th amendment, trumps an implied power to regulate immigration.
    Don't be a slaver to federal power.
    The enumerated power of Congress after 1808. 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.

    This is fun.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "What makes you think that they should deport someone for simply crossing a line? Where does anyone get that power? Is it enumerated to AZ within its Constitution?"

    Your argument appears intellectually dishonest. If California can be a sanctuary state, why can't Arizona be a deport everyone state? What makes one ok and not the other?

  • Mickey Rat||

    The authority to prevent outsiders from entering and remaining in its territory is one of the defining characteristics of a sovereignty. The extent that it exercises that authority is the question, no that the authority exists.

  • Mark22||

    What makes you think that they should deport someone for simply crossing a line?

    The "line" you are talking about is a line that demarcates where Americans pay for government services. Since I am forced (at gunpoint if necessary) to pay for stuff on this side of the line, I am going to exercise my right under the Constitution to determine who may cross that line.

    I'm all for a open borders libertarian state. What I do not accept is an open borders welfare state that I am forced to pay for.

    Note that Americans can't even leave the country and cross that line without a large part of their property being taken away.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Article I, section 9.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Article I, section 8.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Since immigration and naturalization are federal responsibilities, the 10th amendment should mean that a state cannot develop its own immigration policy independent of federal law. Arguably, a sanctuary policy would put a state in violation of the 10th amendment.

  • Libertymike||

    Do not conflate immigration with naturalization - they are two different things. The feds have no power to regulate immigration. There is no language in the constitution which unambiguously states:

    Congress shall have the power to make uniform laws regarding immigration.

  • Libertymike||

    Article I, section 8, clause 4 provides Congress with the power:

    To establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.

    Thus, given the above language, and the fact that immigration is not naturalization, how can any sane person, committed to strictly construing the power granted to Congress, argue that the federal government has any jurisdiction with regard to immigration matters?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    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.

  • Mickey Rat||

    That is a tin-foil hat interpretation on par with the 2nd amendment only spplying to state militias.

  • Libertymike||

    No, the interpretation is a literal construction of the language. For progressives like you, of course, that love ye some federal power, it can't be.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Yeah, all of US immigration law is illegal and should be struck down.

    Good luck with that.

  • Libertymike||

    Good luck being a slaver.

    You must love you some federal power.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Federal power listed in the Constitution.

    Yeah. That makes him a slaver.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Dealing with the world as it exists and recognizing what is and is not likely to change is not the same thing as loving it.

  • Libertymike||

    Point taken.

  • Ken Shultz||

    This is horseshit. See above.

    You're conflating "ought" with "is".

    You're conflating the world you want with what the Constitution says, and they're not the same thing.

    Sometimes the Constitution requires us to acknowledge policies we don't want or like.

    Because I didn't like the Iraq War doesn't mean the Iraq War was unconstitutional.

    Because I don't like the immigration policy set by congress doesn't mean it's unconstitutional either.

    If you want to advocate for the way the world should be, be my guest. Don't expect the rest of us to pretend it's actually the reality. That just waters down support for our constitutional rights. It lends support to the idea that people can reinterpret the First or Second Amendments to mean whatever they want.

    My insistence on other people respecting my legal rights as required by the Constitution--even when they don't like it--is predicated on my demonstrated willingness to respect constitutional laws in their proper purview--even when I don't like it.

    There may be no better claim to protection of my Second Amendment rights than my own respect for the religious rights of atheists, Muslims, the awful immigration policies of congress, the legitimacy of the bad wars they constitutionally declare, etc.

  • Libertymike||

    Most of which you write in your post is a non-sequitur.

    "Ought vs. Is" My interpretation of the Article I, Sec. 8, cl.4 is a literal read on the language. Hence, it is an interpretation which is predicated upon that what "is." Is it too much to ask that you abide by the literal meaning of the words employed instead of reading into it an "ought" that is just not there? You want the federal government to be able to have the power to control immigration notwithstanding the fact that the framers saw fit not to give such power to the feds.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Naturalization is a process--from coming to the United States, establishing residency, to, eventually, becoming a citizen. That congress is charged with establishing rules for that process affirms naturalization as a process subject to their rules.

    Meanwhile, I've given arguments above and cited examples that you've failed to address at all.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Naturalization is a process--from coming to the United States, establishing residency, to, eventually, becoming a citizen. That congress is charged with establishing rules for that process affirms naturalization as a process subject to their rules.

    Meanwhile, I've given arguments above and cited examples that you've failed to address at all.

  • Libertymike||

    Is your opinion superior to Judge Napolitano's?

    Yes, what he wrote in 2015 in the link supplied Leo, is what I have expressed for 30 years.

    The 9th amendment trumps your naturalization process argument. I will grant you that naturalization is a process in that one does not become a citizen merely by showing up at Ellis Island or by merely crossing the Rio Grande.

    However, citizenship is not immigration and your obdurate refusal to chain yourself to a literal reading of the powers granted to Congress dooms your position. If the framers and the ratifiers had intended to give Congress the power to regulate immigration, why did they fail to unambiguously and unequivocally grant such power?

    You prefer an interpretative canon favored by the progressives: powers can be inferred, implied and found as a matter of "common sense" - just as "common sense" gun regulations can be found in the constitution. Merely by asseverating that a literal interpretation of a constitutional provision is horseshit, does not make it so. It does not carry the day.

    Again, at the time of the founding, there was no consensus, universally accepted, by those who seceded from the British Empire for the purpose of securing natural rights and protecting them against each and every usurpation urged by any other entity, that a central, soviet power had the right to control the ingress and egress of peeps.

  • Libertymike||

    Ken and John and Micky Rat:

    What about the 9th amendment? Does an implied power to regulate immigration trump the natural right to travel?

    Don't forget, the 9th amendment is predicated upon natural rights.

  • Mickey Rat||

    There is no recognized absolute "right to travel" across international borders. The only places an American has an unlimited right to travel is within the borders of the USA and territories.

  • Libertymike||

    Maybe not by authoritarians and those who are statist sycophants.

    The right to travel is recognized by those who insist upon the natural rights of individuals trumping collectivism in all of its permutations.

    The right to travel has been recognized by numerous courts in the United States.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "If the framers and the ratifiers had intended to give Congress the power to regulate immigration, why did they fail to unambiguously and unequivocally grant such power?"

    So does these mean states have the right to enforce it however they please? If not so, why not?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I defer to Andrew Napolitano's view on this area than some random commenters on Reason.

    Those arguing that naturalization is equivalent to immigration are akin to those who argue that the commerce clause applies to intrastate commerce that could cross state lines.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, Article I, section 9 deals with immigration and Congress' regulation of that after 1808.

  • Libertymike||

    No, it doesn't.

    Are you arguing that your view is superior to that of Judge Napolitano's?

    Are you arguing that the natural right to travel, protected by the 9th amendment, is subordinate to an implied, mystical power of Congress?

    LC, don't be a slaver.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw, LibertyMike and his pals have zero citations for their opinions and don't like the Constitution.

    You have a 9th Amendment right to travel... inside the United States of America.

    My view has Article I, section 9 clause 1. I don't even need to cite more as that is enough to perfectly support my position as being correct.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I cited Judge Napalitano above. Show me one cite that says A1S9C1 is an enumerated power (even though it's listed as a limit on congressional power), and that it applies to anything beyond the slave trade.

    This one agrees with me.

    Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution places limits on the powers of Congress, the Legislative Branch. These restrictions include those on limiting the slave trade...
    Clause 1: Importation of Slaves... Explanation: This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808.
  • Brett Bellmore||

    All, the wonders of not actually quoting the relevant text.

    "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."

    Slaves may be imported, but they don't migrate. Immigrants migrate. The clause encompasses both importation of slaves, and immigration.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Leo Kovalensky II|5.22.18 @ 12:34PM|#
    I cited Judge Napalitano above. Show me one cite that says A1S9C1 is an enumerated power (even though it's listed as a limit on congressional power), and that it applies to anything beyond the slave trade.
    This one agrees with me.
    Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution places limits on the powers of Congress, the Legislative Branch. These restrictions include those on limiting the slave trade...
    Clause 1: Importation of Slaves... Explanation: This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808.


    Its intellectually dishonest to omit language of that clause to try and lie to get your way.

    The clause mentions migrants. Those are immigrants or called free persons back then. They did not require a importation fee since you import slaves not free persons.

    So, after 1808 Congress can regulate immigrants and the states cannot if Congress doe snot want them to.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Well, if Judge Napolitano can't read, maybe my view IS superior.

    Nothing mystical or implied. It's quite clearly stated in Article 1, Section 9.

    Were your natural right to travel unlimited, nations could not legitimately stop invasions, you couldn't even put a lock on your own front door.

    What all civilized nations recognize is a right to departure. No nation recognizes a right to entry.

  • John||

    I would defer to every court who has considered the issue Leo. And Ken and Mike and I all three are lawyers. Mike at least understands his position, though it is wrong. I can't say the same for you. You just want your pony.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Just for the record, I'm a commercial real estate guy who's worked with a lot of lawyers on all sorts of issues, but I am not a lawyer.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    So then you would agree with the courts that the commerce and necessary & proper clauses allow just about anything to fall under the guise of the feds, because the courts have said so? Also, courts have said that automatic weapons aren't protected by the 2A. And the Patriot Act doesn't violate 4A. It must be true, the courts have told me so.

    Keep licking that government boot John. You're doing a fine job of it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Article I, section 9 enumerates Congress to regulate immigration.

    The courts are wrong on a lot of cases because they don't simply read the Constitution. They see the "shall not be infringed" language of the 2nd Amendment to allow background checks, bans on bump stocks, confiscation schemes, etc.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Because I didn't like the Iraq War doesn't mean the Iraq War was unconstitutional.""

    A lot of people really do judge based on what they like or don't.

    This will be evident if the feds pass an assault weapons bill and some states decided to be gun sanctuary states. Those who were applauding Cali's move will cry foul when other states do the same thing, but for something they don't like.

  • Harvard||

    I'm up for a sanctuary state that refuses to prosecute or assist detainment for automatic weapons, unlimited highway speeds and any and all violation of discrimination laws in hiring and commercial services. Let the feds handle the capture, incarceration and prosecution.

  • Mark22||

    The feds may commandeer local police into administering neither federal gun control nor federal immigration policy.

    "Commandeer"? No, of course not.

    Cut federal spending in the state until California complies with federal wishes? Sure, just like previous administrations.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This has been a particularly spirited meeting of Libertarians For Racist, Authoritarian, Nanny State Immigration Policies And Practices.

    Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, of course.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    There is certainly one part of California's state sanctuary laws that is definitely NOT Constitutional.

    The part that forbids private parties (i.e businesses) from voluntarily contacting and/or providing information to the feds about illegal aliens.

    It is one thing to claim the state government has primary power to control what it's own employees do and quite another to claim it has the power to forbid private citizens from voluntarily cooperating with federal authorities.

  • XM||

    I don't think the state has the authority to prevent even local law enforcement from sharing basic information about an immigrant already detained (name, release date, etc).

    Does any state have the right to prevent local law enforcement from collaborating with the feds, even when they WANT to? San Francisco refused to share even the most cursory information about the Steinle shooter. And they almost certainly knew he was deported multiple times.

    Sanctuary cities would be instantly regarded as reckless by the media if it protected anyone other than immigrants. CA would have no issue with working with the Feds to go after a WS banker suspected of fraud or some kid who shoplifted a candy bar. The policy amounts getting out of the way to impede Federal immigration efforts - all to prevent immigration abuse that MIGHT happen.

    More importantly, it essentially creates a protected class who's treated by the law differently. I don't think it's all that different from the reviled "Safe Space".

  • ranrod||

    JUST ANOTHER LEFTIST, OPEN BORDERS ANARCHIST

  • Peter||

    Since illegal immigrants are crossing a federal border, why would federal law not apply?
    It just happens to coincide with a state border in California.

  • Jacky888||

    Download Universal Android APK rooting software without PC http://bestandroidtoroot.com/a.....without-pc

  • Jacky888||

    Free download iRoot APK for android root bestandroidtoroot

  • Jacky888||

    Firmware Update For Lg Phones & download LG firmware web site

  • Jacky888||

    The 8 best 55 inch 4k tv under 1000 the8best

  • Jacky888||

    Apex launcher download app topthemestech.com

  • Jacky888||

    asus x013d firmware update gofirmware

  • Jacky888||

  • Jacky888||

    lg l39c firmware gofirmware

  • Jacky888||

    ruizu x02 firmware gofirmware

  • Jacky888||

    xtrons firmware download xtrons firmware

  • Jacky888||

    lanix l950 firmware gofirmware

  • Jacky888||

    how to unlock iphone 5s for free unlockmobiledevice

  • Jacky888||

    the 8 best dslr camera under 1000 http://the8best.com/best/the-8.....under-1000

  • Jacky888||

    android 5 1 frp bypass go here

  • Jacky888||

    samsung galaxy core prime coreprimeltetfnvzw sm s820l howtoandroitroot

  • Jacky888||

    review air purifier duracraft corporation 004243783190 genuine airpurifiers-review

  • Jacky888||

    meizu m6t meizum6t bestandroidtoroot

  • Jacky888||

    coolpad frp bypass no otg frpbypassapkpro

  • Jacky888||

    lge g pad 7 0 e7wifi lg v400s1 http://frpbypassnow.com/post/l.....-lg-v400s1

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online