Thursday, April 29, 2010

The Arizona Immigration Law

Andrew McCarthy has written an interesting article on the Arizona immigration law for the National Review. Here is a part of his article:
It [Constitution] was to repel invasion by aliens who challenged our sovereign authority to set the conditions of their presence on our soil. For that reason, border security has always been the highest prerogative of sovereignty. Immune from judicial interference, it answers to no warrant requirement. At the border, the federal government does not need probable cause — or any cause at all — to inquire into a person’s citizenship, immigration status, or purpose for attempting to enter our country. Agents can detain immigrants and citizens alike. They can perform bodily searches. They can go through every inch of a would-be entrant’s belongings, read his mail, and scrutinize the contents of his computer. A person subjected to this treatment may find it degrading or unfair, but the courts have nothing to say about it. At stake, after all, is the irreducible core of a sovereign people’s power to protect themselves from intruders. At the southern border, however, the federal government has forfeited its power. As a result, Arizonans are imperiled by Mexico’s brutally violent warring factions. They are crushed economically as the magnet effect of our unsustainable welfare state falls disproportionately on their schools, hospitals, jails, and pocketbooks, to the tune of nearly $2 billion per year.
The question is, what does the Constitution say? It appears the text of the Constitution supports the immigration law:

Article I, Section 8-Powers of Congress
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To repel invasions precisely pertains to the immigration problem Arizona is having. No one has the right to be here illegally. Does not the law prohibit racial profiling? Then why not provide ID upon probable cause?

Article IV, Section 4-Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
No doubt the general legislature has failed to protect Arizona from domestic violence. The burden of illegal immigrants has afflicted domestic violence; from drugs, increased tax burden, to health services. The government has been guilty of perpetuating this lack of security since John F. Kennedy.

People are incensed by this law. Is it too much to ask, to carry an ID on your person?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good job, man. This blog is now officially irrelevant. How many readers do you have? Like 6?

James Veverka said...

Repelling immigrant invasions? That clause has nothing to do with that line of thought. That's a huge right wing taffy stretch. Rips it in two. You have quite an imagination.

This is a federal issue as clearly shown by the constitution's definition of the congressional power. States can't make treaties with nations, States can't declare war, states can't make laws contrary to the constitution, and states can't take upon themselves the powers of national security at the borders.

Its clearly in the constitution.

That constitution's Article One, Article Six, Amendment 4 and Amendment 14 make it just about impossible that this law will pass constitutional muster.

National security is solely a federal matter. Immigrant and Naturalization law are solely a federal matter. The Supremacy Clause of the 6th article trumps all state law contrary to the federal constitution.

The 4th amendment outlaws unreasonable searches and seizures. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of the law to all.

The AZ law crosses the line. It is really bizarre that one can sue a police department if one thinks the cops aren't enforcing the law.

That is super stupid.

The constitution even rips the right wing idea of a militia. Its says, in the executive powers section that the militias of the several states are under the authority of the President. Sure, you have the right to bear arms but militias are under executive branch authority

Visit me at my church-state history site www.stopthereligiousright.org

If you like to laugh and shake your head in wonder at right wing antics, come to my video record of them since the tea party went nutso last year @ http://nutjobexress.blogspot.com

Our Founding Truth said...

James,

My point quoting the Constitution is not unrelevant to the post in the National Review. It should be clear the framers have no disrepancy regarding sovereignty in the country or at the border.

The fact is, the framers would prohibit anyone, as Andrew McCarthy has written, who, attempts to enter our country illegally:

"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and previleges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment."[bold face mine]

-George Washington. To THE MEMBERS OF THE VOLUNTEER ASSOCIATION
AND OTHER INHABITANTS OF THE KINGDOM
OF IRELAND WHO HAVE LATELY ARRIVED
IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK
New York, December 2, 1783.