Finally
- A Reasonable Ruling against Sanctuary Cities, by The Common Constitutionalist, 3/21/18
What people could our founders be referring to? All the Earth’s people? NO – of course not. They were referring to the people, or citizens, of the United States, and those who are otherwise here legally. Seems crystal clear to me.
It’s
nice when the law is written in plain English so as to be understood by someone
like you and me. Of course, you still have to pick it up and read it.
On March 13, 2018, it was reported that
the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a rather stunning panel decision
regarding immigration and sanctuary cities. And for once, a federal court, via
a three-judge panel, sided with the good guys - mostly. The good guys being us
– the law abiding, tax paying American citizen. Considering the make-up of most
courts, and the hot potato issue that is illegal immigration and sanctuary
cities, any win is encouraging.
The court didn’t rule as the Trump
administration and most of us would have liked. They never do. Trump has been
demanding that sanctuary cities by stripped of federal funding until they
comply with federal immigration law.
However, they did rule that “the federal
government’s [ICE] detainer requests, which ask local governments to hold
illegal immigrants for pickup, are legal.”
The ruling stemmed from a Texas law that
was challenged in court. “Known as SB4, the legislation Texas Governor Greg Abbott
signed last year requires police to determine the legal status of those they encounter
during their duties.
The law also punished local elected
officials, police chiefs and other law enforcement leaders who enacted or
carried out sanctuary policies that refused cooperation with U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement.
The law explicitly said local
jurisdictions should comply with detainer requests. Immigrant rights advocates
and a number of Texas cities objected. They said detainers forced state or
local police to hold illegal immigrants beyond their usual release time,
infringing on their Fourth Amendment rights.”
To this, the judge who crafted the
opinion, hedged a bit by stating that it is not entirely clear if illegal
immigrants are covered by the Fourth Amendment.
Well, I’m not a judge, an attorney, or a
Constitutional scholar, but I can certainly read. The Fourth Amendment
states, “The right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
Now, this court ruling is in regards to
a Texas State law, not a federal law, which prompts the age old question. Just
who is in charge of immigration? Is it the States’ or the federal government?
Let’s go back to the supreme law of the
land – the Constitution. Remember – not a scholar, but I can read - blah, blah,
blah.
Normally, I’m a Tenth Amendment guy –
States rights and all. But not this time. It’s clear that immigration is the
sole responsibility of the feds.
Let’s start with the obvious – Article I,
Section 8, clause 4, which states that, Congress shall “establish an uniform Rule of
Naturalization...” Naturalization is simply put as the means or
mechanism of a non-citizen to become a U.S. citizen.
But some will say that it doesn’t
mention immigration. No, not in Section 8. For this, we must simply
advance one article.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 states:
“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...”
See how easy this is? It’s nice when the
law is written in plain English so as to be understood by someone like you and
me. Of course, you still have to pick it up and read it.
So what does it mean? It’s quite obvious
that Congress had no authority to limit immigration prior to 1808. So by simple
extension, it means that they do after 1808. Last I checked, it’s after 1808.
And by further extension we can state
emphatically that it is the job of Congress to establish laws pertaining to
immigration and further that it is the President’s job, through the Executive
branch, to faithfully execute those laws. It is additionally known that no
State or locality can usurp the United States Constitution, either by local or
State law, State Constitutional Article or Amendment.
In other words, what Congress passes
regarding immigration – goes. I guess sometimes it helps not to be an egghead
scholar.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment