The Orange County Register A recent opinion poll alleged that the Trump administration’s “immigration robberies” in sheltered cities raised “issues of old state rights.” According to the play’s author, the tenth amendment to the constitution gives the states considerable leeway to pass “protection laws” that restrict when, where and how the federal government can enforce immigration law. He explains: “Immigration law is a federal prerogative, but it is more complicated than it seems. States have the right to restrict the behavior of the authorities under their command. California, for example, has passed three important – and constitutionally acceptable – laws that prevent local governments and private employers from working with ICE. “
But these claims are sad
off-base. In reality, the federal agency is no longer enforcing immigration regulations
complicated than it seems. In fact, it’s pretty clear. The tenth change too
The Constitution states: “The powers that have not been delegated to the United States
States by the constitution, still prohibited by it to the states, are reserved
to the states or to the people. ”
Immigration is one of the few functions that have been delegated exclusively to the federal government, which means that it has been expressly prohibited by states and makes it an area in which states have no authority to act. In fact, the Supreme Court has recognized this several times, most recently in its 2012 opinion for Arizona vs. United States, Simply put, California has no legal basis to interfere with the lawful exercise of immigration by a federal agency.
As the to register claims California has every right to limit behavior Status Authorities under his command, but only as long as they conduct Status Business. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Service (ICE) – both Federal Agencies – work under the exclusive direction of the federal government, not the leader of the golden state. And California officials are not authorized to restrict the actions of federal officials who do federal affairs.
Oh, and those “constitutionally acceptable” laws that prevent local governments and private employers from working with ICE – they’re nothing of the sort. Like the Supreme Court in Arizona vs. USA, “The federal law makes a single sovereign responsible for maintaining a comprehensive and uniform system to keep an eye on foreigners within national borders,” and “… state laws are excluded if they conflict with the federal law.” In reality, California’s protection laws are obviously unconstitutional and constitute an unlawful interference with the exercise of a federal function.
As if that weren’t obvious enough, federal law explicitly prohibits states from passing laws that interfere with communications with the federal immigration authorities. 8 US code §1373 States expressly state: “… may not prohibit or in any way restrict government agencies or officials from sending or receiving information about a person’s citizenship or immigration status to or from the Department of Homeland Security. “Even if the tenth change didn’t exist, it would be one Vorherrschaftsklausel Problem.
Article VI paragraph 2 of the
The constitution, known as the “supremacy clause”, establishes a hierarchy for
Application of our laws. The federal constitution and all laws enacted in accordance with this federal law
Take precedence over state laws and constitutions. States are not allowed
interfere with the exercise of the constitutional powers of the federal government.
And they must not take on any functions that are exclusively delegated to them
Federal government. So California’s laws prevent local governments and
Private employers who do not work with ICE are void. According to the
Supremacy clause, they are trumped by section 1373.
There is an old maxim in the Bible
Scholarship that also applies to the interpretation of the law: “A.
Text without context is an excuse. ” The orange
County Register has allowed an opinion leader to use the rights of states as
an apology for California’s blatant violation of the Immigration Law. But if that
relevant texts – the constitution and the Immigration and Citizenship Act – are
put in context, the notion that protected cities are a question of the rights of states
blowing away like dust in the winds of Santa Ana.
Note: We are not the author of this content. For the Authentic and complete version,
Check its Original Source