Illegal Illschmiegel….
Under the Constitution’s “supremacy clause,” the Constitution and federal law trump state law. Article 1 of the Constitution, which spells out Congress’ powers, specifically gives U.S. lawmakers authority to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization” and to regulate commerce with other nations.
however….
State Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, the Arizona measure’s sponsor, and other supporters counter that the bill is constitutional and that opponents are misrepresenting the potential for racial profiling and other abuses.
But they are bracing for incoming litigation.
Pearce, the architect of several immigration-related Arizona laws, last week noted that a state law establishing penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal workers faced similar criticism before it went into effect on Jan. 1, 2008, but it has been upheld in U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who counseled Pearce when he was writing Senate Bill 1070, said Arizona simply is taking action on what Congress already has deemed illegal, so the state is not infringing on federal authority or running afoul of the supremacy clause.
“The bill basically makes it a penalty under state law to do what is already a crime under federal law,” he said. “If the state is concurrently prohibiting the same behavior that the federal government is, then the state is not preempted and is acting consistently with Congress’ objectives.”
Excerpts from Court fight looms on new immigration law from the Arizona Republic, April, 25, 2010.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
[...] from: The Federal Observer » Illegal Illschmiegel…. By admin | category: federal state | tags: congress, constitution, government-tax, [...]
What I have found so interesting in all of this, is that nowhere in the Arizona Law, do the words, ‘Mexican,’ ‘Latino,’ or ‘Hispanic’ show up, and yet – people of these backgrounds, are the only groups who seem to be raising a big stink about, what their ‘spokes-people’ seem to believe will lead to ‘profiling.’
Could profiling take place? Sure – just like the profiling of 83 year old women in wheel chairs at airports. Law enforcement agencies all over Arizona are made up of many races and ethnic groups, and thus far, there just seems to be a lot of smoke being blown.
Illegal is illegal – no matter one’s color, or nationality. If they are ‘living in the shadows’ – chances are, that they have something to hide….
Under the Constitution’s “supremacy clause,” the Constitution and federal law trump state law. Article 1 of the Constitution, which spells out Congress’ powers, specifically gives U.S. lawmakers authority to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization” and to regulate commerce with other nations.
I don’t see that the new law in AZ is trying to make or change “uniform Rule of Naturalization”. The ILLEGALS in AZ aren’t trying to become *naturalized* so how does that enter into this?
And the second part: “regulate commerce with other nations” – I don’t see how checking the legal status of a foreigner to work or be present in the State of AZ has anything to do with “regulating commerce with another nation. Unless they consider the invasion of foreigners to be COMMERCE.
The states all have certain unique rules and regulations that govern what a person does in that state. Why is this particular topic causing so much uproar? Other than it is going to affect the pocket book of politicians and those who increase the BOTTOM LINE PROFITS by hiring ILLEGALS.