2007-06-25 06:19:12 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The cities around by me have started making laws. If you have illegals working in your place you will lose the rights to do business in the city. If you do not believe this check out Green Bay Wisconsin.
2007-06-25 06:51:09 · answer #1 · answered by dandls_99 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
According to the Constitution, immigration is the province of the Federal Government. The states should stay out of it.
Of course, according to the Constitution, the state governments are supposed to be in charge of things like education, public welfare, health care policy, the environment, and a dozen other things that the Federal goverment sticks its nose into. I think we need to step back and realign the system.
Article I Section 8 gives Congress the role of determinng rules of Naturalization. Article I Section 9 says "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." By inference, we can state that AFTER 1808, Congress COULD limit migration.
Article I Section 10 says that states cannot enter into treaties with foreign governments. In some ways, allowing foreign nationals to come into the US is a de facto agreement, though not a formal one.
Finally, the Congress (through raising and maintaining a military) and the Executive (As Commander-In-Chief) are given the job of defending the nation. This would include defense against invasion, whether peaceful or not.
2007-06-25 07:02:36 · answer #2 · answered by Chredon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
States should make their own laws regarding immigration. This will force the Federal government to step in if they want to do anything.
Of course, some Federal judge will probably issue a temporary injunction making those laws unenforceable, but at least someone will be doing something.
2007-06-25 06:28:18 · answer #3 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The last thing the federal government initiated and got totally involved in is FEMA. Now, isn't that a shining example of a train wreck that has not slowed down yet?
2007-06-25 06:25:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
properly, in accordance to the letter of the regulation, that's a Federal concern. however the state's pay the main for unlawful immigration. i think of it basically honest that the feds enable the state and local regulation enforcement to assist them interior the "combat". I propose, what share extra helpers could that be????
2016-10-03 02:46:13 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that is one area that the constitution gives authority to the Federal Government.
2007-06-25 06:22:16 · answer #6 · answered by Brian 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The 10th Ammendment gives the states that right
2007-06-25 06:29:10 · answer #7 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think states should take control of this issue using the 9th amendment. Its time state governments started pushing back, especially when they're the ones who will bear the brunt of amnesty.
2007-06-25 06:25:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Since Bush thinks the Constitution is a piece of toilet paper we might as well localize enforcement. It is a job that needs to be done NOW.
2007-06-25 06:24:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hell, if we waited for the feds to do the obvious (close all the borders and deport ALL the illegals) we'd be waiting til hell freezes over!
2007-06-25 06:28:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋