in clear violation of national laws on the books.....
and why is it not constitutional for cities to pass laws to protect themselves and citizens from illegal aliens influx..in clear agreement with national laws on the books??
2007-08-01 06:34:16 · 13 answers · asked by ez f 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They are NOT Constitutional...and that is where the problem lies.
It has nothing to do with symbolism, because they are breaking FEDERAL law by aiding and abetting a criminal. We just need to find a group with enough balls to prosecute the cities under federal law...wont be coming from the ACLU because they have sided with the criminals.
2007-08-01 06:37:06 · answer #1 · answered by Fedup Veteran 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋
This situation with illegals is a nationwide mess. Federal law controls immigration.It is a state's rights issue( nor any local governmental entity). Many of us are sympathetic to hard working illegals-but they are in violation of Federal law. Congress has to address the issue finally. Forget Bush-he has trouble getting dressed in the morning !
2007-08-02 12:38:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Clinton appointed Federal Judge that ruled against the Hazelton laws never did specifically site which section of the Constitution was being violated.
2007-08-01 13:38:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because we are getting F#@$ed by federal law at the moment. No enforcement of what is on the books and a true travesty in Congress with the bull#!t. The only way is to change who represents (in most cases special interest and corporations) each district and make them accountable every single election...it will take time, but the laws will be forced to change, as it appears to be "The Will of The People".
2007-08-01 13:40:16 · answer #4 · answered by NY PTK 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Cites and States are taking it upon themselves to protect themselves from the huge influx of illegals. But they have to face the wrath of the Bush Administration and the Democratic congress for such action.
2007-08-01 13:38:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Cities can declare themselves anything they want -- because teh constitutional protection for free speech applies to cities as well.
Their declaration has no legal force or effect -- federal immigration laws still apply, and federal agents (but only federal agents) can still enforce those laws.
2007-08-01 13:37:51 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
MANY OF THESE CITIES ARE VERY LIBERAL IN THEIR
POLICIES. THEY WILL NOT ALLOW THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS OR HOSPITALS OR SCHOOLS REPORT ILLEGALS TO THE FEDS. THEY SHOULD LOSE FEDERAL FUNDS FOR DOING THIS.
2007-08-01 14:00:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is and you can, It is against Fed law so you can pass any law to go with it to get them out
2007-08-01 13:41:30 · answer #8 · answered by Scott B 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
States and cities challenge constitutional law all the time. South Dakota practically outlawed abortion, and for awhile California made medical marijuana legal. This is just business as usual.
2007-08-01 13:37:22 · answer #9 · answered by Pfo 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Immigration is, and always has been, a federal issue.
Such proclamations are essentially symbolic as they have no effect on the federal agencies who actually enforce the laws.
2007-08-01 13:36:49 · answer #10 · answered by Steve 6 · 7⤊ 3⤋