Cross posted from The Mortgage Guy:
Arizona’s new law addressing illegal immigration, SB 1070, was partially struck down by a Clinton appointed justice, Susan Bolton. Both common sense and a look at our Constitution support the idea that the decision was based on politics as opposed to precedent or the Constitution itself.
The LA Times writes: (emphasis is mine)
In her 36-page decision, Bolton wrote that the provisions would have inevitably “swept up” legal immigrants and were “preempted” by the federal government’s immigration authority.
Preemption has to be based on federal authority as it pertains to immigration. Where does the federal government government get it’s authority from and what is it limited by? Specifically, the Constitution states in the tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The term immigration isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. Thus it’s clear, the states never delegated the power to regulate it. Some will argue however that under Article 1, Section 8, Congress was granted the right to regulate immigration because the states delegated the right to regulate naturalization. This is the verbiage in the Constitution regarding naturalization:
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service says this about “naturalization”:
Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines “naturalize” as follows:
1 : to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship
Answers.com defines “immigrate” as follows:
To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native.
Clearly naturalization and immigration are two distinctly separate terms. One refers to the movement of people and the other refers to the process of granting citizenship. It’s also clear that Congress was delegated the power to regulate naturalization as it is clear it was never granted powers to regulate immigration. Immigration and naturalization are related terms that have totally different meanings. To “naturalize” is not synonymous with to “immigrate”.
Bolton’s argument that the Arizona law is unconstitutional based on “preemption” of Congress’ power to regulate immigration is fallacious. This is because Congress was only granted the power to regulate “naturalization”. The power to regulate immigration has always been within the purview of the states. Furthermore, those powers have never been delegated to Congress; thus Congress lacks the power to regulate immigration as per it’s Tenth Amendment.
While this administration gives lip service to the Constitution, it continues it’s assault on it and the people governed by it’s principles and laws. As usual with Obama and his minions, potential cheap votes and retaining power trump the Constitution, the best interests of the country and that of it’s citizens. The only good news here is that there are only 14 weeks before we the people can do something substantial. With all damage Obama is doing to this country at break neck speed, it is absolutely essential that he be stopped come this November. Our collective futures depend on it.
**This was contributed to The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email brianbonner90-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.**