Next Show: ...loading...

Mark on FOX: Polls, Schmolls. Stand up to Arizona!

May 12, 2010

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Alan June 3, 2010 11:14 am

    You keep using the web site which is a Progressive left wing site to prove or back up your point. Why would they not, as you are the same.

  • Mark Levine June 2, 2010 11:45 am

    Crooks and Liars commented favorably on this video:

  • Kevin H May 29, 2010 12:22 pm

    I am tired of the double talk from both the left and the right! Tell both the Republicans and the Democrats to start checking citizenship at the federal line, state lines, County lines, City lines, School application lines, Welfare lines, corporate welfare lines, and any other government entitlement lines before anyone tries to force the private sector or small businesses to check citizenship. We the people paid taxes for the government on all levels to seal our border! The USA/Mexican border needs to be militarized with as many soldiers as it takes to stand shoulder to shoulder all the way along the border from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico! Or import 10-14 million Chinese to build a Chinese wall with housing retail and military garrison from the Pacific Coast to the Gulf of Mexico in a joint project to help pay China back the debt we owe them! Tell the illegal Mexicans that they are not getting amnesty and that they don’t have an exclusive right to be here illegally!

  • Mark Levine May 21, 2010 3:30 pm

    Here’s a good article on federal pre-emption of state laws on immigration. The only time the state can act beyond federal law on immigration is where federal law has not yet been enacted in a specific area.

  • Mark May 21, 2010 3:12 pm

    Rachelle, the United States Supreme Court has consistently held since the 19th century that immigration is, under the Constitution, exclusively within the province of the Federal Government. The Supreme Court has long cited not only the naturalization clause, but many other provisions in the Constitution as well, for this proposition.

    Perhaps the leading case in this matter is Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 US 52 (1941), which you can read here:

    Here’s part of the decision, which, interestingly, is not part that cites the Naturalization clause. (That’s later in the opinion):

    “That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787,[9] and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court.[10] When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute, for Article VI of the Constitution provides that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Federal Government, representing, as it does the collective interests of the forty-eight states, is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties. “For local interests the several States of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power.”[11] Our system of government is such that the interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference. ”

    As you can see, if FOX will allow me to debate another constitutional attorney or a constitutional law professor, he or she (no matter how conservative) would have to agree to the unconstitutionality of the Arizona statute as consistently construed by the Founders and the United States Supreme Court. It should not surprise you that Gallagher could not find a single constitutional scholar who disagreed with me.

    Please read the case. And if you’re intellectually honest, I would welcome a comment back from either of you conceding that I’m right regarding constitutional law on this point.

    That doesn’t mean there is no hope for Arizona. Arizonans can petition the federal government to change the law (the easy way, which I support). Or, if they really hate this provision the Founders put in the Constitution, they can move to amend it to allow each state a hodgepodge of immigration laws. In that way, an immigrant could be illegal in Arizona and legal in New Mexico and partially legal in Utah.

    I think amending the Constitution in this respect would be a terrible idea. I think the Founders were wise in requiring one uniform rule across the states, so that our “Americanness” does not change as we go from state to state.

    Thanks for writing.