« The word 'Liberty' in the mouth of Mr. Webster sounds like the word 'love' in the mouth of a courtesan. | Main | Olson Johnson Is Right! »

Wednesday, March 07, 2018

But We Don't Want The Irish!

Dunno, I think Noz is barking up the wrong tree here:

If conservatives really believed in “strict constructionism” they would not bring this lawsuit relying on the idea that immigration regulations are a solely federal power. The Constition does not grant Congress the ability to restrict immigration, and Congress did not try to regulate the movement of non-slaves across our international borders for the first hundred years of this country’s existence. The Courts didn’t “discover” Congress’ immigration power until the late 19th century.

True it wasn't until 1875's Chy Lung v Freeman changed the game, but there wasn't much (perceived) need to regulate immigration until then. 

I'm not convinced SCOTUS wrongly decided, from a conservative or liberal POV.  Uniform policies in this arena are more than proximate to the enumerated power to regulate naturalization and foreign relations/commerce (Art I, Sec 8), make absolute sense in a federal system, and not explicitly prohibited (Sec 9).  And there's my favorite, the Elastic Clause.

Doesn't mean Jefferson Beauregard "I Hate Blacks and Pot" Sayshuns is right to sue the world's 6th largest economy, or have his jackbooted ICE thugs destroy families.  But that's a separate issue.


March 7, 2018 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink


Noz also misunderstands the federal lawsuit. According to Slate (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/jeff-sessions-outlandish-new-lawsuit-against-california-is-likely-doomed.html) the suit actually addresses, not California's "Sanctuary" statute, but three other statutes regarding cooperation with ICE and protection from workplace raids. The Slate analysis points out how these laws are within the purview of the states, and how nothing California has done actually impinges on U.S. immigration law, as Sessions claimed in his press conference.

In other words, what Sessions said to the press, and what the DOJ asked the court to do, are two vastly different things, and resemble each other about as much as Donald Trump resembles a competent President. So the issue is not hypocrisy, the issue is: do they have a legal leg to stand on?

And the answer seems to be: No, not at all. Whether the courts agree is, as ever, another matter.

Posted by: Rmj | Mar 8, 2018 6:18:10 AM

Post a comment