{"id":22588,"date":"2020-02-26T14:19:41","date_gmt":"2020-02-26T19:19:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=22588"},"modified":"2020-02-26T14:19:44","modified_gmt":"2020-02-26T19:19:44","slug":"sanctuary-policy-california-states-rights-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2020\/02\/26\/sanctuary-policy-california-states-rights-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"States\u2019 Rights? More Like State Wrongs"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Orange County Register<\/a><\/em> recently featured an opinion piece claiming that the Trump administration\u2019s \u201cimmigration raids\u201d in sanctuary cities raise \u201cage-old states\u2019 rights issues.\u201d According to the piece\u2019s author, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives states considerable leeway to pass \u201csanctuary<\/a>\u201d laws limiting when, where and how the federal government can go about enforcing immigration law. He states, \u201c\u2026immigration law is a federal prerogative, but it\u2019s more complicated than it seems. States have every right to place limits on the behavior of authorities under their command.\u00a0 California, for instance, has passed three major \u2014 and constitutionally acceptable \u2014 laws that restrict local governments and private employers from cooperating with ICE.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But those claims are woefully\noff-base. In reality, federal authority over immigration enforcement is not more\ncomplicated than it seems. In fact, it\u2019s pretty clear. The Tenth Amendment to\nthe Constitution states the following, \u201cThe powers not delegated to the United\nStates by the Constitution, nor prohibited it by it to the states, are reserved\nto the States respectively, or to the people.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Immigration is one of a handful of functions that has been delegated exclusively<\/em> to the federal government, meaning that it has been expressly prohibited to the states and making it an area in which states have no authority to act. Indeed, the Supreme Court has acknowledged this multiple times, most recently in its 2012 opinion for Arizona v. United States<\/a>.<\/em> Simply put, California doesn\u2019t have any legal basis for interfering with the lawful exercise of immigration enforcement authority by any federal agency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the Register<\/em> asserts, California<\/a> does have every right to place limits on the behavior of state<\/em> authorities under its command, but only so long as they are conducting state<\/em> business. However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection<\/a> (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) \u2013 both federal <\/em>agencies \u2013 operate under the exclusive direction of the federal government, not the leaders of the Golden State. And California officials have no authority to limit the actions of federal officials conducting federal business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oh, and those \u201cconstitutionally acceptable\u201d laws restricting local governments<\/a> and private employers from cooperating with ICE \u2013 they are nothing of the sort. As the Supreme Court noted in Arizona v. U.S., <\/em>\u201cFederal law makes a single sovereign responsible for maintaining a comprehensive and unified system to keep track of aliens within the Nation\u2019s borders,\u201d and, \u201c\u2026state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law.\u201d In reality, California\u2019s sanctuary laws are blatantly unconstitutional and are an unlawful interference with the exercise of a federal function.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As if that weren\u2019t obvious enough, federal statute also expressly prohibits states from passing any laws that impede communication with federal immigration authorities. 8 U.S. Code \u00a7\u202f1373<\/a> explicitly says that states, \u201c\u2026may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Department of Homeland Security information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.\u201d Even if the Tenth Amendment didn\u2019t exist, that would create a Supremacy Clause<\/a> issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the\nConstitution, known as the \u201cSupremacy Clause,\u201d establishes a hierarchy for\napplying our laws. The federal Constitution, and any federal laws made pursuant\nto it, take precedence over state laws and state constitutions. States may not\ninterfere with the federal government\u2019s exercise of its constitutional powers.\nAnd they may not assume any functions that are delegated exclusively to the\nfederal government. So, California\u2019s laws preventing local governments and\nprivate employers from cooperating with ICE are null and void. Pursuant to the\nSupremacy Clause, they are trumped by Section 1373.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s an old maxim in Biblical\nscholarship that is equally applicable to the interpretation of the law: \u201cA\ntext without context is a pretext.\u201d The Orange\nCounty Register<\/em> has allowed an opinion contributor to use states\u2019 rights as\nan excuse for California\u2019s flagrant defiance of immigration law. But when the\nrelevant texts \u2013 the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act \u2013 are\nplaced in context, the notion that sanctuary cities are a states\u2019 rights issue\nblows away like dust in the Santa Ana winds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Orange County Register recently featured an opinion piece claiming that the Trump administration\u2019s \u201cimmigration raids\u201d in sanctuary cities raise \u201cage-old states\u2019 rights issues.\u201d According to the piece\u2019s author, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives states considerable leeway to pass \u201csanctuary\u201d laws limiting when, where and how the federal government can go about enforcing<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":52,"featured_media":17817,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[6],"tags":[955,1524,275,1346],"yst_prominent_words":[7847,7833,7832,7829,1943,1976,7842,3599,7843,2770,7846,7845,7841,7835,7830,7836,7831,1945,7834,2893],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22588"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/52"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22588"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22588\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22589,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22588\/revisions\/22589"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17817"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22588"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=22588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}