Where in the constitution are there any statements describing the duties of the Federal government regarding immigration? Please cite that reference, I can't seem to find it.
And don't bother with the Article IV, section 4 line of bull****. The "invader" line in that refers specifically to those who enter by force for the purposes of conquering and pillaging. As in a military force.
Not foreign immigrants.
The states themselves are the only one's in charge of keeping non-military foreigners off of their soil.
This is backed up by the statements of Thomas Jefferson in the
Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
That's the only reason why Arizona can pass such legislation in the first place.
Considering that was not the purpose of the "seeming" eruditeness in my posts, I'm not at all surprised that it didn't do something other than what was intended.
Frankly, I would be surprised if it had any affect on the legislation.
But lets get right down to it: It seems to me that all Arizona is doing is exercising it's right to pass immigration legislation.
Why should I care if Arizona exercises it's right to pass immigration legislation, even if I disagree with it?
Are you one of those liberals who believes the power should be taken form the states and given to the feds even though there are no Federal duties regarding immigration outlined in the constitution?
There are lots of so-called conservatives who are actually liberals like that. Always trying to reinterpret the constitution to mean something other than the expressly delegated responsibilities the Federal government has. Including issues like Immigration, which should be the sole responsibilities of the States.
The main problems I have with the legislation and practices are moral in nature, not legal (although my guess is that there will be a supreme court battle over the detainment on suspicion of illegal immigration, personally, I don't give a **** about that legal/illegal aspect of the debate)
I just like to point out that most anti-illegal immigrant "conservatives" are usually
entirely liberal on this issue. Here's why:
1. They feel entitled to have something they didn't even earn in most cases.
2. They want to take it away form people who did do something to earn it.
3. They want to reinterpret the constitution to mean something it doesn't in order to extend more authority to the federal government and take that authority from the states
My stances on the issue (which you consistently, and incorrectly label as "liberal"
1. People who didn't earn the right to be should not feel "entitled" to it. they should look a tit as a gift.
2. Those who have earned that right should not have it taken away by those who haven't.
3. Illegal immigration legislation should be the sole purview of the States. I may disagree with the legislation made in other states, but it is there right to pass such legislation.
Now, put that in
your liberal bong and smoke it.