(Jan. 24, 2016) – Bills introduced in Florida, Virginia and Arizona would prohibit state cooperation with some contentious federal refugee resettlement programs, a significant step towards nullifying them in practice within those states.Details
Recently there has been a national discussion, of sorts, over whether or not “anchor babies,” children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States, qualify as citizens under the 14th Amendment. While that issue specifically has been addressed here at the TAC, the more pertinent aspect of the matter isn’t whether or not anchor…Details
Earlier today, Judge Andrew Napolitano said that Donald Trump’s immigrant deportation plan, which includes deportation for people born here because their mothers are “here illegally,” is “prohibited by the Constitution.”Details
A lot of people are worried about protecting the borders, but I think they’re not focused on the most important ones – protecting their STATE borders from federal intrusion.
California has successfully demonstrated how state action can thwart federal goals by simply refusing to cooperate.
The federal government wants states to help enforce its immigration laws. Californians believe those laws often violate basic human rights and civil liberties, and the state decided to act – or more accurately stated – refuse to act. The TRUST Act denies ICE the help it desires in detaining suspected undocumented immigrants and it has proven quite effective.Details
Although nullification is often characterized as a right-wing phenomenon by reporters and pundits in the mainstream media, it actually appeals to people from all political walks of life – depending on the issue.Details
The concept of “anchor babies” refers to those whose parents are illegal immigrants into the United States and have a baby on this soil. That baby then inherits full citizenship and even the right later, as an adult, to sponsor his/her own illegal parents in their quest for citizenship. Is this practice Constitutional?
For the casual reader the amendment seems to validate such: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The debate for or against the practice of allowing citizenship for babies of illegals born in the U.S. rages on with virtually no one going to the source of the alleged authority—the crafters of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, architect of the 14th Amendment, actually structured the Amendment (one of two defining the legal status of freed slaves after the Civil War, the other being the 13th which gave them freedom) to prevent that very interpretation. He said: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.Details
A pretty interesting question in the Chicago Tribune: If it is unconstitutional and odious for state and local cops to enforce federal immigration laws, then why hasn’t the Obama administration sued dozens of Chicago collar counties and towns to stop them from doing it? Well, one side or the other, consistency is never something we…Details
If the Tea Parties and conservative activists want to be serious about opposing big government, they need to abandon their love of border police, immigration controls and statist nationalism. The hysterical response to those on the left comparing the Arizona law to Nazism reminds me of the equally hysterical response to those on the right…Details
After considering the new, much maligned Arizona Immigration Bill, I have decided that it is appropriate and necessary. After all, if the Mexican Army was to invade Arizona and try to take it as a Mexican providence, and the US Army was busily building our empire overseas, we would expect any remnants of the Arizona…Details