Immigration is not an exclusive power to the federal government

[ihopehefails]

I've heard this argument that only the federal government has the power to enforce immigration but this is false. The federal government could have the power to do that but just because the federal government has the power to do something doesn't mean that the states lose that same identical power.

There are a few powers that are exclusive to the federal government such as the power to declare war on a foriegn nation. This power is granted to the federal government but is also denied to each state. That makes it an exclusive power of the federal government. What made that power exclusive to the federal government was that it was granted that power and the states were denied it.

Immigration (nor naturalization) not specifically denied to each state so any state can enforce its own immigration laws as it sees fit in conjunction with the federal government or against it.

 

[George Costanza]

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution contains the Supremecy Clause:

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.

Clearly, if a state law is contrary to a federal law, the federal law governs.

But what happens when a state law is identical to a federal law?

If a state makes criminal an action using language identical to language in a federal statute criminalizing the same action, is the state law preempted? Clearly, there would be no conflict between federal and state law, but might state criminal enforcement jeopardize federal enforcement, or might the federal government be seen as having occupied the field of criminal enforcement? (See Pennsylvania v Nelson (1956), in which the Supreme Court found preempted a state sedition law virtually identical in its reach with the federal sedition law.)

The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

I hope this helps to answer your question.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Federal Government has in its laws on Immigration the DEMAND that States add it in enforcing those laws. Just because the last 3 Administrations used the executive power to gut the enforcement of said laws does not change that fact.

 

[ihopehefails]

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution contains the Supremecy Clause:

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.

Clearly, if a state law is contrary to a federal law, the federal law governs.

But what happens when a state law is identical to a federal law?

If a state makes criminal an action using language identical to language in a federal statute criminalizing the same action, is the state law preempted? Clearly, there would be no conflict between federal and state law, but might state criminal enforcement jeopardize federal enforcement, or might the federal government be seen as having occupied the field of criminal enforcement? (See Pennsylvania v Nelson (1956), in which the Supreme Court found preempted a state sedition law virtually identical in its reach with the federal sedition law.)

The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

I hope this helps to answer your question.

That says laws in pursuance of the constitution which is actually limited to a few powers granted to it such as a list of laws that the federal congress can pass.