Links to cogent LEGAL analysis of new AZ mmigration law?

[foofighter20x]

Throw Foo some of the citations in this white paper:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1279555/posts



If Foo objects to Lansing v. Smith remind him Lansing was cited in Shelby v. Bowlby

State sovereignty is irrelevant, seeing as how the states abrogated all their respective powers over naturalization in Article I, Section 8.

The power of Congress to provide a "uniform" rule of naturalization precludes any variation therefrom by the individual states, as a uniform rule means that there is a single enforceable rule that applies equally across all jurisdictions. If a state deviates from that rule in any way, then the naturalization they have performed is not done in accordance with the supreme law of the land. As a consequence, the naturalization is null, void, and of no force.

What was left to the states with respect to the naturalization of citizens would be to what extent each citizens rights were once naturalized.

Good luck with arguing the other way, though...

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

State sovereignty is irrelevant, seeing as how the states abrogated all their respective powers over naturalization in Article I, Section 8.

The power of Congress to provide a "uniform" rule of naturalization precludes any variation therefrom by the individual states, as a uniform rule means that there is a single enforceable rule that applies equally across all jurisdictions. If a state deviates from that rule in any way, then the naturalization they have performed is not done in accordance with the supreme law of the land. As a consequence, the naturalization is null, void, and of no force.

What was left to the states with respect to the naturalization of citizens would be to what extent each citizens rights were once naturalized.

Good luck with arguing the other way, though...

SCOTUS hasn't given abrogation much notice and seems to enjoy conducting social experimentation from the bench. How are those same privileges and immunities among the states working out for ya? Don't blame the messenger for pointing out the failures of federalism.

I stated earlier in the thread I am not sure I would characterize that is how it was meant to be but it is certainly how things are. The evidence of non-transferable state privileges and separate national citizenship are empirical and coupled with an absolute appalling inconsistent train wreck of decisions from SCOTUS there is little doubt of this fact.

 

[constituent]

1. I used to think...

isn't a reference.

Find a case with binding law

lol, your standards keep changing, but the level of information you're providing to backup your argument doesn't.

guess that means you "win?"

naaah.

As for the rest of the argument, I know I'm right.

as i know you're wrong.

Any further argument by either of us is merely an attempt to save face by not backing down.

lol, that's all your last three attempts have been. should have tried that line earlier.

thanks.

 

[constituent]

State sovereignty is irrelevant, seeing as how the states abrogated all their respective powers over naturalization in Article I, Section 8.

Now, I would be interested to know what source you're using for this info.

Other than your opinion, or "just read [fill in the blank]'s opinions."

Of course, it's not germane to the topic of this thread, so it'd be great if you started a new one to fully explain.

And while you're at it, maybe you can explain to the rest of us how judges create, in your words, "binding law." thanks.

 

[constituent]

Throw Foo some of the citations in this white paper:

Well, he ain't going to read them anyway.

But for the benefit of the reader, I'll go ahead and repost some of the ones you've already highlighted (in order of importance to the task at hand) that bolster my case for me, and furthermore build a case against his statement concerning Article I Section 8.

In 1818, the Supreme Court stated that "In the United States of America, there are two (2) separated and distinct jurisdictions, such being the jurisdiction of the states within their own state boundaries, and the other being federal jurisdiction (United States), which is limited to the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories, and federal enclaves within the states, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17." U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 WHEAT) 336 (1818), reaff. 19 U.S.C.A., section 1401(h).

So there goes the "states abrogated...under Article I Section 8."

"The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state."
In re Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287; 20 C.J.S., Section 1785. Title 28, United States Code, Section 297 defines the several States of the union as being "freely associated compact states" in subsection (a), and then refers to these freely associated compact states as being "countries" in subsection(b).

^ I would like to hear more about this....


The next one seems unrelated, but has my wheels turning particularly as it concerns many of the seemingly extra-constitutional actions of congress. I'm really going to dive into this one for some background. You've put me on the hunt!

"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, supra.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Even the disclaimer I posted from the IRS doesn't use abrogation language in their law analysis:

LAW AND ANALYSIS
1. Citizenship

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the basis for United States citizenship, stating that “[a]ll 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 Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, establishes simultaneous state and federal citizenship. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1875) (“The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State. . . .”); In re Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 74 (1873) (A man “must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union”). The Fourteenth Amendment’s granting of citizenship applies to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, regardless of race. See, e.g., Bell v. State of Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 249 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring) (“The Fourteenth Amendment also makes every person who is born here a citizen; and there is no second or third or fourth class of citizenship.”).

Section 7701(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code states that “[t]he term 'United States' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.” Claims that individuals are not citizens of the United States but are solely citizens of a sovereign state and not subject to federal taxation have been uniformly rejected by the courts. See, e.g., United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993) (“The defendant in this case apparently holds a sincere belief that he is a citizen of the mythical “Indiana State Republic” and for that reason is an alien beyond the jurisdictional reach of federal courts. This belief is, of course, incorrect.”); United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) (“[We] reject appellants’ contention that they are not citizens of the United States, but rather “Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota” and, consequently, not subject to taxation.”); O’Driscoll v. Internal Revenue Service, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9829, *5-6 (E.D. Penn. 1991) (“Despite plaintiff’s linguistic gymnastics, he is a citizen of both the United States and Pennsylvania, and liable for federal taxes.”).

Similarly, the individual states are part of the United States and income earned within them is fully subject to United States taxation. See, e.g., Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509 (responding to argument that all of petitioner’s income was earned outside of the United States, the court held that “petitioner attempts to argue an absurd proposition, essentially that the State of Illinois is not part of the United States.”).

But the problem comes back to the monopoly on justice doing whatever it wants because a rule of naturalization (as it would apply to people who are un-naturalized) is rightfully an abrogated power under federalism. The notion of states honoring the privileges and immunities dates back to the Articles of Confederation. So how come it hasn't happened? The failure of federalism lies with the monopoly, people, states, congress, and inconsistency of courts.

I am willing to be intellectually honest and acknowledge the ought of abrogation but I think the other side here needs to pony up and recognize ought does not mean is. Should we take our marching orders from Aliens? Should we acknowledge the country is bankrupt?

If a state deviates from that rule in any way, then the naturalization they have performed is not done in accordance with the supreme law of the land. As a consequence, the naturalization is null, void, and of no force.

Should we acknowledge an un-ratified amendment?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I want to make sure I satisfy the licensing crowd on my term selection privileges. People around here consider information presented on this site as factual so that is where I will cite from:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/healy1.html

We return to 1865. As the legally reconstituted Southern states were busy ratifying the anti-slavery Thirteenth Amendment, the Republican-dominated Congress refused to seat Southern representatives and Senators. This allowed the remaining, rump Congress to propose the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with Article V's requirement of a 2/3 majority for sending a proposed amendment to the states. Never mind that Congress also clearly violated that Article's provision that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Though the Northern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states, failing to secure the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification under Article V. The Radical Republicans responded with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which virtually expelled the Southern states from the Union and placed them under martial law. To end military rule, the Southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. As one Republican described the situation: "the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet."

President Andrew Johnson saw the Reconstruction Act as "absolute despotism," a "bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people." In his veto message, he stated that "such a power ha[d] not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred years." Sounding for all the world like Roger Pilon, Johnson asked, "Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this?" and answered, "Certainly not, if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes."

The rump Republican Congress overrode Johnson's veto and enacted statutes that shrank both the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction and the Court itself – just in case the judicial branch got any funny ideas of its own about constitutionalism. Jackboot on its neck, the South ratified, but not before New Jersey and Ohio, against a Republican tyranny, rescinded their previous ratifications of the amendment. Even with the fictional consent of the Southern states, the republicans needed New Jersey and Ohio to put the amendment over the top. No matter; by joint resolution, Congress declared the amendment valid. Thus it – you'll excuse the phrasing-- "passed into law."

 

[ChooseLiberty]

Linky dinks?

 

[ChooseLiberty]

Wow.

So far none of the pro-illegals gun to your head give us your tax money for our free benefits crowd has come along to refute any legal arguments on this law.

Why am I not surprised?

Hey mods, you might want to move this to Hot Topics, it could be construed as anti-illegal stuff.

Oh no.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Probably hoping the thread sinks into oblivion.

 

[Danke]

bump