At some point in the future, what doesn't the US just adopt an illegal immigrant amendement?

[aswynn81]

We have had attempt at a possible abortion amendment and a same-sex marriage amendment, so why not an illegal immigrant amendment. If there is an amendment saying that illegals can't stay here under any circumstances, then states would not have to adopt their own immigration laws, because whatever is in the US constitution as an amendment is final. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the Executive government or legislative government does not follow Through on seeing the amendment being enforced then the Supreme Court would have to intervene.

[hurst]

You really don't have any idea how the government actually works, do you?

First of all, amendments are very difficult to get passed. There is wide disagreement on immigration issues even within the political parties. The kinds of majorities you need for an amendment are impossible.

Once there is an amendment, it doesn't just automatically do much. Amendments are usually written in broad platitudes and require legislation to flesh them out so actions can actually be taken based on them. For example, everyone is guaranteed a speedy trial, but the definition of "speedy" is different in each State and they all have their own statutes that govern it.

If the Federal or State governments didn't live up ot obligations in the Constitution, that doesn't automatically mean the Courts can intervene. The Courts can only hear a case in controversy. That means someone has to be wronged as an individual (not merely by virtue of being a citizen or a taxpayer, but personally and individually wronged) and then they have to sue before the Courts can even decide. And even then, they are only empowered to settle that situation and interpret any laws necessary to do so. They can't just "step in".

But beyond all of that, the "supreme law of the land" doesn't just apply to the Constitution. The Supremacy clause also applies to federal laws. The Federal government is responsible for setting immigration policy. States are prohibited from intervening and they are prohibited from violating Federal law. That's already in the Constitution, which is why the Federal government is suing Arizona and other States for infringing on their domain to govern immigration policy. If you don't like the way the Federal government is handling immigration, take the matter up with your Federal representatives, not your State representatives.

[scirwode]

The Constitution already places jurisdiction for immigration under the federal government. For that reason, states should not be adopting their own immigration laws anyway.

That, and the said amendment would be pointless, as Congress would have the power to define "illegal". If, hypothetically, Congress changed the definition of "illegal" to remove everyone previously under that category, then what is accomplished?

[zackary42]

I predict this will pop up on ballots in Red States. It helps get out their vote when the Conservatives can place these wedge issues on the ballot.

The GOP likes to get people out to voter on things that have no effect on their lives so that while they're in the voting booth they can elect candidates who will increase their taxes without increasing tax on millionaires. (eg SS Holiday vs. Millionaires tax.)

[fitche]

All we have to do is close the borders , then start enforcing the already existing immigration laws. It doesn't matter what we do as long as the border is open.

[sylvester37]

NO.

[jomei69]

So.. if we made a law that said we really, really mean that this criminal plague had to be stopped.. that would make the difference?