“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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” — Article VI, United States Constitution
The above is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. The ruling party controlling the government of the State of California is attempting to set up a competing alternative immigration system in violation of our US Constitution.
That’s the gist of a Federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of California by the US Department of Justice.
As detailed in the filing, here are the main points:
A. The Constitution does not allow California to obstruct federal law enforcement efforts by prohibiting employers from voluntarily cooperating with federal law enforcement officials (AB 450)
B. The Constitution does not allow California to inspect facilities holding federal detainees to review federal law enforcement efforts (AB 103)
C. The Constitution does not allow California to restrict cooperation with the United States that is contemplated and protected by federal law (SB 54)
E. While the state isn’t required to be an active participant in the enforcement of Federal law according to the “Anti-Commandeering” precedent set by the US Supreme Court, it cannot obstruct the enforcement of law enacted by Congress and executed via authorized Federal agents.
G. The US Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 grants an enumerated power to the Federal government to control naturalization as a plenary power. As such, it cannot be nullified or preempted by state law.
I. Although CA State Attorney General Xavier Becerra and others in his party aver the state has the authority to place conditions on Federal immigration enforcement, the unambiguous legal precedent cited in the case points of authority and the recent Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 397 (2012) decision indicate the US Department of Justice is likely to prevail and will therefore be granted an injunction to stay Sacramento’s obstruction while the case is adjudicated.
K. Therefore, there exists no “Sanctuary” city or state in the United States that’s exempt from Federal immigration law.
M. In fact, the obstruction by the California ruling party is so egregious that Orange and San Diego counties, representing approximately 3.2 and 3.3 million state residents respectively, have objected and will file Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) briefs supporting the US DOJ lawsuit.
N. They are joined by a number of municipalities in Northern, Central and Southern California.
P. Additionally, because California is a border state and illegal immigration has a national impact, an amicus brief by the States of Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, West Virginia, Governor Phil Bryant of the State of Mississippi, and Paul R. LePage, Governor of Maine has been filed with the court as well.
R. United States immigration policy is a contentious issue in our polity and is certainly an opportunity for a civil exchange of opinions on what reforms would serve the best interests of US citizens.
T. Due to the Federal government’s prerogative, the appropriate and legal means to address immigration policy is via our Congressional representatives.
V. Federal immigration statutes cannot be unilaterally preempted or compromised by states and/or cities and be consistent with the rule of law that governs our civil society.
X. On May 8, 2018, the Santa Clarita City Council voted to oppose SB 54 and to file an Amicus Curiae brief supporting the US DOJ lawsuit.
Ron Bischof is a Santa Clarita resident