This week, Rep, Justin Amash (R-MI) was one of the few Republicans to vote against “Kate’s Law,” which was a strong step in tightening laws against criminal Illegal Immigrants, Border Security, and punishment of so-called “Sanctuary Cities.” Amash, who is more Libertarian than Republican, gives his reasons below in a short letter to his constituents. Following that, I have written an even shorter rebuttal letter to explain why Rep. Amash is absolutely Constitutionally – wrong. – JDW
_________________________________________________
Rep. Justin Amash's statement on his vote against HR3003, the "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act":
"I voted no on #HR3003, No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.
This bill increases the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) detention of suspected illegal aliens, defunds sanctuary cities, and limits the ability of state and local governments to direct their law enforcement resources. In doing so, the bill violates at least five constitutional amendments.
This bill increases the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) detention of suspected illegal aliens, defunds sanctuary cities, and limits the ability of state and local governments to direct their law enforcement resources. In doing so, the bill violates at least five constitutional amendments.
The bill violates the Tenth Amendment by prohibiting any state or locality from doing anything that would restrict the ability of their law enforcement officers to "assist" federal immigration enforcement, giving state and local governments legal immunity for providing such assistance, and limiting transfers of aliens to sanctuary cities for criminal prosecution.
I have voted in the past to defund law enforcement grants to sanctuary cities that prohibit information sharing between their law enforcement and federal immigration officials (including #HR3009 in the 114th Congress), but this bill also prohibits any actions or policies that may restrict local law enforcement's cooperation with, or assistance to, federal immigration enforcement. This goes far beyond just facilitating the exchange of information that local law enforcement may already come across in the course of their own activities; this bill unconstitutionally enables the federal government to coerce states into helping with actual enforcement of immigration laws. Plus, it gives immunity to states for assisting with immigration enforcement, and it affirmatively punishes states for noncompliance.
Congress has no authority to direct state and local officials in this way. Our Constitution establishes a system of dual federalism. In Congress, the laws we make are to be executed by federal officials; we may not commandeer nonfederal officials.
The bill violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable seizures and the Fifth Amendment's due process requirements by increasing DHS's use of, and authority for, warrantless arrests and detentions of suspected illegal aliens. As their texts make clear, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments apply explicitly to all "people" and "person[s]" within the United States. The Constitution uses the word "citizen" in other provisions whenever that word is intended. This interpretation of the Constitution's applicability is shared by the Supreme Court, including among the conservative justices.
The bill violates the Eleventh Amendment—which largely prohibits Congress from unilaterally permitting lawsuits against states—by allowing the victims of crimes committed by an illegal alien to sue a state that declines to fulfill a request from the federal government to detain the alien.
The bill violates the Eleventh Amendment—which largely prohibits Congress from unilaterally permitting lawsuits against states—by allowing the victims of crimes committed by an illegal alien to sue a state that declines to fulfill a request from the federal government to detain the alien.
Lastly, the bill violates the First Amendment by likely interfering with the ability of state and local officials and other individuals to make statements regarding immigration enforcement policies and priorities.
I support securing the borders, and I have voted to defund sanctuary cities, but I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, even when it means I must oppose bills aimed at policy goals that I support.
It passed 228-195."
~Rep. Justine Amash, June 29, 2017
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Rep. Amash -
You should know better. The Tenth Amendment is clear, that "The powers not designated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."
But, the authority to make laws with regard to immigration (or naturalization) IS among the enumerated powers TO the Congress of the United States in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
“The two references in the Constitution that specifically mention “naturalization, ” are found in Article I, Section 8 in creating the authority of the Congress, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.
The second reference is located in the 14th Amendment stating that, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” are, “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The key thought in the 14th Amendment which along with several other provisions established in the Constitution shows that the intent of the Framers was that only citizens of the United States whether born or naturalized are granted the rights and privileges that are available in America.”*
So, Rep. Amash, here, You MISapply these 5 Amendments to illegal immigrants, and, in THIS case infer to the States powers they do not have, Constitutionally.
Such is the occasional tendency of the Libertarian......
- JDW (*with a few paragraphs borrowed from Erick Erickson)
