California's Sanctuary Treason

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

In California, the City of Los Alamitos has declared that they refuse to abide by California’s sanctuary status.  Therefore, they have chosen to opt-out of California’s sanctuary law (A.B. 54).  Other cities, and Orange County, are hearing the call, and have decided to follow suit.  California cities and counties not only have every right to opt-out of the State’s ill-conceived and unconstitutional sanctuary State status, they are obligated by law to do so.

Immigration is a concurrent issue.  What I mean by that is that the federal government and the States both have certain authorities regarding the issue.

To better illustrate what “concurrent” means, let’s use a school setting.  Like the States, it is the teacher’s responsibility to handle the internal affairs of his or her classroom.  It’s the responsibility of the principal’s office to handle issues beyond the walls of the classrooms.  The teacher may issue detentions to students in their classroom, and the principal may also issue detentions, but in settings other than the classroom, or in concert with the teacher regarding classroom infractions.  If a child does not belong in a classroom, the teacher may remove that person from the premises, but will likely seek the aid of the principal’s office in the endeavor.  If a person is not supposed to be on school grounds, the principal may send someone representing his office to retrieve that person from the classroom, and the teacher may assist in that action, but the teacher may not try to interfere and refuse to release that unregistered student or visitor.

Immigration is the same.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives Congress the authority to make law to ensure the rules of naturalization are uniform throughout the States.  Article I, Section 9 gives Congress the authority to make law to prohibit certain persons of their choosing from entering the country.  The Executive Branch’s office has established agencies to execute those laws.  While the State, through the concept of State Sovereignty as provided by the 10th Amendment, has the responsibility to handle the internal affairs of the State, and the federal government has no authority to interfere with a number of those issues (abortion, marriage, religion, guns, healthcare, to name a few), there are some issues in which the federal government does have the authority to be involved in.  While arrests may be made by the State, or its local parts (counties, cities), the federal government has certain authorities regarding law enforcement, as well.

If a person does not belong in the country because they violated federal law by not going through the appropriate process established by Congress through immigration law, the State may remove that person, with the assistance of federal authorities, from their State (as we saw Arizona attempt to do during the Obama administration).  If a person is not supposed to be in the country, the executive branch may send someone representing the federal government (ICE, Border Patrol) to retrieve that person from the State, and process the individual for deportation.  The States may assist in that action, but the States may not try to interfere and refuse to release that unregistered alien.

Article VI. of the U.S. Constitution explains that federal laws, when made in pursuance of the United States Constitution, have supremacy, and the States may not make laws contrary to those constitutional federal laws.  That said, if the federal government makes laws not in pursuance of the United States Constitution, those federal laws are void and unlawful, and the States may act in defiance to those unconstitutional laws through nullification.

For those of you who are sticklers about case law, of which I am not because to me the original intent of the Constitution is evidence enough when it comes to constitutionality, there are Supreme Court cases which provide the support we need in what I have laid out.

Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905) indicates that States may take any action (consistent with their own constitutions and laws) unless there exists a prohibition in the United States Constitution or such action has been preempted by federal law.

As for the question about authority over immigration, the Obama administration demanded in 2012, in their case against the State of Arizona, that immigration was not only a federal authority, but that a State’s right regarding the issue did not only disallow the State from having law contrary to federal law on the issue of immigration, but if the federal government chose an action of not enforcing immigration law, the State could not even act contrary to the federal government’s actions, and choose to enforce immigration law on the books when the White House chooses otherwise.

What emerged was case law from the 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States, which not only established that, as Justice Kennedy put it, “The Government of the Unit­ed States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immi­gration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s con­stitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations,” but that the States have no authority, whatsoever, to make law, or take action, that is contrary to the federal government’s authority on the issue.