The State of Texas possesses the ability to bring resolution to a porous border that has created sanctuary cities, high
education costs, high health services costs, high insurance costs, low tax revenue, social unrest and anger, probable
voter fraud, broken budgets, and has produced a population that seemingly has no interest in becoming assimilated
into the Texas culture.
There are four goals in resolving the Illegal Immigration Issue:
(1) keeping Texas free, (2) keeping Texas secure, (3) keeping Texas prosperous, and (4) aiding Mexico with the
development of an economic middle class.
Keeping Texas Free
To keep Texas free we must act to put our security at the Border, and not on the citizens. The cost of a weak Border is
the monitoring of the population and less freedom.
Keeping Texas Secure
To keep Texas secure we must enforce the laws that are under the control of the State of Texas to remove or reduce
the economic incentives for unlawful presence.
For the State of Texas and its local governments to take on their illegal immigration problems, they must take a more
forceful approach than just relying on the federal government to do its duty.
There are actions that state and local governments can take based upon the following facts.
Constitutionally, other than in the areas of border security and visa policy, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution
guarantees that states retain their police powers to control their jurisdictions.
The state’s police powers are retained by the local jurisdiction because the Ninth and Tenth Amendments established
the federalist system of government by stating that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights should, … "not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"… "powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Madison stated in The Federalist Papers, "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects
which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order,
improvement, and prosperity of the States."
Supremacy Clause
The hurdle for state and local governments to overcome in dealing with illegal-immigration issues within their
jurisdictions is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause states that,
"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."
The Supremacy Clause gives the Congress the authority to preempt state and local laws "where concurrent
jurisdiction exists." Congressional preemption can occur explicitly through statutory language stating as much, or
implicitly through intent to regulate an entire field or when state or local law conflicts with federal law.
On immigration issues, because the Congress provided exceptions for state and local laws dealing with "licensing or
similar laws" concerning the employment of illegal immigrants, the Congress failed to occupy the entire field of
immigration law explicitly and/or implicitly.
Moreover, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted:
"States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship and protect
workers within the State." As such, state and local actions "to prohibit the knowing employment by...employers of
persons not entitled to lawful residence in the United States, let alone to work here, [are] certainly within the
mainstream of such police power regulation."
In what is the strongest statement on this issue, the U.S. Supreme Court noted:
Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the
Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State's economy generally, or
the State's ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation's borders, we
cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against
federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 228 n.23 (1982).
Therefore, the federal government cannot assert the Clause of Supremacy and then not enforce the law . The Supreme
Court case, Plyler v Doe suggests that Texas can not only enforce illegal immigration laws internally, but also at the
border because the state's economy is being impaired and the influx of persons into the state by means of federal
negligence or nonperformance of their duty to Texas is having a discernible impact on the state's well being and ability
to conduct business.
It appears that we have state's rights to act and the current Executive waits for the federal government to do something.
Texas needs borders that are both secure and open to commerce.
State and local government action should remove or reduce the economic incentives for unlawful presence. The
removal of any economic incentives, i.e. sanctuary cities, would be the most effective and least costly way to build a
fence. If the economic incentives were removed 287g would become a second means of action as most would leave
voluntarily.
The next task would be to aid Mexico with establishing an economic middle class. It is in the best interest of the citizens
in Mexico and also for the stability of Texas.
education costs, high health services costs, high insurance costs, low tax revenue, social unrest and anger, probable
voter fraud, broken budgets, and has produced a population that seemingly has no interest in becoming assimilated
into the Texas culture.
There are four goals in resolving the Illegal Immigration Issue:
(1) keeping Texas free, (2) keeping Texas secure, (3) keeping Texas prosperous, and (4) aiding Mexico with the
development of an economic middle class.
Keeping Texas Free
To keep Texas free we must act to put our security at the Border, and not on the citizens. The cost of a weak Border is
the monitoring of the population and less freedom.
Keeping Texas Secure
To keep Texas secure we must enforce the laws that are under the control of the State of Texas to remove or reduce
the economic incentives for unlawful presence.
For the State of Texas and its local governments to take on their illegal immigration problems, they must take a more
forceful approach than just relying on the federal government to do its duty.
There are actions that state and local governments can take based upon the following facts.
Constitutionally, other than in the areas of border security and visa policy, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution
guarantees that states retain their police powers to control their jurisdictions.
The state’s police powers are retained by the local jurisdiction because the Ninth and Tenth Amendments established
the federalist system of government by stating that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights should, … "not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"… "powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Madison stated in The Federalist Papers, "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects
which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order,
improvement, and prosperity of the States."
Supremacy Clause
The hurdle for state and local governments to overcome in dealing with illegal-immigration issues within their
jurisdictions is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause states that,
"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."
The Supremacy Clause gives the Congress the authority to preempt state and local laws "where concurrent
jurisdiction exists." Congressional preemption can occur explicitly through statutory language stating as much, or
implicitly through intent to regulate an entire field or when state or local law conflicts with federal law.
On immigration issues, because the Congress provided exceptions for state and local laws dealing with "licensing or
similar laws" concerning the employment of illegal immigrants, the Congress failed to occupy the entire field of
immigration law explicitly and/or implicitly.
Moreover, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted:
"States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship and protect
workers within the State." As such, state and local actions "to prohibit the knowing employment by...employers of
persons not entitled to lawful residence in the United States, let alone to work here, [are] certainly within the
mainstream of such police power regulation."
In what is the strongest statement on this issue, the U.S. Supreme Court noted:
Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the
Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State's economy generally, or
the State's ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation's borders, we
cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against
federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 228 n.23 (1982).
Therefore, the federal government cannot assert the Clause of Supremacy and then not enforce the law . The Supreme
Court case, Plyler v Doe suggests that Texas can not only enforce illegal immigration laws internally, but also at the
border because the state's economy is being impaired and the influx of persons into the state by means of federal
negligence or nonperformance of their duty to Texas is having a discernible impact on the state's well being and ability
to conduct business.
It appears that we have state's rights to act and the current Executive waits for the federal government to do something.
Texas needs borders that are both secure and open to commerce.
State and local government action should remove or reduce the economic incentives for unlawful presence. The
removal of any economic incentives, i.e. sanctuary cities, would be the most effective and least costly way to build a
fence. If the economic incentives were removed 287g would become a second means of action as most would leave
voluntarily.
The next task would be to aid Mexico with establishing an economic middle class. It is in the best interest of the citizens
in Mexico and also for the stability of Texas.
Border Concerns
| Pol. Ad Paid for by the Campaign to Elect Fran Cavanaugh Governor Brent Williams, Treasurer P.O. Box 1231, Allen, TX 75013 (C) Copyright 2010 Cavanaugh Campaign ~ All Rights Reserved Worldwide |
