The Constitution of the United States grants authority to the federal government to regulate foreign commerce and to adopt a uniform rule of naturalization.
[Citizenship not Immigration]
From the Constitutional Note for HB 116 3rd S:
"The Constitution of the United States grants authority to the federal government to regulate foreign commerce and to adopt a uniform rule of naturalization. The United States Supreme Court has also found inherent federal authority to regulate immigration on the basis of federal sovereignty and the power to engage in foreign affairs: this is sometimes referred to as the "plenary power," which in more recent years has been made subject to certain constitutional limits. See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893); Hernandez-Carrera v. Carlson, 547 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2009)."
There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that grants the Federal Government power over Immigration and prior to the Case Law noted above, the States had that Power.
While I don't agree with HB116 3rd s, voted against it twice, nor do I believe it will help solve the current problem,
Utah getting involved in immigration is Not Unconstitutional. Could it be ruled by a court to be unconstitutional based on Case Law? - Yes.
Also, please note the Oath of Office I took:
I, Fred C. Cox, having been elected (appointed) to the office of
Representative, House District 32
do solemnly swear that I will support, obey and defend the
Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution of this State
and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.
Fred C. Cox
Representative, District 32
January 11, 2011 and January 24, 2011
There is nothing that says I would swear to support, obey and defend Case Law, or any existing laws. While I didn't vote for HB 116, (guest worker), I did vote for the other 3 bills that are part of the "Utah Solution".
