Tuesday, November 22, 2011


OK, I voted for 2011 HB 497. The feds are filing suit. Some comments:

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].

Repeat, there is nothing in the constitution that says the Feds can regulate immigration, and certainly nothing that says the states can't.

"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.

The Federal Government to needs to protect our borders, create rules for granting citizenship, but as the State of Utah, we can take care of immigration, thank you very much. (Pretty obvious the feds are not doing it).

HB 497 was changed enough before it passed to avoid the huge financial impact some of the cities were worried about. If we are going to have a line to come into this county, there needs some enforcement. Add HB 469 and it solves the legal immigration aspect and makes it self limiting. Can we get a better bill than HB 497, perhaps, but I haven't see a better bill than HB 469.



Under the Articles of Confederation, the states had different naturalization requirements which is why naturalization was included in the constitution.

"Under the Articles of Confederation, the question of citizenship and the naturalization of immigrants remained with the individual states. Pennsylvania allowed any foreigner of 'good character,' who took an oath of allegiance to the state, to acquire property and after one year's residency become a citizen entitled to 'all the rights of a natural born subject of this state.' New York followed Pennsylvania's model and added a requirement for foreigners to renounce all allegiance to any foreign prince. Maryland's naturalization law required a declaration of 'belief in the christian religion' and an oath of allegiance. In South Carolina, full naturalization required at least two years of residency and a special act of the legislature."

Under the US Constitution the Supreme court ruled in 1837 that the states had immigration powers and it wasn't until about 1875-1880 that really started to change based on case law and not amending the constitution.

The articles of confederation were in place when the constitution was created and provide the argument and framework as to why naturalization was a power provided to the federal government under the US Constitution. It is my contention that while naturalization requirements were specified as a federal power, immigration requirements were purposely not a power granted to the federal government. It was a power the federal government later assumed, without constitutional modification after 100 years of the states having that power.

While you may argue that both the federal government and the states have power over immigration during those hundred years, I believe one can say that the states have power over immigration, based on the US constitution and not case law. That power was required under HB 469, but not under HB 497. There isn't even a constitutional note for HB 497 and I don't believe the federal government has constitutional arguments to win.

"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."

There is nothing in that oath that says I would swear to support, obey and defend Case Law, or any existing laws, especially those without US Constitutional standing. for example: FLIPMA.

For a copy of the 2011 HB 497 law, see: