“They strongly upheld the principle that the federal government gets to set immigration policy, and this was in spite of the oral arguments which sounded hostile to the government.”
The two are not mutually exclusive. Immigration policy (and border control) IS a constitutionally mandated FEDERAL concern.
We can’t have each border state creating and enforcing it’s own interpretation of immigration and border control law EVEN IF, as now, the current resident refuses to enforce FEDERAL law.
The “hostile” part of the SCOTUS arguments involved this second fact, not the first.
We here are the first to decry judicial activism as opposed to strict constructionism. In this case, the majority voted in a strict constructionist manner.
We should at least applaud that fact while voting ABO in Novemeber in the hopes of getting a resident who will actually enforce FEDERAL laws.
“Strict Constitutionist manner” would mean that the federal government has control over Naturalization issues, since that is the only provision in the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the states and the people.
Arizona was not trying to make illegals citizens. It was actually trying to assist federal laws already on the books.
you sir are correct on all counts...
the feds exceeded their authority by trying to force local police officers not to do their jobs...
arizona exceeded it’s authority by trying to pass it’s own immigration laws...
The scotus got it right..
Perhaps if this argument were framed in a different way, say, suing for damages caused by the fed refusing to enforce immigration law???