Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OldDeckHand
Section 319(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states, in part, "Any person whose spouse is a citizen of the United States may be naturalized upon compliance with all the requirements of this title ...."

Can we agree that Congress has the power to pass the Immigration and Nationality Act pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says Congress has the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” and to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”?

Or is Congress prohibited from passing this part of the Immigration and Naturalization law because it talks about the spouse of a citizen?

In certain cases, the marriage of the U.S. citizen to the non-U.S. citizen spouse may have occurred outside of the United States. So the marriage being looked at occurred under the law of a foreign jurisdiction. And you still contend that Congress does not have the authority under the Constitution to define, for purposes of Federal law, the terms "marriage" and "spouse"?

55 posted on 07/13/2010 1:30:21 PM PDT by Gee Wally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]


To: Gee Wally
"Or is Congress prohibited from passing this part of the Immigration and Naturalization law because it talks about the spouse of a citizen?"

You're ignoring relevant case law in this regard as it relates to the Tenth Amendment. Tauro didn't. He cites United States v. Bongiorno and then explains...

a Tenth Amendment attack on a federal statute cannot succeed without three ingredients: (1) the statute must regulate the States as States, (2) it must concern attributes of state sovereignty, and (3) it must be of such a nature that compliance with it would impair a state’s ability to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions.

Tauro asserts that this particular case meets the requirements laid out in Bongiorno. I think that assertion has merit.

Your particular hypothesis is fine in and of itself, but it's not relevant to this discussion because immigration regulation doesn't - by definition - doesn't regulate the "states as states", now does it. The 10th Amendment argument works here because it meets the test set-forth in Bongiorno. Your hypothetical doesn't (in fact, it doesn't meet any of the tests), ergo it's not relevant.

Put another way, DOMA usurps the sovereignty of the state. The application of immigration rules as defined by the federal government, does not as immigration is an activity that is left plainly and solely to the federal government, not the states.

56 posted on 07/13/2010 1:52:31 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson