If Thomas was against it, then there’s a constitutional concern.
“If Thomas was against it, then there’s a constitutional concern.”
Yep. Thomas is a member of the Federalist Society, and the Federalist guideine about making legal decisions based on “what the law says, not what it should say” is pertty sound advice. Usually results in Libtards crying and complaining, but sometimes the decisions go the other way.
Correct. From Article I, Section 8, comes the power of Congress to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization..." Immigration fits within this power. In the Federalist Papers, there is a lot of verbiage as to why only the federal government can do this, not the states. While it's unfortunate that the federal government has abused this power to the point of abrogating it, there is no constitutional mechanism for the states to fill the void. The 10th Amendment does not apply here.