ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES

Today’s opinion deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent.

As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has longbeen recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated: “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases,or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual.”

ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES Opinion of SCALIA, J.

The ruling protects "the federal government's prerogative to set and enforce immigration policy or, in this case, not to enforce immigration policy."

The Democrat-controlled Congress passed COBRA/EMTALA in 1986 forcing emergency treatment facilities (ETF) to treat anyone who came through their doors. This unfunded mandate has forced the closure of many ETFs. President Reagan compromised on this and amnesty for illegal aliens, because he got solid enforcement laws which would prevent a reoccurence of the problems. Unfortunately these laws were not enforced. The states are also having to educate and provide services for illegals at their own expense.