The opinion of a unanimous court in that case was strongly buttressed by historic references and persuasive reasoning. It repudiated the assumption that federal laws can be considered by the states as though they were laws emanating from a foreign sovereign. Its teaching is that the Constitution and laws passed pursuant to it are the supreme laws of the land. binding alike upon states. courts. and the people. "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.** It is clearly constitutional for the Federal Government to enlist local cooperation in the area of immigration control. My bill merely requires appropriate training if the local agencies assist INS. something which is presently occurring informally however without safeguards which proper training would provide. Not only is the delegation of enforcement powers constitutional. there is definitely a legitimate State interest in the area of immigration control which should be appropriately addressed through local assistance. Though the Supreme Court recently indicated that. absent congressional policy. State action limiting access to free education to only those demonstrating legal residence is a denial of equal protection. the Court stated that illegal immigration is indeed a State concern. As we recognize in DeCanas v. Bica 424 U.S. 351 (1976). the States do have some authority to act with respect to illegal aliens. at least where such action mirrors federal objectives and furthers a legitimate state goal. 424 U.S. at 361. see Pyler v. Doe. slip opinion 801538. The Court continued in a footnote.
Keywords matched
immigration illegal immigration illegal aliens