Speech #970225616

I was surprised to find the reverse. a substantial uniformity of legal opinion. The current case law involved in this area is fairly complete. Congress power over immigration is plenary and without substantial restriction. The case of Carlson against Landon (1952). provides such an analysis. Historically. State and local officers have been able to enforce criminal violations of immigration laws. See Testa against Katt (1947). Although Federal power preempts State and local power over immigration. as in the case of Hines against Davidowitz (1941). the Supreme Court. in DeCanas against Bica (1976). has held that a State may exercise its police powers to protect its citizens from the effects of immigration. Perhaps more important. the Supreme Court. just a few weeks ago. in Pyler against Doe. the Texas school case. held that a State may protect its citizens against illegal immigration so long as its actions are consistent with Federal law. On page 22 of the opinion. Justice William Brennan. a staunch supporter of civil rights. says: As we recognized in De Canas v. Btca. 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. And on page 27. Justice Brennan writes that: Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country. that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government. unchecked. unlawful migration might impair the States economy generally. or the States ability to provide some important service.