Not really, no. That take assumes that federal law is just unilaterally supercedent to state law, individual sovereignty, that jurisdictions are correct, and probably other issues.
We have operated for decades under a grotesque assumption that authority of law flows from federal, to state, to local, to individual, and that is not how American freedom works. This has a lot to do with a long-standing dispute between state and federal supremacy in law, and where the balance lies, that dates back to Washington leading the troops against the Whiskey Rebellion.
How were citizenship and immigration handled from 1600-1789, and from 1790-1850? Immigration definitely changed somehow in the late 1800s. A lot of us have expressed issues with the 1965 Hart Cellar Act.
We should do a good dig on this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_laws
Moreover, how could we push our states and cities to follow federal law on immigration, and do we even want to do that without knowing what that law is? How do those acts interplay with USC?
Not really, no. That take assumes that federal law is just unilaterally supercedent to state law, individual sovereignty, that jurisdictions are correct, and probably other issues.
We have operated for decades under a grotesque assumption that authority of law flows from federal, to state, to local, to individual, and that is not how American freedom works. This has a lot to do with a long-standing dispute between state and federal supremacy in law, and where the balance lies, that dates back to Washington leading the troops against the Whiskey Rebellion.
How were citizenship and immigration handled from 1600-1789, and from 1790-1850? Immigration definitely changed somehow in the late 1800s. A lot of us have expressed issues with the 1965 Hart Cellar Act.
We should do a good dig on this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_laws
Moreover, how could we push our states and cities to follow federal law on immigration, and do we even want to do that without knowing what that law is?
Not really, no. That take assumes that federal law is just unilaterally supercedent to state law, individual sovereignty, that jurisdictions are correct, and probably other issues.
We have operated for decades under a grotesque assumption that authority of law flows from federal, to state, to local, to individual, and that is not how American freedom works.
How were citizenship and immigration handled from 1600-1789, and from 1790-1850? Immigration definitely changed somehow in the late 1800s. A lot of us have expressed issues with the 1965 Hart Cellar Act.
We should do a good dig on this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_laws
Not really, no. That take assumes that federal law is just unilaterally supercedent to state law, individual sovereignty, that jurisdictions are correct, and probably other issues.
We have operated for decades under a grotesque assumption that authority of law flows from federal, to state, to local, to individual, and that is not how American freedom works.
How were citizenship and immigration handled from 1600-1789, and from 1790-1850? Immigration definitely changed somehow in the late 1800s.
We should do a good dig on this.