Should states be allowed to defend their own borders?

[^_^ 5,021]

Responding to the federal government's position that "the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government," Scalia asked:

JUSTICE SCALIA: All that means, it gives authority over naturalization, which we've expanded to immigration. But all that means is that the Government can set forth the rules concerning who belongs in this country. But if, in fact, somebody who does not belong in this country is in Arizona, Arizona has no power? What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2012/04/oral-argument-in-arizona-v-united-states.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Defend their borders -- From whom? Tourists?

ETA: BTW, California already has interstate checkpoints.

Edited April 26, 2012 by ☼

[^_^ 5,021]

Defend their borders -- From whom? Tourists?

ETA: BTW, California already has interstate checkpoints.

Yes, but how do you feel about every state having checkpoints (or some other form of enforcement, say mines?) on all their borders?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yes, but how do you feel about every state having checkpoints (or some other form of enforcement, say mines?) on all their borders?

You mean like the above?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes, but how do you feel about every state having checkpoints (or some other form of enforcement, say mines?) on all their borders?

It would be the beginning of the balkanization of this country.

[^_^ 5,021]

It would be the beginning of the balkanization of this country.

i hear the party scene in the balkans is out of this world. and the girls are hot and easy.

could be a good thing.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i hear the party scene in the balkans is out of this world. and the girls are hot and easy.

could be a good thing.

You think it would improve the sex market?

[mawilson 2,133]

It would be the beginning of the balkanization of this country.

And an eventual collapse when some states (read: California) realize they could do much better on their own.

[^_^ 5,021]

You think it would improve the sex market?

You never know. It's worth a shot!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You never know. It's worth a shot!

Traveling would be a b!tch.

[^_^ 5,021]

Traveling would be a b!tch.

Call me crazy but I think state sovereignty is a tad more important than you.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

i hear the party scene in the balkans is out of this world. and the girls are hot and easy.

could be a good thing.

Yes, but it usually ends up you being tortured and killed by some sick Western European businessman in a black rubber apron.

[^_^ 5,021]

Yes, but it usually ends up you being tortured and killed by some sick Western European businessman in a black rubber apron.

In life, one takes the good with the bad.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Call me crazy but I think state sovereignty is a tad more important than you.

Interstate commerce would turn into a clusterfvck of a logjam. And the states with international ports could totally monopolize trade since most of manufacturing is done overseas.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[^_^ 5,021]

Interstate commerce would turn into a clusterfvck of a logjam. And the states with international ports could totally monopolize trade since most of manufacturing is done overseas.

And which of those concerns overrides the fact that states are sovereign?

None of them.

Look, the states are run by pretty smart people (most of the time). If there's a need for commerce, it will be met. But does that mean states aren't allowed to defend their own borders in a manner they see fit?

Come on. You're not even trying to hide the fact that you're a one-world fascist.