JEFFERSON CITY 鈥 Notwithstanding any decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican candidate for Missouri governor Bill Eigel says he won鈥檛 be deterred in enforcing Missouri鈥檚 鈥渟overeignty.鈥
The state senator from Weldon Spring, who has proposed legislation to remove people in Missouri who have entered the U.S. illegally, made the comments earlier this week as a federal court weighed how far states can go in policing immigration.
鈥淲e鈥檙e going to be aggressive about detaining and deporting folks who are here in this state illegally,鈥 Eigel told the Post-Dispatch in an interview. 鈥淚 expect the Supreme Court to reaffirm that right. In the event that the Supreme Court has a different perspective, well, we鈥檒l cross that bridge when we come to it; however, I will say that that鈥檚 not going to deter me from enforcing the sovereignty of the state of Missouri.鈥
People are also reading…
Eigel鈥檚 bill, which has been heard in a Senate committee, would create the offense of 鈥渋mproper entry,鈥 which subjects the offender to an order of removal.
In addition to his legislation, Eigel said if he is elected governor, he will declare an invasion under Article IV of the Missouri Constitution, which permits the governor to 鈥渃all out the militia to execute the laws, ... and repel invasion鈥 except when the militia 鈥渋s called into the service of the United States.鈥
, a professor of constitutional law at St. 亚洲无码 University, said Congress had absolute power over immigration under the U.S. Constitution.
鈥淭here is no such thing as 鈥榮tate sovereignty鈥 when it comes to immigration because Congress has plenary power over immigration. That is Article I of the United States Constitution,鈥 Walker said. 鈥淭he story might be good political theater, but it鈥檚 doomed.鈥
Walker said if Missouri were to defy an order from the Supreme Court, anyone incarcerated under the invalidated state law could file a in federal court seeking release.
In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down parts of an Arizona law that created state-level offenses for illegal immigration. And President Joe Biden鈥檚 administration is currently challenging a Texas law allowing for the arrest and attempted removal of individuals crossing the southern border illegally.
A federal appeals court following an order from the Supreme Court last week that briefly allowed it to take effect. It鈥檚 unclear how a Supreme Court that has shifted to the right in recent years will ultimately address the issue.
Eigel, asked if defying the Supreme Court would result in a 鈥渃onstitutional crisis,鈥 responded that the country has already been in one.
鈥淲e鈥檝e seen certain, you know, branches of government not respect the independence of other branches,鈥 Eigel said.
Eigel has not led in publicly available polling, trailing Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft and Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe among candidates seeking the Republican nomination. During his eight years in the Senate, Eigel has cultivated an uncompromising persona and currently helps lead a hard-right faction of Republicans in the recently launched Missouri Freedom Caucus.
Immigration has emerged as a central issue in the upcoming election, with it as the country鈥檚 top problem. Homeland Security data show the , with significantly more migrants from countries other than Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras entering illegally through the U.S. southern border in recent years.
Democrats are walking a line between voicing encouragement for enhanced border security and admonishing rhetoric from Republicans such as Eigel.
Candidate stances
When asked about Eigel鈥檚 position, the campaigns for Kehoe and Ashcroft stopped short of embracing the type of aggressive detain-and-deport program Eigel has pitched.
鈥淥ur country needs to restore the Trump executive order, which was working, and enforce the law,鈥 Ashcroft said. 鈥淪econdly, we need to hold Mexico responsible and cut off all remittances into the country until they do their part to patrol their side of the border.鈥
Ashcroft went on to say that he would declare an invasion under Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states the federal government will protect states against invasion.
鈥淚 will support Texas and other border states鈥 efforts with additional personnel, I will stop state tax dollars from subsidizing illegal aliens, and I will make sure we prosecute this fight in the federal courts,鈥 Ashcroft said.
Michael Hafner, a spokesman for Kehoe, said when Kehoe is elected, 鈥渘o illegal migrants will receive state funded benefits of any kind鈥 and said he would cut off funding to cities acting formally or informally as sanctuary cities. (Missouri municipalities from enacting 鈥渟anctuary鈥 policies more than a decade ago.)
On the Democratic side, House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, said she would support bipartisan border legislation at the federal level, like the one 鈥渢orpedoed in Congress for political gain.鈥
Quade said she supports Parson鈥檚 decision to send National Guard troops to the border.
鈥淲e can, and should, take action to secure our borders without taking children from families and vilifying immigrants,鈥 Quade said. 鈥淲e need a common sense roadmap to citizenship, especially for our dreamers, spouses of American citizens, and the workers we desperately need to support our farming communities.鈥
Michael Hamra, a Springfield businessman challenging Quade for the Democratic nomination, said, 鈥淲e need to put aside the political fights and secure the border with a sensible system for people to come here legally and be treated humanely.
鈥淪adly, all we are getting is mean-spirited political stunts from extremist Republican politicians like Senator Eigel that do nothing to secure our border or make anyone safer,鈥 he said in a statement.
Legal arguments
In , the U.S. Department of Justice argues federal law preempts the Texas law.
The federal government argued the Constitution鈥檚 is one source of authority for the U.S. government, and that it restricts states from engaging in immigration regulation.
The Supreme Court in 2012 previously recognized the federal government鈥檚 鈥渆xclusive power鈥 over certain immigration matters, but the question of whether states may arrest and deport people remains partly unresolved, said , director of the Washington University School of Law鈥檚 Immigration Law Clinic.
She said while the court previously stopped Arizona鈥檚 state-level crimes for violating U.S. immigration laws, the court still allowed the state to detain individuals suspected of not having documentation.
Meyer said the court did not take issue with a state 鈥渕erely cooperating with immigration authorities by turning over suspected undocumented immigrants to federal officials.鈥
But the high court did rule state action crosses a constitutional line when the state enacts its own laws 鈥渁nd/or attempts to enforce federal immigration laws on their own (such as by charging or attempting to deport an individual),鈥 Meyer said in an email.
鈥淥pponents of these state bills make additional strong claims that such laws are illegally discriminatory and are against public policy,鈥 Meyer said. 鈥淥ne thing is crystal clear: if these laws pass they will be mired in expensive鈥 litigation 鈥渇or years to come.鈥
Walker said the current Supreme Court could ultimately uphold Texas鈥 approach.
鈥淭his court might say as long as state law coincides with federal law 鈥 it does not defy it 鈥 then, that鈥檚 fine,鈥 he said.