The states’ rights debate is one of the oldest debates in American history. From the inception of the nation, there were debates over how much power the federal government should have over the states of the union; indeed, the Articles of Confederation, the forerunner to the Constitution, gave much less power to the federal government (Johnson, 2010). The Constitution grants much more power to the federal government, but the fear of a large central government still lingers; the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights grants rights to the States of the Union that have been the subject of court debates since the Bill of Rights was ratified.
The United States government has been designed as a federal republic, with the coalition of States making up the parties ruled by the federal government. The United States has a series of fail-safes to ensure that neither the federal government nor the states become too powerful. On a more practical level, the fact that the United States is a federal republic means that the federal government essentially controls interactions between states, to avoid conflict and to make interactions more fair. For example, the federal government will be responsible for interstate trade and interstate highways; in addition, when a crime is committed between two states, the federal government will often take control of the case for prosecution (although this is a much more complex issue, and this is not always how criminal cases play out).
As for majority rule in a federal republic, it depends on the design and governing bodies; however, in the United States, the idea of “majority rule” is not really applicable. The interactions between the state and federal government are complex, but the states never truly get a say in the federal government’s policies. The majority-rule aspect of the United States government is restricted to the legislative bodies; here, however, we witness elected representatives more commonly toeing the party line than championing their state’s needs or causes.
One of the major issues facing border states is the issue of immigration. Immigration is a hot-button issue, particularly because it is so commonly tied up with racist rhetoric. However, the issue is much more nuanced and complex than this, and has to do with the various powers granted by the Constitution to the States/federal government. Naturalization of citizens is a federal power, granted in the Constitution. This is underscored by the fact that states are incapable of independently entering into international treaties. Foreign affairs are the province of the federal government; the states of the Union can participate only indirectly, through their interaction with the federal government. Immigration should be one of these issues; although it affects some states more than others, it also involves international interaction, and should be left to the federal government.
The states of the United States should have no right to control immigration policy; there is too much potential for abuse and misuse of the policy-- by immigrants and by state governments. If one state has a different, more lax policy, then the amount of immigrants flocking to a specific area may significantly change. On the other hand, immigration policies can be used in exclusionary ways; the Federal government, with less stake in the issue, can pass laws and policies that are more fair and less exclusionary.
The Supreme Court, however, has made a series of decisions that fall on the side of states' rights, particularly . For instance, the Court has ruled twice that a state has the right to use discriminatory policies when it is in the state's interest (Nimmo, 2010). The issue of states' rights becomes particularly sticky when discrimination is involved, because the federal government has stringent restrictions on the actions the government and individuals can take against protected classes (Natelson, 2010). While there are good arguments on both sides of the debate, it seems prudent to err on the side of federal oversight to avoid potential discriminatory practices or policies.
References
Johnson, K. (2010). States’ Rights Is Rallying Cry for Lawmakers. New York Times, [online] 16th March 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17states.html?_r=0 [Accessed: 20th Feb 2013].
Law.cornell.edu (n.d.). CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Tenth Amendment -- Table of Contents. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt10toc_user.html [Accessed: 20 Feb 2013].
Natelson, R. (2010). Immigration, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution – Tenth Amendment Center. [online] Retrieved from: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/03/immigration-foreign-affairs-and-the-constitution/ [Accessed: 20 Feb 2013].
Nimmo, K. (2010). Arizona, Illegal Immigration, and the Tenth Amendment. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.infowars.com/arizona-illegal-immigration-and-the-tenth-amendment/ [Accessed: 20 Feb 2013].
Robinson, R. (2010). Answers found in the 10th Amendment. Los Angeles Times, [online] 10th July. Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/30/opinion/la-oe-robson-10th-amendment-20100730.
Slater, W. (2010). Analysis: Perry's 'states' rights' battle cry evokes history that could damage his message. Dallas News, [online] 19th November. Retrieved from: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/national-politics/20101119-Analysis-Perry-s-states-7037.ece [Accessed: 20th Feb 2013].
