State Votes: Can They Override Federal Immigration Laws?

While the United States federal government regulates immigration, states also have their own immigration laws. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law, but states have some freedom to determine their laws. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution generally means that federal laws take precedence over state laws, but there are exceptions. States have certain freedoms in determining the laws of their own jurisdictions, and many state laws addressing immigration are preempted by federal law. This raises the question: can a state vote to override federal immigration laws?

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution

The Supremacy Clause was introduced as part of the New Jersey Plan during the Federal Convention of 1787 and was passed unanimously. It was a response to the lack of a similar provision in the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1781 to 1789. The absence of such a clause meant that federal statutes did not bind state courts unless implemented through state legislation.

The Supremacy Clause assumes the priority of federal authority, provided it is expressed in the Constitution. It is considered a cornerstone of the US federal political structure, allowing the federal government to manage the nation's affairs effectively. While it grants supremacy to federal law, it does not allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.

The Supremacy Clause underpins the doctrine of preemption, where a higher authority's law can supersede that of a lower authority if its superiority is expressly stated or implied. This was further developed in the early 20th century with the doctrine of field preemption, which asserts that some federal legislation implicitly prevents states from adopting laws on the same subject.

While the Supremacy Clause generally gives federal laws supremacy over state laws, there are exceptions. The US Supreme Court has consistently upheld the federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law, but states have some freedom to determine their laws within specific parameters. For example, while federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections, some states have allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections.

State immigration laws

In the United States, the federal government in Washington, D.C., regulates immigration. The U.S. Congress controls all immigration-related regulations, while the White House is in charge of enforcing immigration laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) dictates most aspects of federal immigration law, including visas and citizenship status.

However, states also have some of their own immigration laws that can control immigration within their borders. While the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution generally means that federal laws take precedence over state laws, there are exceptions. States have a relative degree of freedom in determining the laws within their jurisdictions. For example, California is considered a "sanctuary state" and provides more generous benefits to immigrants, while Texas has been less welcoming and has successfully restricted benefits. Many states have passed legislation limiting immigrants' access to public benefits and have directed state and local police to check the legal immigration status of individuals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld the federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law and overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. State laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law are invalidated by the Supremacy Clause. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.

While states must generally adhere to federal immigration laws, they have some leeway in certain areas. For example, states that administer federal public benefits programs can follow federal rules for determining and verifying an applicant's citizenship or alienage status. Additionally, state and local law enforcement may arrest and detain aliens illegally present in the U.S. with prior felony convictions.

Immigrant rights groups

While the United States federal government regulates immigration, states also have their own laws that control immigration within their borders. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law, but states have some freedom to determine their own laws.

One such group is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has been at the forefront of legal struggles on behalf of immigrant rights for over 25 years. The ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project is dedicated to expanding and enforcing the civil liberties and rights of immigrants, combating public and private discrimination, and challenging constitutional abuses that arise from immigration enforcement. They have specifically targeted laws that require proof of citizenship or legal residence, such as the controversial "show me your papers" laws in some states.

Another group, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), provides legal services and community education to immigrants. CHIRLA assists with labour complaints, fights against wage theft and discrimination, and helps students with immigration legal services. They also represent people facing deportation and conduct know-your-rights presentations in community spaces, schools, and libraries.

These groups play a vital role in protecting the rights and interests of immigrants, ensuring that they are treated with compassion and dignity, and challenging discriminatory laws and practices. By advocating for immigrants and providing legal and educational resources, these organisations help to uphold the fundamental constitutional protections of due process and equal protection for all individuals, regardless of immigration status.

Voting rights for non-citizens

In the United States, non-citizens, including permanent legal residents, are generally prohibited from voting in federal, state, and most local elections. Federal law explicitly bans non-citizens from voting in federal elections, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 imposes penalties, including fines, imprisonment, or deportation, for non-citizens who vote in federal elections.

However, it is important to note that the right to vote in local elections is not uniformly restricted for non-citizens across all states and municipalities. While some states have amended their constitutions to explicitly prohibit non-citizen voting, others have granted non-citizens the right to vote in certain local elections. For example, in 1992, the City of Takoma Park, Maryland, became the first municipality to restore non-citizen voting rights in local elections. Since then, several other municipalities, including San Francisco, New York, Montpelier, Winooski, Oakland, Washington, D.C., Burlington, and 11 towns in Maryland, have allowed non-citizens to vote in specific local elections, such as school board elections.

The rationale behind granting non-citizens voting rights in local elections is based on the argument that citizenship is not a relevant qualification when voting for local officials who handle community-specific issues like parks, recreation, arts programs, and public transportation. Additionally, historical context suggests that granting voting rights to non-citizens was once used as an incentive by U.S. territories and new states to attract workers and families to populate the lands.

It is worth noting that the impact of non-citizen voting has been a subject of debate, with opponents arguing that their participation diminishes the votes of citizens. However, studies have shown that widespread non-citizen voting is not prevalent, and incidents of non-citizens registering and casting ballots are rare.

State public benefit programs

While immigration is often thought of as a federal issue, the day-to-day life of non-citizens is regulated by both the federal government and state and local governments. The federal government has exclusive power over who enters the country and on what terms they can remain. However, states have some freedom to determine their own laws and have passed legislation that affects immigrants' access to public benefits.

The 1996 Welfare Reform Act dramatically limited lawful immigrants' access to public benefits, causing almost a million non-citizens to lose access to benefits. This included major federal public benefits programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), non-emergency Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The Trump administration's exclusionary policies made it even more difficult for eligible immigrants to secure services, and their proposals would have significantly increased the number of non-citizens who become deportable because they use public benefits.

Despite this, states have some flexibility in determining the laws of their own jurisdictions. For example, California is a "sanctuary state" that provides more generous benefits to immigrants, while Texas has been notoriously unfavourable to immigrants and has successfully restricted their benefits. States are not required to verify immigration status before offering benefits, and they are free to ask no questions about immigration status when people apply. States can elect a “federal option” to use a mix of state and federal funds to expand eligibility for specific categories of non-citizens who would otherwise be ineligible under federal law. Since 2009, 40 states have elected this option to extend Medicaid coverage to certain lawfully present immigrant children or pregnant women without a five-year waiting period. States can also opt to fund their own programs to cover unauthorized immigrants or other federally ineligible non-citizens.

In addition, certain non-citizens are eligible for emergency Medicaid if they are otherwise eligible for their state's Medicaid program. School breakfast and lunch programs remain open to all children regardless of immigration status, and every state has opted to provide access to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Short-term non-cash emergency disaster assistance is also available without regard to immigration status, as are other in-kind services necessary to protect life or safety.

Frequently asked questions