Subject: Re: US-Mexico and citizenship<br/>
Date: Jun 13, 2001 @ 22:35<br/>
Author: Bill Hanrahan (&quot;Bill Hanrahan&quot; &lt;hanrahan@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="2822.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="2835.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic2821.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="2832.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="2834.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-889792525">I&#39;m not a constitutional lawyer (I don&#39;t even play one on TV), but I <br/>
can see why this raises some interesting federal-state questions.  <br/>
Presumably, the US INS opinion can&#39;t technically affect the extent <br/>
of  * state * jurisdiction.  In other words, they might be able to <br/>
argue that they can administratively move the &quot;jurisdictional&quot; <br/>
boundary on a Federal level, but I&#39;d venture to say, not on a state <br/>
level.  I could forsee the Arizona Department of Transporation, say, <br/>
extending its jurisdiction to the middle of the monument, regardless <br/>
of where a Federal agency locates the fence.  The action of the <br/>
Federal agency could be construed to be changing a state <br/>
boundary...which only a state legislature can do with the consent of <br/>
Congress.  Regardless of the constitutional supremacy clause, <br/>
specific powers not enumeratd in the constitution are reserved to the <br/>
respectve states.  My point (hopefully) is that the INS, Border <br/>
Patrol, Customs, Dept. of Justice, etc. can not &quot;move&quot; a boundary <br/>
(administratively or otherwise) simply because it&#39;s convenient.  Then <br/>
again, they can do what the Supreme Court says they can!<br/>
<br/>
Bill<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., Dallen Timothy &lt;dtimothy@a...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; These pictures remind me of a recent discussion I had with a US <br/>
Immigration<br/>
&gt; supervisor about citizenship... </span></blockquote></div>