Tag Archives: DACA

Asylum Requests up 1700 per cent on the Southern Border | June 21 2018

The Fraudulent Parent Problem on the Border

| Townhall

“President Trump signed an executive order this week allowing adults who illegally enter the United States with children, claiming to be family units, to be detained together in federal facilities.

The question of a valid parental-child relationship is at the center of how the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services handle detainment. Because of fraudulent documentation, profits to smugglers, and false asylum claims, there is essentially no way to prove or verify adults traveling with children are indeed their parents.

In April 2016, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley warned about catch-and-release policies enabling the smuggling industry.  In the past, any non-Mexican or Canadian individual illegally crossing the border with a child was considered a family unit, processed and released into the interior. Current zero-tolerance policies require they be detained until prosecution.

“A recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report confirmed that human smuggling rings are exploiting children in order to prevent the detention of the undocumented immigrants they’re smuggling into the United States. They are pairing children with unrelated adults, knowing adults who enter the United States with children won’t be detained,” he said.

“At least one Honduran interviewed by DHS officials reported that children are kidnapped or adopted then smuggled with their unrelated adult “family member” to the United States. This smuggling practice has bolstered an underground market for counterfeit birth certificates according to the report, which was prepared by the DHS Human Smuggling Cell.  Once in the U.S., these children are vulnerable to labor or sex trafficking,” he continued.

Fast-forward to 2018 and this is still the case.

“If there’s no documentation to confirm the claimed relationship between an adult and a child, we [separate] if the parent is a national security, public or safety risk, including when there are criminal charges at issue and it may not be appropriate to maintain the family in detention together,” DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said at the White House Monday.

“We also separate a parent and child if the adult is suspected of human trafficking.  There have been cases where minors have been used and trafficked by unrelated adults in an effort to avoid detention,” she continued. “And I’d stop here to say, in the last five months, we have a 314 percent increase in adults and children arriving at the border, fraudulently claiming to be a family unit.  This is, obviously, of concern.”

Current and former Border Patrol and ICE agents who have worked extensively on human trafficking cases continue to have these concerns. Worse, they’re alarmed the majority of current media coverage is downplaying the smuggling angle.

“You can never really verify who the parents really are,” former Border Patrol and Customs Special Agent Jason Piccolo said during an interview with Townhall. “Especially in light of adult males showing up with kids.”

In 2015, Piccolo blew the whistle on the Obama administration releasing unaccompanied minors to unvetted, criminal sponsors. During that time, he served as the sole ICE and Enforcement and Removal Operations representative to the White House Security Council’s DHS Human Smuggling Cell. It was his job to disrupt or dismantle human smuggling organizations domestically and internationally.

“Without doing some kind of in-depth interview or interrogation or some kind of biometrics [DNA] there’s no way you can tell if the kids are actually family,” he said.

Piccolo explained how adults and children are given fake documents, including birth certificates to “prove” they are “related.”

“They’re given fake documents in order to get through Mexico and a lot of times they’ll give those fake documents back,” he said.

Smugglers are hired for as much as $20,000 per person and pair unrelated adults to unrelated children. The entire purpose is to claim asylum, valid or not, with the understanding that “family units” are apprehended and then released to the interior of the United States. Since 2008, asylum claims have ballooned by 1,700 percent according to DHS data.

Under the Obama administration, 80-90 percent of individuals making asylum claims with children were released after being processed and given a court date. Inevitably, they started living in the U.S. illegally for years to come. This is the policy the Trump administration is trying to change.

“When they’re presenting themselves they’d get an asylum interview and they’d get released,” Piccolo said. “It was widely known that the human smuggling cell knew that aliens coming in from South America stated that they were told if they were a family unit they would be released at the border.”

Piccolo suggests a joint effort with USCIS, DHS and FBI is necessary for vetting and that a joint task force must be developed to do interviews and interrogations of adults traveling with children.

“If you really want to fix this problem you have to really vet these adults,” he said. ”

….Continue reading more @ Townhall

 

Rep. Ted Lieu uses scripture to justify DACA amnesty | Feb 11 2018

The True Biblical Response to Illegal Immigration and DREAMers

|| Townhall

“My Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) hosted another error-ridden town hall in Hermosa Beach last week. On immigration, he claimed to support two parts of President Trump’s proposed(?) plan: granting legal status to 1.8 million young illegals; and enhancing border security (although Lieu called the border wall “stupid”). He differed on ending chain migration and the diversity lottery. He quoted the Bible in his defense: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.” (Matthew 25:35).

My response: “Then take them into your home!” Amnesty advocates preach their open-border morality, but don’t live up to it. Moreover, Jesus’ statement is directed toward individuals who welcomed strangers into their own homes voluntarily. Any form of amnesty imposed by our government is not voluntary.

My consternation with these Biblical arguments has grown since reading this article in the Christian Post, when evangelical leaders, many of whom I respect, pressured Congress to pass some kind of DREAM Act. Pastor Samuel Rodriguez of Sacramento, CA stated in a January press conference: “The wall is a physical object created by man. 800,000 human beings created in the image of God by God.” Walls are Biblical, affirmed by God in Scripture. In fact, God commands the construction of walls around Jerusalem both the Old (Nehemiah 1:1-7:3) and the New (Isaiah 54: 12; Ezekiel 42:20).

In another letter to Congress, Evangelical leaders wrote: “Roughly 700,000 young people are poised to lose their right to work lawfully in the U.S., not to mention their dreams of a future in this country—the country they were brought to as children, without choice.” First of all, this country is not responsible for their parents’ crimes, which have harmed their children. Children should not be punished for the sins of their parents (cf. Jeremiah 31:29), but natural consequences remain. A mother breaks into my home, steals my car, and her children use the ill-gotten gains for good. I am still entitled to restoration of my property (Exodus 22). Illegal aliens are stealing this country’s space, resources, and wealth.

In response to these pro-enforcement arguments, preachers cite The New Covenant (Hebrews 8:10-012), which asserts that we are no longer under law, but under grace. However, grace is not arbitrary. Jesus died on a Cross for the sins of the world, the just for the unjust (1 John 2:2; 1 Peter 3:18). A payment must be rendered. Why should law-abiding citizens pay for lawbreakers?

If Christian leaders want to preach accurately on immigration, they should first acknowledge a few things:

  1. Nations are God’s idea, not merely man’s construction, and rewarding illegal immigration harms nations. Genesis 11 reports God created multiple languages—and nations—to stop mankind from building the Tower of Babel. The dissolution of border security and national sovereignty are unholy gestures. To contend for amnesty based on a misplaced understanding of scripture is not tenable. There will come a time when every knee will bow, and every tongue confess Christ Jesus as Lord, but for now nation-states remain as part of God’s plan. Rampant amnesties only erode national boundaries.
  2. Citizenship is a principle defended in the Bible. In the Old Testament, strangers were respected (Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 10: 19), but they were expected to adopt all the customs of Israel, not retain their original cultural views (Numbers 15: 14-29). In the New Testament, Paul the apostle asserted his Roman citizenship to redress the abusive treatment of Roman soldiers (Acts 22:22-23:11). He also addressed his fellow Christians as “citizens of heaven” (Philippians 3:20, Colossians 3:5-16). Membership in a defined, national compact matters and should not be pushed aside. Many illegals in this country, especially DREAMers, are hell-bent on retaining and imposing a neo-pagan culture in this country, estranged and unsubmissive to our country’s constitutional rule and civic culture.
  3. Christians are called to honor their rulers (and rules!) among the nations (1 Timothy 2:1-2; 1 Peter 2:17). To dismiss the authority of temporal rulers, especially on matters of immigration, is unholy and unwise.

Instead of championing amnesty, Christian leaders should reference the ideal immigrant: Ruth the Moabite. Unlike the 11 to 16 million illegal aliens in our country, per official tallies, Ruth did not break into her adoptive nation of Israel. She had a sponsor, her mother-in-law Naomi. There were other factors which Ruth obeyed, too (Ruth 1:16-17):

  1. “For whither thou goest, I will go”: She would attend to Naomi, recognizing her place in her new country as based solely on the goodness of her mother-in-law. She did not enter into Israel as a political radical or busy-body.
  2. “Where thou lodgest, I will lodge”: She would live with Naomi, not depending on someone else, particularly the state or taxpayers, to provide her housing. Her needs would come from her sponsor, not by force from other inhabitants in Israel.
  3. “Your people will be my people”: This statement sums up assimilation perfectly. She pledged to become an Israelite. How often do our leaders today talk about the importance of immigrants adopting American customs, rather than demanding that we accommodate their foreign ways?
  4. “Thy God [will be] my God.”: while our free society does not demand religious adherence to one creed, we should expect immigrants to embrace our cultural and moral values. For this reason, I am adamant against accepting adherents of Sharia Law, for example, or other religious sects which endanger life and property.
  5. “Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried”: Ruth pledged a complete break with her pagan country and culture. She refused to abandon her new country or identity.

At the very least, politicians and pastors should stop shaming the public by misusing Scripture. Christians should have a ready defense when amnesty advocates distort Scripture for selfish political ends. Every country has a right to strong borders, safe citizens, and a secured sovereignty. These are not un-Christian expectations in the slightest.”

….Continue reading @ Townhall

DACA Invaders Demand Complete Amnesty for All | Jan 24 2018

‘DACA No Longer Enough:’ Soros-Funded Illegal Aliens Demand Amnesty by Protesting Schumer, Democrats

|| Breitbart

“Illegal alien activists stormed the home of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the offices of Democrats demanding immediate amnesty for all 12 to 30 million illegal aliens in the United States, as well as the release of all illegal aliens who are in detention centers for crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.

Illegal aliens and open borders activists with “United We Dream,” a group that is partially funded by globalist billionaire George Soros, blocked off streets in Brooklyn, New York to protest Schumer’s vote to cave and reopen the federal government without an amnesty for millions of illegal aliens being included in the government funding bill.

“If Chuck won’t let us dream, we won’t let him sleep!” illegal alien activists shouted outside the New York liberal’s home on Tuesday.

Illegal alien activists also stormed through the offices of Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), with one illegal alien who has been shielded from deportation by the President Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program taking issue with even the words “illegal immigrant.”

…Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

‘They Are Killing Our Dreams!’ Illegal Aliens Hold Mock Funeral in U.S. Senate

|| Breitbart

“Illegal alien activists held a mock funeral in the U.S. Senate rotunda, saying that because Congress and President Trump have not given them amnesty, “they are killing our dreams.”

A group of mostly illegal aliens and open borders activists with the group “United We Dream” gathered in the Senate rotunda on Wednesday to demand an immediate passage of a full-scale, expansive amnesty plan that would potentially give legal status and a pathway to U.S. citizenship to all of the 12 to 30 million illegal aliens living in the U.S.

United We Dream is partially funded by globalist billionaire George Soros.

The group of activists stood around in a circle as each illegal alien came forward saying they “deserve” and are entitled to an amnesty, each dropping an orange flower on the ground in a mock funeral-style event.

“To the Republican Party, you are responsible for us not being able to be with our loved ones… it’s on you,” one illegal alien said. “That pain, that suffering rests on your heart and your shoulders. And this flowers is for all those people that are crossing the border and risking their lives.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

Did President Trump Cave on DACA or Not? | Jan 10 2018

Trump’s TV-Show Exposes Democrat Weakness, GOP Unity, in Amnesty Fight

|| Breitbart

“President Donald Trump’s riveting spectacle of televised bipartisanship exposed the Democrats’ political weakness in the amnesty debate — and also revealed remarkable GOP unity on the goal of ending the nation’s chain-migration system.

Time after time, Democrats pleaded for a quick passage of unpopular ‘dreamer’ amnesty while also promising a later-meaning-never debate over popular immigration reforms, such as the elimination of the visa-lottery and the chain-migration system, which doubles the annual inflow of legal immigrants.

Time after time, in contrast, GOP leaders wrapped themselves in sympathy for the 670,000 DACA illegals while insisting that Congress must implement Trump’s popular policies by ending the huge visa-lottery and chain-migration programs which are slowly but steadily freezing Americans’ wages while turning Republican states blue.

A key moment came when Trump invited GOP Majority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy to shut down the Democrats’ demand for a quick amnesty by touting the president’s immigration priorities as a must-do item:

[Democrat] SENATOR FEINSTEIN:  … What about a clean DACA bill now, with a commitment that we go into a comprehensive immigration reform procedure?  Like we did back — oh, I remember when [Sen. Ted] Kennedy was here and it was really a major, major effort, and it was a great disappointment that it went nowhere … Would you be agreeable to that?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think a lot of people would like to see that, but I think we have to do DACA first.

REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY:  Mr. President, you need to be clear though.  I think what Senator [Diane] Feinstein is asking here: When we talk about just DACA, we don’t want to be back here two years later.  We have to have security, as the Secretary would tell you … But, let’s be honest.  Security was voted on just a few years ago [in 2013], and, no disrespect, there’s people in the room on the other side of the aisle who voted for it.  If I recall, Senator [Hillary] Clinton voted for it.  So I don’t think that’s comprehensive; I think that’s dealing with DACA at the same time.  I think that’s really what the President is making.

It’s kind of like three pillars: DACA, because we’re all in the room want to do it; border security, so we’re not back out here; and chain migration.  It’s just three items, and then everything else that’s comprehensive is kind of moved to the side…

THE PRESIDENT:  And the lottery.

REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY:  And the lottery.

The GOP’s new agreement with Trump’s pro-American goals allows him to ostentatiously delegate the task of negotiating the legislation to a bipartisan group of legislators, knowing that he is only going to get back a bill that he likes. He said:

I will say, when this group comes back — hopefully with an agreement — this group and others from the Senate, from the House, comes back with an agreement, I’m signing it.  I mean, I will be signing it.  I’m not going to say, “Oh, gee, I want this or I want that.”  I’ll be signing it, because I have a lot of confidence in the people in this room that they’re going to come up with something really good.”

Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin quickly argued that Trump’s priorities were too time-consuming to debate, so Congress should just rubber-stamp a quick amnesty — with a few token provisions on the border, chain-migration and the visa lottery. For example, Durbin’s allies have suggested a meaningless tweak of chain-migration laws for green card-holders, and for conversion of the visa-lottery into green-cards for migrants with “Temporary Protected Status.”

But he was contradicted by McCarthy’s ally, GOP Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House judiciary committee, who is expected to unveil a Trump-approved and McCarthy-backed immigration bill on Tuesday.

SENATOR DURBIN:  You said at the outset that we need to phase this … We have a deadline looming and a lot of lives hanging.  We can agree on some very fundamental and important things together on border security, on chain, on the future of diversity visas.  Comprehensive, though, I worked on it for six months  [in 2013]  … and it took us six months to put it together.  We don’t have six months for the DACA bill.

[Goodlatte]:  We’re not talking about comprehensive immigration. Take a look at our bill and let’s talk some …

SENATOR DURBIN:  You’ve mentioned a number of factors that are going to be controversial, as [Democratcic Rep.] Steny [Hoyer] has mentioned.

THE PRESIDENT:  But you’re going to negotiate.  Dick, you’re going to negotiate.  Maybe we will agree and maybe we won’t.  I mean, it’s possible we’re not going to agree with you and it’s possible we will, but there should be no reason for us not to get this done.

Democrats at the event were defensive because many polls show why they cannot defend their cheap-labor goals in public, nor can they make a direct threat to shut down the government if they do not get their amnesty.

Throughout the televised event, Trump played the role of even-handed moderator, even as he repeatedly invited Republicans to show unity behind his popular immigration principles, including the border wall. For example, he declared that Democrats do not disagree with his goal of ending chain-migration — which is actually a foundation of the Democrats’ political strategy because it delivered a huge flow of government-dependent voters to the polling booths.”

…Continue reading more @ Breitbart

Sedition! California Passes Sanctuary Law Refusing to Cooperate with Feds | Oct 06 2017

California Becomes ‘Sanctuary State’ with Gov. Brown’s Signature

|| Breitbart

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontention (or resistance) to lawful authority.

“California officially became a sanctuary state for illegal aliens on Thursday with the stroke of Gov. Jerry Brown’s pen.

Senate Bill 54 will go into effect in January 2018. Brown signed the bill entitled the “California Values Act” and released a signing statement. Brown explained what the bill does and does not do.

The bill prohibits local law enforcement from asking about immigration status in the course of routine interactions and prohibits them from complying with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests.

“The bill further directs our Attorney General to promulgate model policies for local and state health, education, labor and judiciary officials to follow when they deal with immigration matters,” wrote Brown.”

…Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

UC Berkeley Students Protest Exam, Accuse Peers And Professor Of Supporting White Supremacy

|| DailyCaller

“UC Berkeley students attempted to shut down their midterm exam, with claims that it would have a negative impact on their physical and mental health. The students, who were captured on video, demanded a “take-home essay with significant time to prepare” and accused their uncooperative professor of not checking his privilege.

“This is a campus that is truly related throughout Latin America to the notion of free speech, said professor Harley Shaiken to the class, eliciting laughter and derision from the protesters.

Dismissive of the professor, the activists claimed that their “well-beings are being put on the line because of the emotional, mental, and physical stress that this university is compounding with what is already going on in [their] everyday lives.”

One protester shouted: “Have you ever checked ‘unlisted’ or ‘undocumented immigrant’? I don’t think so!”

Shaiken, who has written about workers’ rights in Mexico, is an expert in labor issues and earned the Outstanding Teaching Award at the University of California, San Diego in 1991. Despite his expertise in the subject, the students called him unfit to lecture them on the subject because he is white.

“Are you trying to silence us right now? Is that what you’re trying to do?” said a protester responding to a student who jokingly asked if it was a filibuster.

The professor offered to leave the classroom and hold a discussion with the protesters outside to prevent further disruption of the exam, but they refused. Instead, they took their complaints to the Department of Ethnic Studies.

“I don’t know why you’re still, like, sitting down, y’all. I don’t understand. I really don’t understand. Y’all can take your fucking test, but people are dying out there,” complained one protester, who remained behind to accuse her peers of not participating in their protest. She accused her fellow students of supporting white supremacy.”

….Continue reading more @ Daily Caller

Nancy Pelosi Loses It as She Gets Shouted Down by DACA ‘children’ | Sep 18 2017

Pelosi Battles Pro-Amnesty Demonstrators At DREAM Act Event

|| Daily Caller

This is What Democracy Looks Like?

“A group of undocumented protesters shouted down House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at a community event on Monday for working with President Trump to pass the DREAM Act.

Pelosi responded to the outburst in impolitic fashion, yelling for the protesters to “Stop it!”

Pelosi was attending an event in San Jose with California Reps. Barbara Lee and Jared Huffman when a group of around 40 protesters interrupted with shouts of “Let us speak,” and “No lip service.”

San Francisco’s CBS affiliate reported that some of the demonstrators carried signs reading “Democrats are Deporters.”

They appeared upset that Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have been negotiating with Trump in order to pass a law that will grant amnesty to people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

“We undocumented youth demand a clean bill…We undocumented youth demand that you do not sell out our community and our values…We undocumented youth will not be a bargaining chip for Trump,” the agitators shouted, according to CBS San Francisco.

After the initial outburst from protesters, Pelosi tried to regain control of the event.

“Let me say this, because you’ve had your say, and it’s beautiful to our ears to hear you protecting your self dignity,” Pelosi began.

“No lip service!” the demonstrators chanted.

“Stop it. Just stop it now,” Pelosi repeated over and over.

“Yes or no!” the protesters screamed.

“To what?” Pelosi asked in response.

“We do not owe you nothing,” the protesters shouted, adding: “This is what democracy looks like!”

….Continue reading more @ Daily Caller

Interestingly, the illegal aliens protestors called Pelosi a liar. Pelosi shot right back, that they ‘don’t know what you’re talking about.’

Ok, so is Pelosi correct in stating the DACA supporters don’t know the facts, or are the protestors correct that Pelosi is a liar?

Or are they both correct? / CJ 

 

California Passes ‘State Sanctuary’ Bill | Sep 16 2017

California Goes Full Sanctuary State With Sweeping Immigration Bill

|| Daily Caller

“California lawmakers punctuated the end of the 2017 legislative season by passing a comprehensive immigration bill that makes the state one of the nation’s most hostile to federal immigration authorities.

In a party line vote early Saturday morning, the state senate passed SB 54, a long-debated measure to shield illegal immigrants from the Trump administration’s strict immigration enforcement.

The bill sharply limits state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevents police officers from questioning or detaining people on civil immigration violations.

Entitled the “California Values Act,” the final version passed the Democratic-controlled Senate by a vote of 27-11. The bill, now headed to Gov. Jerry Brown, is a scaled-back revision of an earlier proposal that would have cut off communication and resource-sharing with federal immigration authorities except in cases backed by a criminal warrant.

Democratic lawmakers amended SB 54 after negotiations with Brown last week to allow immigration agents to keep working with state corrections officials. Legislators also agreed to allow state and local police to hand over criminal aliens to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if the subject has been convicted of one or more of 800 crimes enumerated in a previous law, the California Trust Act.

California senate leader Kevin De Leon said the changes wouldn’t alter the fundamental objective of the law: preventing law enforcement from aiding the Trump administration’s deportation crackdown against supposedly non-violent illegal immigrants.

“These amendments do not mean to erode the core mission of this measure, which is to protect hardworking families that have contributed greatly to our culture and the economy,” he said according to the Los Angles Times. “This is a measure that reflects the values of who we are as a great state.”

De Leon introduced SB 54 in December in response to Trump’s victory in the 2016 election. The measure was one of several introduced by Democratic lawmakers to benefit California’s 2.3 million illegal immigrant residents. Other proposals included using public funds for immigrants’ legal defense and expanding employer protections against ICE operations at work sites.

The original draft of SB 54 drew protest from many of California’s law enforcement officials and some Democratic lawmakers, who worried its severe restrictions on cooperation with ICE would allow dangerous criminal aliens to avoid detention. De Leon’s compromise with Brown made the bill palatable for California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and moved the California Police Chiefs Association from opposed to neutral, reports the Los Angeles Times.

The amended version of SB 54 still has significant opposition in California’s law enforcement community. In a statement released in advance of Saturday’s vote, the California Sheriffs Association said the bill “goes too far in cutting off communications” with the federal government and prevents notification about the pending release of public safety threats such as repeat drunk drivers and hit-and-run suspects.

The passage of SB 54, which Brown is expected to sign in the coming weeks, will likely worsen tension between California and federal law enforcement officials. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has threatened to withhold certain federal grants from jurisdictions that refuse to honor immigration detention requests or give ICE agents access to local jails. He has singled out San Francisco and Los Angeles as cities whose sanctuary policies run afoul of new Department of Justice eligibility rules for criminal justice grants.

On Friday, a federal judge in Chicago gave California, and every other state, a temporary reprieve from Sessions’ crackdown. U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber issued a nationwide injunction that blocks the Department of Justice from implementing the new guidelines while Chicago’s lawsuit against the order is is evaluated by the courts.”

….Continue reading more @ Daily Caller

 

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE DEFINED

|| Laws.com

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

“The Supremacy Clause is that which derives from Constitutional law and sets forth that three distinct areas of legislation be at the forefront. It states that the Constitution, Federal statutes, and United States treaties encompass the “supreme law of the land”, therefore making them the highest areas of law possible within the legal system of America. The Supremacy Clause may be found in Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

A landmark case representing one of the earliest examples of the use of the Supremacy Clause is that of McCulloch v. Maryland. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Maryland had no legal right to tax the Second Bank of the United States as a Federal entity. This exhibited how the Supremacy Clause called into question the actions of the State, and therefore, made it so that the State could not legally tax the Federal Government.
Another case that made use of the Supremacy Clause in connection with Constitutional law was that of Missouri v. Holland. This Supreme Court case was conducted over the cause of international treaties. The Court ruled that the power of the Federal Government to enforce treaties overrode that of the State’s authority to voice concerns as to the violation of their local rights as prescribed from the 10th Amendment.
This Amendment was used by the Supreme Court following the Civil War and stated that states assumed the rights to powers not already set forth for the Federal Government. This did not last long, however, as everything was shifted to the Government to have vast national power, which meant that the Federal Government could not be subject to State law aside from by its own volition.
In addition, the Supremacy Clause also maintains that State legislatures assume, in one way or another, the guidelines and procedures set forth by the Federal Government. This is due to the presentation of two issues that stem from State and Federal conflict. These include Congress’ surpassing of its original authority as well as its overall intent in going over that of State policy. In both cases, Congress may be acting with the express authority of creating uniformity of legislature. In such a way it may be attempting to enable the coexistence of Federal and State government.
A case that highlighted such issues of Federal law presuming power over State action is that of Pennsylvania v. Nelson. In this case, the Supreme Court instituted qualifications for when the Government does encroach upon the rule of states, even when absent of apparent intent. These include that the Federal law is so extensive that states may not be able to adequately supplement it, the fact of the “Federal interest’s dominance,” and whether “State law” is in so much of a contrast to the Federal administration that it may only do harm to it. Such cases represent the ways in which the Supremacy Clause has been employed.”