{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012274959083469721, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032733224222585926, 'mean_word_length': 5.239795918367347, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Lessons from the Past: How the Antebellum Fugitive Slave Debate Informs State Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law

This paper focuses on similarities today’s immigration debate has with the fugitive slave debate in the antebellum United States. I argue that Prigg v. Pennsylvania and the response many northern states had to it in their personal liberty laws provide valuable lessons for today’s debate over the constitutionality and consequences of allowing differing levels of enforcement of federal lawon through local action. I contend that Prigg uniquely addresses the questions presented in United States v. Arizona, regarding Arizona's SB 1070, because it speaks to the ability of states to use their police power to vary the level of enforcement of federal laws and provides a historical example of the consequences of allowing states to do so. Furthermore, this paper uses the similarities between the debates to discuss the consequences of having a debate about national issues at the local level with local legislation and action, rather than federal action. These consequences include the creation of difficult narrow questions for the courts that have implications much broader than might first be thought.