By Daniel H. Stewart

Nevada has risen much higher than its meager inheritance should have allowed. Even today, 154 years after statehood, it is tough to distinguish those parts of Nevada the feds regularly nuked from those parts of Nevada humanity barely touched. And yet with miles and miles of barren moonscape, the federal government has entrusted us Nevadans with only about 15 percent of our state. The rest of the country can build a radioactive dump in our backyard without our say, but we often need federal permission to build roads and power lines.

We share Lake Tahoe with California, Lake Mead with Arizona, and neither share much of the Colorado River in return. Old school robber-barons used Nevada's mineral wealth to put a down payment on San Francisco, then left Virginia City for dead. Some of the founding fathers of our largest city were mobsters other mobsters didn't miss having around. Even Hollywood took a swipe: Godfather Number Two, Michael Corleone, ran his Nevada empire from the eastern edge of California; we got Fredo.

Don't get me wrong. I love Nevada. My family came here 118 years ago and never left. But I'm not blind to the fact that Nevada lacked many of the natural advantages presaging success. It is a marvel that we have done so much with so little.

Do we ever wonder why?

Some easy answers come to mind: pro-growth policies, relatively strong labor unions and a healthy respect for freedom and independence. Nevada does things differently, like responding to the Great Depression by legalizing gaming.

Good responses all, but nothing has been more fundamental to Nevada's good fortune than its appeal to people seeking better lives.

If building the New Nevada is our modern mission, attracting new Nevadans has been our founding faith. According to the 1870 Census—the State of Nevada's first—our foreign-born population was 44.2 percent, by far the nation's highest percentage, and more than three times the national average. Since then, Nevada's many economic booms and immigrant booms are so intertwined that it is nearly impossible to tell which one caused the other.

Before moving too far, though, I need to explain what I mean by "immigration" and "immigrant." Under both terms, I include everyone who has migrated to Nevada from somewhere else. I make no distinctions between those who are authorized or unauthorized, or between people coming from other countries or other states. For my purposes, such distinctions simply do not matter.

Growing up in Southern Nevada, we had an accepted ethos: no one was from here. New communities seemed to sprout up overnight. Solitary desert playgrounds became homes for thousands, and if you went away for summer break, the world looked different when you returned. I probably learned more geography from my friends than I ever did from classes or books.

To be sure, I do not mean to paint too rosy a picture or gloss over the genuine difficulties that immigration may cause communities and individuals alike. Rapid population increases and always changing demographics are not cost free. The pains of growth are real. And Nevada's history with immigrant communities, especially those of color, is not without its scars

Still, it is hard to argue that in Nevada the burdens of immigration have outweighed the benefits, yet fewer and fewer Nevadans seem eager to continue down this well-worn path to success. Some want today's immigrants to go and future immigrants to stay away. Others want to remake Nevada in the image of those places immigrants chose to leave.

Either approach risks disrupting Nevada's winning formula; both are mistakes.

For at least 154 years, immigrants have come to Nevada for the same reasons: better jobs, safer neighborhoods, and more opportunity. They are not looking for a free lunch, nor will they find one in Nevada.

Of course, immigration is once again a major topic on the national political scene. Our federal leaders are driving the argument, and Nevadans have been pulled along for the ride. Granted, the federal government has exclusive domain over immigration law, but it should have no monopoly on the immigration debate, or the final word on what's best for Nevada.

For instance, I think it unwise to let the federal government turn Nevada's local law enforcement into immigration cops. If any state has earned the right to tell the federal government to pound sand it is Nevada. The feds should not get to tell our police how to do their jobs.

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia agrees. In his majority opinion in Printz v. U.S., he recognized certain state constitutional rights, and prohibited the federal government from compelling state police to enforce federal gun laws. With respect to immigration enforcement, Nevada would do well to assert those same rights now.

Nevertheless, federal overreach, aggressive, unrealistic anti-immigration laws, or strict enforcement of those laws are not the only threats to Nevada's heritage. As we saw during the Great Recession, nothing stops immigration more effectively than the loss of economic prospects.

Immigration is Nevada's coal mine canary. If immigrants stop coming, something is amiss, and they will stop coming if Nevada is no better than the alternatives. Immigrants have plenty of reasons to go elsewhere, and they will, if we adopt the same policies from which Nevada's immigrants have tried to escape.

Candidly, I am no expert on immigration policy. I don't want to pretend otherwise. But my family has been fortunate to see Nevada up close for over a century. The state has been incredibly good to us, and I remain proud of the good in Nevada. We had no business doing as well as we have. Intentional or not, we owe much of that success to our common cause with generations of immigrants.

To reject or overlook this fact risks removing from Nevada the very good that has made the state great.

Daniel H. Stewart is a partner with Hutchison & Steffen, where he leads the firm's Election, Campaign and Political Law practice. For the last 10 years, Daniel has practiced law in both the public and private sectors, representing elected officials, candidates, campaigns, social welfare organizations and other political and policy-focused clients