johnwk
05-15-2010, 06:12 AM
Yesterday while on Bill O'Reilly’s tv show, Nancy Skinner made the claim that Arizona’s new law violates the federal Constitution’s “supremacy clause”, and that the federal government has sole power to control immigration, not the States. Of course, Bill O’Reilly, the wannabe fountain of all knowledge, was not informed enough to tell Nancy to pipe down and that she was flat wrong.
The truth is, the word “immigration” does not even appear in the federal Constitution. What Congress has been granted power over is “Naturalization”. Congress has been delegated a power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. And, naturalization is the act by which a foreign national or alien becomes a citizen of the united States. It is not an authority for the federal government to enter the various united States and mandate how a State protects its citizens from those who have invaded its borders or the borders of the united States. Keep in mind that each State, prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, exercised power over migration into their State, and, there is no expressed language in the federal Constitution transferring this power to the federal government! And so, the Tenth Amendment preserves powers which the States have not delegated to Congress. What is in the Constitution concerning migration is:
“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
The fact is, there is a clear distinction between the words “migration” and “naturalization”, and the distinction is made clear in the Constitution, i.e., the “Migration” of persons into a state [people from one place moving to another place], and, “Naturalization” the Act by which an alien becomes a citizen of the united States ___ the latter being entrusted to Congress’s powers but not the former in any expressed language!
Instead of Nancy Skinner making things up and claiming the various united States do not have authority to deal with aliens who have invaded their borders, she ought to do a little research and study the intentions for which Congress was granted power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
Indeed, the power over naturalization granted to Congress is very limited in its scope and merely determines who shall or shall not be a Citizen of the united States.
In 1824, Chief Justice Marshall pointed out:
“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an Act of Congress, but the Act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise Of this power exhausts it, so far as regards the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstance under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.” ___ OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 22 U. S. 738 (1824)
Those interested in pursuing the matter further, I suggest they
START HERE (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=574)
Regards,
JWK
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
The truth is, the word “immigration” does not even appear in the federal Constitution. What Congress has been granted power over is “Naturalization”. Congress has been delegated a power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. And, naturalization is the act by which a foreign national or alien becomes a citizen of the united States. It is not an authority for the federal government to enter the various united States and mandate how a State protects its citizens from those who have invaded its borders or the borders of the united States. Keep in mind that each State, prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, exercised power over migration into their State, and, there is no expressed language in the federal Constitution transferring this power to the federal government! And so, the Tenth Amendment preserves powers which the States have not delegated to Congress. What is in the Constitution concerning migration is:
“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
The fact is, there is a clear distinction between the words “migration” and “naturalization”, and the distinction is made clear in the Constitution, i.e., the “Migration” of persons into a state [people from one place moving to another place], and, “Naturalization” the Act by which an alien becomes a citizen of the united States ___ the latter being entrusted to Congress’s powers but not the former in any expressed language!
Instead of Nancy Skinner making things up and claiming the various united States do not have authority to deal with aliens who have invaded their borders, she ought to do a little research and study the intentions for which Congress was granted power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
Indeed, the power over naturalization granted to Congress is very limited in its scope and merely determines who shall or shall not be a Citizen of the united States.
In 1824, Chief Justice Marshall pointed out:
“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an Act of Congress, but the Act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise Of this power exhausts it, so far as regards the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstance under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.” ___ OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 22 U. S. 738 (1824)
Those interested in pursuing the matter further, I suggest they
START HERE (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=574)
Regards,
JWK
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.