Gov. Perry calls out National Guard to protect Texas, but is this constitutional?

[johnwk]

Let us begin by agreeing that a legislative Act contrary to and not in harmony with the legislative intent of the Constitution is null and void! The irrefutable fact is, our Constitution is superior to laws enacted which defeat the legislative intent of our Constitution. And this must be our starting point to resolve the question within the four corners of our Constitution.

Indeed, our Constitution does command our federal government to ”…guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Note that our Constitution also declares ” No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”.

The simple truth is, the legislative intent of our Constitution is not to preclude the States from exercising their original power to defend themselves from invasions and/or “imminent danger”! And so, the question to be answered is, does the ongoing invasion of the border of Texas pose an “imminent danger”?

The answer to that question is an irrefutable yes and the Governor of Texas is preforming a fundamental duty to protect the good people of Texas from an ongoing invasion which is putting the general welfare of Texas in peril, e.g.:

Texas Faces Rising Cost For Illegal Immigrant Care (http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/101098849.html)

”Texas spent at least $250 million in the past year for medical care and imprisonment of illegal immigrants and other non-citizens.”


Preventing and Controlling Tuberculosis Along the U.S.-Mexico Border (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5001a1.htm)

In 1999, Mexico was the country of origin for 23% (1,753) of all foreign-born persons with TB. Of TB cases among Mexican-born persons, three fourths were reported from the four U.S. states bordering Mexico: California, 820 cases; Texas, 364 cases; Arizona, 67 cases; and New Mexico, 17 cases (3). In 1999, TB cases among Mexican-born persons represented approximately 25% of all reported TB in the four border states. Incidence of TB was higher for the majority of border counties than the national TB rate.


The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on Texans (2014) (http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-texans)

” After a brief hiatus that coincided with the worst of the economic recession, Texas’s illegal alien population is on the rise again. There are about 1,810,000 illegal aliens residing in Texas — 70,000 more than resided in the state in 2010 when we estimated the fiscal burden at nearly $8.9 billion annually.

In 2013, illegal immigration cost Texas taxpayers about $12.1 billion annually. That amounts to more than $1,197 for every Texas household headed by a native-born or naturalized U.S. citizen.”


Trends in Tuberculosis — United States, 2013 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6311a2.htm)

”Four states (California, Texas, New York, and Florida), home to approximately one third of the U.S. population, accounted for approximately half the TB cases reported in 2013. The proportion of TB cases occurring in these four states increased from 49.9% in 2012 to 51.3% in 2013.”

Now, instead of our federal government protecting Texas from an ongoing invasion which certainly is posing an “imminent danger”, Obama is giving aid and comfort to those invading the borders of Texas by feeding them, clothing them, giving them medical and dental care, and then actually giving some of these invaders free passage to the interior of our country and destinations of their own choosing where they are set free to disappear into our nation’s population to spread infectious diseases to American citizens and their children, become a public burden on local communities, and will avoid deportation as they disappear without a trace.

This action by Obama actually violates “federal law”! See: 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324)

I cannot find anything in the Constitution to suggest the State of Texas does not have authority to detain these invaders at the border and put them on a plane back to their country of origin!

JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[William Tell]

Yes it's Constitutional, yes it is an “imminent danger” the Feds stepped over the line years ago, taking over State National Guards, and undermining Militias. If it was not for that, you never would have had to ask the question. Most of America's fighting strength was in the militias, up until the War Between the States.

[pcosmar]

The State Guard (national Guard) is unconstitutional.

He could call for the States militia (everyone with a gun) and that would be constitutional.

[johnwk]

Yes it's Constitutional, yes it is an “imminent danger” the Feds stepped over the line years ago, taking over State National Guards, and undermining Militias. If it was not for that, you never would have had to ask the question. Most of America's fighting strength was in the militias, up until the War Between the States.


Agreed!


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

Curious what he expects the National Guard to actually do.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gov-rick-perry-deploying-up-to-1000-national-guard-troops-to-border/


The additional resources are not aimed at the children themselves, Perry said, describing them instead as a "force multiplier" to help the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) "combat the brutal Mexican drug cartels that are preying upon our communities."

Is drug cartel violence in Texas a big thing right now? "It isn't about the kids coming across" he says.


The troops could detain people if asked, Texas Adjutant General John Nichols said at the press conference with Perry, but they are planning to play a "referring and deterring" role by deterring cartels with their visible presence and referring any immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally to DPS.

Sounds like he wants to pay them to just walk around in their uniforms.


referring any immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally to DPS

This part is a bit disconcerting. The ability to stop anybody on the street and harass them if the Guard thinks they might be illegal. Not because they committed any crimes. "Papers please!"


Perry argued that the elevated response at the border by DPS personnel has already has already acted as a deterrent force and reduced apprehensions. That operation comes at a cost of $1.3 million per week. A state memo obtained by the McAllen Monitor, which first reported Perry's plan to deploy the National Guard, indicated the new efforts will cost the state of Texas $12 million per month.

[Slave Mentality]

Well, it looks like the plan to have a constitution free zone 100-200 miles from the borders and coasts is moving along nicely. Keeping us safe from the Cartels! Thank you Slick Dick Perry!

This is concerning on many levels. People are BEGGING for troops to be walking their streets. It is maddening. I will take 100 Illegals over 1 Corporal PTSD Roid Rage, Alex.

[William Tell]

Is drug cartel violence in Texas a big thing right now?

Yes, there is a lot of that on the border, ending the war on drugs would be good, but would not solve the whole problem. because many of these characters from Mexico deal in human trafficking, and other nasty things.

[pcosmar]

Yes, there is a lot of that on the border, ending the war on drugs would be good, but would not solve the whole problem. because many of these characters from Mexico deal in human trafficking, and other nasty things.

Because there is a market for it..

if crossing the border was not illegal,, there would be no profit in transporting people across it.

If there were no Goodies (welfare),, people would only cross the border to trade or work. or for recreation.

[johnwk]

I contend that the power to regulate immigration is a power exercised by the original 13 States and preexisted our existing Constitution. I further contend that if this power has not been expressly delegated to Congress, then it is a power reserved by the States under our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.


NOTE: The most fundamental rule of constitutional law is stated as follows:


“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.” numerous citations omitted).___ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

In addition, and with reference to the meaning of words in our Constitution see:

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…” (my emphasis)


Now, let us examine the distinction between “immigration” and “naturalization”.

The ordinary meaning of the word immigration is the movement of people from one place to another. Our Constitution does in fact use the word Migration in the following context:

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. see: Article 1, Section 9

As to the ordinary meaning of “naturalization”, its meaning is nothing more than the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. Congress, under our Constitution, is granted exclusive power to establish an uniform rule by which an alien may become a citizen, regardless of what State the alien migrates to. But the power over “naturalization” does not, nor was it intended to, interfere with a particular state’s original power over aliens wishing to immigrate into their State. This is verified by the following documentation taken from the debates dealing with our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790

REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=574)

In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=576)

And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578) and 1157 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=579)

CONCLUSION:

The current big lie begins with the false notion the federal government has been granted exclusive power over “immigration” when the actual power granted to the federal government is that which allows Congress to create the requirements which an alien, regardless of what state that alien has immigrated to, must meet in order to become a “citizen of the United States”.


It should also be noted that the 14th Amendment, by its very language obligates each State to make a distinction between “citizens” and “persons” when regulating and enforcing its laws!

Please note that a review of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment declares that “citizens” of the united States are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” offered by the state in which they are located. But those who are not “citizens of the united States” and referred to as “persons“ (which would include aliens and those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the “privileges or immunities“ which a state has created for its “citizens“.


The 14th Amendment only requires that “persons” may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s codified due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all other “persons” within the state in question.

And thus, a State in enforcing laws designed to promote the State’s general welfare, which would include the original power to protect its borders from invasions, is doing nothing more than exercising its legitimate policing powers with the obligation that in doing so it makes distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” as required under the 14th Amendment.

JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

[William Tell]

Because there is a market for it..

if crossing the border was not illegal,, there would be no profit in transporting people across it.

I was talking about sex slavery. Some of these gangs are full of wicked people that need to be dealt with.


If there were no Goodies (welfare),, people would only cross the border to trade or work. or for recreation.

Or crime, I can't believe how some do not like to admit that there is evil outside of government.

[Lucille]

Obama Prepares To Send National Guard To Texas As Flood Of Immigrant Children Overwhelms US
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-24/obama-prepares-send-national-guard-texas-flood-immigrant-children-overwhelms-us


With America's attention, diverted for the past week to events in the middle east and Ukraine, once again returning to domestic issues, Obama is coming under renewed pressure to address the immigration issues that has gripped the southern states as this will certainly be a hot topic issue during the midterm elections. Which is probably why the president has sent a team to Texas to assess whether a National Guard deployment would help to handle an immigration crisis at the Mexican border having so far resisted Republican calls for such a move, Reuters reports.


The team, made up of officials from the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, departed on Tuesday and will be on the ground through Thursday.

The White House had previously resisted calls from Republicans to deploy the National Guard to fight the onslaught of migrants from Central America because most of the unaccompanied minors and others making the crossing were turning themselves in voluntarily.

But during a meeting with Texas Governor Rick Perry earlier this month, Obama said he was open to ordering the deployment as a temporary solution. He directed Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to send the team of evaluators to assess the situation, one White House official said.

The officials said the federal team would study whether such a role would be useful and make recommendations upon its return.

"There's no foregone conclusion," another official said.

Meanwhile, the underlying problem is getting from bad to worse, and as Bloomberg reported overnight, the flood of children at the border is now overwhelming the US, and as a result "President Obama and congressional Republicans have begun to offer the same simple-sounding solution for dealing with the flood of children crossing the U.S. border alone: Send the kids home."

more...