Who has power to regulate a state’s immigration? The question remains!

[johnwk]

I'm still waiting for someone to quote the wording in our Constitution under which the president or Congress has been granted a power to flood a state with unwanted "refugees".

I certainly cannot find a power delegated to Congress or the President in our written Constitution repealing a power exercised by the States under the Articles of Confederation during which time each state was free to regulate immigration into their own state. But there is an exception made to this power under our existing Constitution which the States knowingly and willingly greed to ___ the exception being Article 1, Section 9, which reads:

"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 above delegated power allows Congress to lay a tax or duty on the importation of foreigners, but leaves each State otherwise free to admit whom they please and set its own immigration policy in a manner which serves each particular State's interests, general welfare and safety.

So, the question remains, under what wording in our Constitution has Congress or the president been delegated a power to admit tens of thousands, or even millions of poverty stricken or destitute foreigners on to American soil and then require unwilling states to accept them?

Let us recall what Chief Justice Marshall emphasized while the ink was barely dry on our existing Constitution:

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)


JWK



The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

[Ronin Truth]

Who has the most and biggest guns?

(Same answer!)

[Contumacious]

I'm still waiting for someone to quote the wording in our Constitution under which the president or Congress has been granted a power to flood a state with unwanted "refugees".

I certainly cannot find a power delegated to Congress or the President in our written Constitution repealing a power exercised by the States under the Articles of Confederation during which time each state was free to regulate immigration into their own state. But there is an exception made to this power under our existing Constitution which the States knowingly and willingly greed to ___ the exception being Article 1, Section 9, which reads:

"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 above delegated power allows Congress to lay a tax or duty on the importation of foreigners, but leaves each State otherwise free to admit whom they please and set its own immigration policy in a manner which serves each particular State's interests, general welfare and safety.

So, the question remains, under what wording in our Constitution has Congress or the president been delegated a power to admit tens of thousands, or even millions of poverty stricken or destitute foreigners on to American soil and then require unwilling states to accept them?

Let us recall what Chief Justice Marshall emphasized while the ink was barely dry on our existing Constitution:

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)


JWK



The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47


ASKED AND ANSWERED. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485451-A-Question-about-Governors-not-having-any-power-re-Syrian-immigration)

[Zippyjuan]

Do states have border controls and security where they can check who crosses their border and control who decides to move or travel there? Arizona doesn't like immigrants but if one moves there from California there is nothing they can do about it.

Unless a person breaks the law, a state cannot say a person cannot go there or be there.

[Ronin Truth]

Do states have border controls and security where they can check who crosses their border and control who decides to move or travel there? Arizona doesn't like immigrants but if one moves there from California there is nothing they can do about it.

Unless a person breaks the law, a state cannot say a person cannot go there or be there.

Is there a federal law against entering the country without government permission?

[Zippyjuan]

Federal- not state- law. States cannot regulate who wants to live within their borders. The controlled borders are between countries- not between states. If an immigrant is legal a state cannot say they cannot go there.

[Ronin Truth]

Federal- not state- law. States cannot regulate who wants to live within their borders. The controlled borders are between countries- not between states. If an immigrant is legal a state cannot say they cannot go there.

Thererfore, the illegal immigrants(so called) ARE in fact, law breaking criminal aliens, are they not?

NEXT!

[tod evans]

Federal- not state- law. States cannot regulate who wants to live within their borders. The controlled borders are between countries- not between states. If an immigrant is legal a state cannot say they cannot go there.

This has been carried too far in my opinion.

The people residing in an area should have the final say who the state or fed plants in their county.

Residents of counties aren't asked if they'll accept aid cases, they're saddled with them.

Lots of this is self induced by accepting free money though so there isn't such a thing as true innocence.

[Zippyjuan]

Thererfore, the illegal immigrants(so called) ARE in fact, law breaking criminal aliens, are they not?

NEXT!

The proposed Syrian refugees the question concerns are not illegal immigrants. They would be entering the country legally.

[Ronin Truth]

The proposed Syrian refugees the question concerns are not illegal immigrants. They would be entering the country legally.

So then obviously the Syrians are not who I was talking about, right? <SHEESH!> :rolleyes:

Next!

[Zippyjuan]

So then obviously the Syrians are not who I was talking about, right? <SHEESH!> :rolleyes:

Next!

According to the OP, it was about refugees and legal immigrants- not illegal ones. Or are you changing the topic?


I'm still waiting for someone to quote the wording in our Constitution under which the president or Congress has been granted a power to flood a state with unwanted "refugees".


So, the question remains, under what wording in our Constitution has Congress or the president been delegated a power to admit tens of thousands, or even millions of poverty stricken or destitute foreigners on to American soil and then require unwilling states to accept them?

If the government is admitting them into the country, they are here legally.

[Contumacious]

Federal- not state- law. States cannot regulate who wants to live within their borders. The controlled borders are between countries- not between states. If an immigrant is legal a state cannot say they cannot go there.

BS.


THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN .


THEY RETAINED THE RIGHT TO CONFER THEIR CITIZENSHIP ---NOT US ----UPON WHOMEVER.


.

[Zippyjuan]

If I want to obtain citizenship to the state of say Kentucky, how do I go about it? What benefits does it grant me? Can I be a citizen of Kentucky and not be a citizen of the United States? The Constitution says I am automatically a citizen of the state where I reside if I am a US citizen.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/government/civics3.htm

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

That means the state cannot decide my citizenship.

Whether or not I am a US Citizen but am in the country legally- can Kentucky stop me from moving there? Can they force me to leave? How do they exercise their sovereignty? Do they control their borders?

[tod evans]

Whether or not I am a US Citizen but am in the country legally- can Kentucky stop me from moving there? Can they force me to leave? How do they exercise their sovereignty and grant citizenship?

The state of Kentucky has the same single tool the feds do, a gun in the hands of a goon.

Yes he/they can stop you or force you to leave...........Unless you have a bigger gun or more money to bribe the goons..

Questions of granting you status or compelling the goons to behave differently all fall to bureaucrats who control the disbursements of money to the goons..

[TheTexan]

I dont see anything in the constitution that says He can't do it

[axiomata]

If the constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to let in refugees, and that power is properly left to the state, what power does the federal government have to limit immigration in any way? Quotas, walls etc all unconstitutional. If an immigrant can find a willing state, then they can migrate. And once a legal migrant to one state, what's to stop them from going to another? It seems to me that the federal government's only role would be Naturalization and Citizenship which is a step beyond and a different question than legal immigration.

[johnwk]

ASKED AND ANSWERED. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485451-A-Question-about-Governors-not-having-any-power-re-Syrian-immigration)

The question has yet to be answered!

Under what wording in our Constitution have the states granted a power to the federal government to allow entry to tens of thousands of foreigners on to U.S. soil and then compel a state to accept them?



JWK

[johnwk]

I dont see anything in the constitution that says He can't do it

Have you forgotten our Constitution is one of defined and limited powers?


The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)


To assume Obama has such power is to assume ”the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”___ quoting Hamilton in Federalist No 78.


JWK


The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[fisharmor]

Why do any of you care?
We have nine people in black dresses who decide this for us. We're not capable of deciding it for ourselves. Those black dress people said so like right after the ink dried on the constitution.

[Contumacious]

The question has yet to be answered!

Under what wording in our Constitution have the states granted a power to the federal government to allow entry to tens of thousands of foreigners on to U.S. soil and then compel a state to accept them?








JWK

THE STATES ****RETAINED**** THE RIGHT TO CONFER THEIR CITIZENSHIP UPON WHOMEVER.


BUT ONLY CONGRESS CAN NATURALIZE ******US****** CITIZENS

[TheTexan]

Why do any of you care?
We have nine people in black dresses who decide this for us. We're not capable of deciding it for ourselves. Those black dress people said so like right after the ink dried on the constitution.

Well, most of them did go to Harvard, Yale, or Columbia.

They are probably smarter than us.

[Contumacious]

Well, most of them did go to Harvard, Yale, or Columbia.

They are probably smarter than us.

The Constitution was created by James Madison for the benefit of "WE THE PEOPLE" hence he concluded that we are the GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION.


MAYBE SOMEDAY THE PEOPLE WILL WAKE UP FROM THEIR STUPOR THEN RESTORE AND ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION.


.

[pcosmar]

The question has yet to be answered!


Not sure the constitution addresses this directly,, however common sense does.

There is no reason to bring them here.. There is no reason the taxpayers should foot the bill WHATSOEVER.

but then we should have not been mucking about creating these problems..

I have absolutely no problem with folks coming here on their own dime,, in hope of better life.
I don't even have a problem if folks volunteer to sponsor some. I respect honest charity.

but the welfare has to end.

[Zippyjuan]

The question has yet to be answered!

Under what wording in our Constitution have the states granted a power to the federal government to allow entry to tens of thousands of foreigners on to U.S. soil and then compel a state to accept them?



JWK

Try this to start. The Fourteenth Amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv


Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If the government says they can come into the country, a state cannot deny them the rights to travel and live within any of the states- they must have the same rights as all other legal persons unless they have violated the law.

[Zippyjuan]

That of course assumes the Federal Government has the power to control immigration in the first place. I thought this was a good look at that issue: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/14/spring-2014/who-is-responsible-for-u-s--immigration-policy-.html


Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy?

Who controls the nation’s immigration laws? Although the question seems straightforward, the historical picture is mixed, and the text of the U.S. Constitution does not point clearly to the answer. While the Constitution’s text and the various Supreme Court cases interpreting this text suggest that the federal govern*ment has the exclusive power to enact and enforce the nation’s immigration laws, state and local authorities still play an important role in the regulation of immigration because they shape the conditions of daily life for immigrants in their jurisdictions.

Federal Immigration Power

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Con*stitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This clear textual command for uniformity establishes that the federal government, specifically Congress, is responsible for crafting the laws that determine how and when noncitizens can become nat*uralized citizens of the United States. But control over naturalization does not necessarily require full control over immigration. And indeed, for the first century of the United States’ existence, many states enacted laws regulating and controlling immigration into their own borders. Various states passed laws aimed at preventing a variety of populations from entering the borders of their states, including individuals with criminal records, people reliant on public assistance, slaves, and free blacks.

It was not until the late 19th centu*ry that Congress began to actively reg*ulate immigration, in particular, with measures designed to restrict Chinese immigration. By this time, the Supreme Court had begun to articulate clear limits on state immigration powers. In 1849, with the Passenger Cases, the Supreme Court struck down efforts by New York and Massachusetts to impose a head tax on incoming immigrants. Four justices concluded that such taxes usurped congressional power to regu*late commerce under Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution. A unan*imous court applied the same rationale in 1876, striking down a New York state statute taxing immigrants on incoming vessels in Henderson v. Mayor of New York. A few years later, in 1884, with a decision in the Head Money Cases, the Court for the first time upheld a federal regulation of immigration, also on Com*merce Clause grounds.

From that time on, the Court upheld federal immigration regula*tions against constitutional challenges, although the underlying rationale shift*ed. With the Chinese Exclusion Case in 1889, the Court began issuing a series of decisions in which it treated con*gressional power over the regulation of immigration as a virtually unreview*able, plenary power. The Court upheld congressional immigration laws and executive enforcement of those laws against a series of challenges, in spite of their patently discriminatory nature and lack of due process guarantees for non*citizens. The Court repeatedly suggest*ed that this federal power flowed from the federal government’s prerogative to control foreign affairs.

From the late 19th century through the present day, the Supreme Court has upheld almost every federal immigra*tion regulation against constitutional challenge, citing Congress’s plenary power in this area. As Justice Kennedy wrote in the 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States:


The Government of the Unit*ed States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immi*gration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s con*stitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations….

More at link.

[Ronin Truth]

POTUS says YES, COTUS says NO, who has the rightful authority?

[jmdrake]

BS.


THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN .


THEY RETAINED THE RIGHT TO CONFER THEIR CITIZENSHIP ---NOT US ----UPON WHOMEVER.


.

You understand that naturalization (saying who can be a citizen of state X) and immigration (who can come into state X) are two different things right?

[Contumacious]

You understand that naturalization (saying who can be a citizen of state X) and immigration (who can come into state X) are two different things right?

You do understand that naturalization (saying who can be a US citizen ) and immigration (who can come into state X) are two different things right

[jmdrake]

You do understand that naturalization (saying who can be a US citizen ) and immigration (who can come into state X) are two different things right

I understand it, but it seems that you don't.

Edit: And here's why it seems that you don't. You keep arguing that the states power to determine who is or is not a citizen of said state = the states power to say who can and can't come into said state. Yes Texas can choose not to confer Texas citizenship on person X. That doesn't mean that Texas can prevent person X from coming into Texas. Maybe Texas can. Maybe Texas can't. Using large, red fonts doesn't make your non existent argument coherent.

[johnwk]

According to the OP, it was about refugees and legal immigrants- not illegal ones. Or are you changing the topic?





If the government is admitting them into the country, they are here legally.

Only if that government is vested with a constitutionally authorized power. Our federal government has not been granted authority to admit 10s of millions of foreigners onto American Soil and then compel the States to accept them.

Stop making stuff up!


JWK




The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[Contumacious]

I understand it, but it seems that you don't.

Edit: And here's why it seems that you don't. You keep arguing that the states power to determine who is or is not a citizen of said state = the states power to say who can and can't come into said state. Yes Texas can choose not to confer Texas citizenship on person X. That doesn't mean that Texas can prevent person X from coming into Texas. Maybe Texas can. Maybe Texas can't. Using large, red fonts doesn't make your non existent argument coherent.

DE JURE:

AGAIN, THE STATES RETAINED THEIR AUTHORITY TO CONFER *****THEIR*****CITIZENSHIP UPON WHOMEVER.


DE FACTO:

FEDGOV CONTINUES TO PREVENT STATES FROM EXERCISING THEIR AUTHORITY BECAUSE FROM DC's STANDPOINT STATES ARE NOW MERE PROVINCES.


AND SINCE FEDGOV HAS A POWERFUL DOMESTIC PARAMILITARY FORCE AND A PENCHANT FOR CRIMINALITY WHAT THEY SAY GOES.


/

[johnwk]

That of course assumes the Federal Government has the power to control immigration in the first place. I thought this was a good look at that issue: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/14/spring-2014/who-is-responsible-for-u-s--immigration-policy-.html



More at link.

The link you provide is an opinion piece which is void of documentation from our forefathers confirming our federal government was vested with the power to control and regulate a States' immigration policy. The exception and limited power is found in in Article 1, Section 9 .


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.


Our federal government’s delegated power starts and stops with the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, not immigration.
There is a big difference between the words “immigration” and “naturalization”.


The ordinary meaning of the word "immigration" is the entrance into a country by foreigners for the purpose of permanent residence. This word does not appear in our Constitution.


“Naturalization” does appear in our Constitution in the following context:


Congress shall have power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”



We also find the words “Migration” in our Constitution 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 an exclusive, but limited power to establish a 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 policing power over foreigners 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 to prevent 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)


The irrefutable fact is, nowhere in our Constitution has our federal government, much less the President of the United States, been vested with a power over the immigration of foreigners into the United States or a power to compel a state to accept them.


The limited 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 confirms each State may make distinctions 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.


CONCLUSION


The State of Texas, as well as every other State has retained its policing power to determine the flow of foreigners into their State, which is an original power exercised by each state and never ceded to our federal government.


Neither Congress nor the president has a power under the Constitution to force the unwanted populations of other countries upon the States. The various states should immediately go into Court and ask the Court for an injunction to stop Obama from forcing the states to accept unwanted foreigners while it determines the legitimacy of Obama's or Congress forcing tens of thousands of foreigners upon the various United States, especially when the introduction of these foreigners pose a very real threat to the general welfare of the States.


Keep in mind a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled against the Obama administration’s controversial immigration program, upholding a lower court's injunction barring the plan from taking effect while awaiting the outcome of a full trial on the lawsuit's underlying arguments. One of the reasons for granting the injunction was the devastating effects thrust upon the States without their permission.


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?

[johnwk]

THE STATES ****RETAINED**** THE RIGHT TO CONFER THEIR CITIZENSHIP UPON WHOMEVER.


BUT ONLY CONGRESS CAN NATURALIZE ******US****** CITIZENS

We agree completely!

JWK




The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

The states and the Congress have co-equal power to limit migration. This has been the case since 1808. The states have always had the power. The Constituion gives the Congress to define and punish offenses against the laws of nations (which includes defining when it is legal for a foreign national to migrate from one nation to this nation) but also put that power on hold until the year 1808 in the clause you did quote.

Hope this helps.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

There is no such wording. The federal action in this scenario is unconstitutional.


The question has yet to be answered!

Under what wording in our Constitution have the states granted a power to the federal government to allow entry to tens of thousands of foreigners on to U.S. soil and then compel a state to accept them?



JWK

[jmdrake]

That's nice. You're still conflating naturalization and immigration. Just because state X can refrain from naturalizing person Y doesn't mean that state X can prevent person Y from coming into state X's territory. Maybe states can, maybe they can't. But one doesn't necessarily follow from the other.


DE JURE:

AGAIN, THE STATES RETAINED THEIR AUTHORITY TO CONFER *****THEIR*****CITIZENSHIP UPON WHOMEVER.


DE FACTO:

FEDGOV CONTINUES TO PREVENT STATES FROM EXERCISING THEIR AUTHORITY BECAUSE FROM DC's STANDPOINT STATES ARE NOW MERE PROVINCES.


AND SINCE FEDGOV HAS A POWERFUL DOMESTIC PARAMILITARY FORCE AND A PENCHANT FOR CRIMINALITY WHAT THEY SAY GOES.


/

[Contumacious]

The states and the Congress have co-equal power to limit migration. This has been the case since 1808. The states have always had the power. The Constituion gives the Congress to define and punish offenses against the laws of nations (which includes defining when it is legal for a foreign national to migrate from one nation to this nation) but also put that power on hold until the year 1808 in the clause you did quote.

Hope this helps.


HUH?


NONSENSE.

.

[johnwk]

It is very telling that not one personality at FoxNews, which has repeatedly asserted over the years that our federal government has exclusive power over immigration, has yet to point to the wording in our Constitution under which the president or Congress has been granted a power to flood a state with unwanted "refugees" or the tens of millions of poverty stricken poorly education and low skilled populations of Mexico and Central America.


JWK

The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[H. E. Panqui]

....channeling contumacious and bmx042.....

OUR GLORIOUS LEADERS SHOULD DO IT LIKE THEY DID IT IN LEWISTON, MAINE. THAT IS, DON'T TELL ANYONE WHAT'S GOING ON, JUST DO IT! IF IT HADN'T HAVE BEEN FOR WISE, SECRETIVE LEADERS LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH THE WORD MAY HAVE GOTTEN OUT AND THE WHITE WING SUPREMACISTS IN NORTHERN MAINE WOULD HAVE BEEN DISGUSTINGLY LOUD. (HERE'S SOME WIKI TRUTH FOR YOU WHITE WINGERS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Somalis_in_Maine )

SOME OF THESE DISGUSTING, IGNORANT HILLBILLIES ARE JUST NOW FINDING OUT WHAT HAPPENED OVER A DECADE AGO!! AND THAT'S A VERY GOOD THING! MAINE'S WHITENESS IS EVIDENCE OF THEIR IGNORANT RACISM AND THIS WILL BE REMEDIED DESPITE ANY LOUDNESS AND FOOT-DRAGGING!

SOME PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THEIR PLACES. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TO AN IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL, STOP ARGUING WITH IVY-LEAGUERS!! IT'S BETTER TO REMAIN SILENT AND THOUGHT A FOOL BY IVY-LEAGUERS THAN OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT.

[johnwk]

....channeling contumacious and bmx042.....

OUR GLORIOUS LEADERS SHOULD DO IT LIKE THEY DID IT IN LEWISTON, MAINE. THAT IS, DON'T TELL ANYONE WHAT'S GOING ON, JUST DO IT! IF IT HADN'T HAVE BEEN FOR WISE, SECRETIVE LEADERS LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH THE WORD MAY HAVE GOTTEN OUT AND THE WHITE WING SUPREMACISTS IN NORTHERN MAINE WOULD HAVE BEEN DISGUSTINGLY LOUD. (HERE'S SOME WIKI TRUTH FOR YOU WHITE WINGERS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Somalis_in_Maine )

SOME OF THESE DISGUSTING, IGNORANT HILLBILLIES ARE JUST NOW FINDING OUT WHAT HAPPENED OVER A DECADE AGO!! AND THAT'S A VERY GOOD THING! MAINE'S WHITENESS IS EVIDENCE OF THEIR IGNORANT RACISM AND THIS WILL BE REMEDIED DESPITE ANY LOUDNESS AND FOOT-DRAGGING!

SOME PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THEIR PLACES. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TO AN IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL, STOP ARGUING WITH IVY-LEAGUERS!! IT'S BETTER TO REMAIN SILENT AND THOUGHT A FOOL BY IVY-LEAGUERS THAN OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT.

What does all that have to do with the subject of the thread?


JWK

[erowe1]

Do states have border controls and security where they can check who crosses their border and control who decides to move or travel there? Arizona doesn't like immigrants but if one moves there from California there is nothing they can do about it.

Unless a person breaks the law, a state cannot say a person cannot go there or be there.

Exactly. And its the same with the federal government.

[LibertyEagle]

Exactly. And its the same with the federal government.

However, if they are ILLEGAL ALIENS, they damn sure do.

[johnwk]

Exactly. And its the same with the federal government.

A state can make it extremely uncomfortable for unwanted foreigners to remain in their state! What is your point?


JWK






To support Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, or John Kasich is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!

[erowe1]

A state can make it extremely uncomfortable for unwanted foreigners to remain in their state!


How? I don't see any way.

[LibertyEagle]

Erowe is an open borders boobus.

[erowe1]

However, if they are ILLEGAL ALIENS, they damn sure do.

How? Who gets to define them as illegal? If you say the federal government does, then you're just arguing circularly.

[johnwk]

Do states have border controls and security where they can check who crosses their border and control who decides to move or travel there? Arizona doesn't like immigrants but if one moves there from California there is nothing they can do about it.

Unless a person breaks the law, a state cannot say a person cannot go there or be there.

A state can make it extremely uncomfortable for unwanted foreigners to remain in their state! What is your point?


JWK




The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[LibertyEagle]

How? Who gets to define them as illegal? If you say the federal government does, then you're just arguing circularly.

lol. Actually, the people, through their representatives. That's the way it's supposed to work anyway. Foreigners are not Americans; that is why they are called FOREIGNERS. If they break our laws and enter the country illegally, they are ILLEGALS.

Did you pass 1st grade, erowe?

[johnwk]

How? I don't see any way.

no driver's licenses; prohibit employment; no access to any privileges created by a state; etc.


Are you really that dense?


JWK

[johnwk]

SEE: Obama’s Unilateral Immigration Amnesty Plan Gets to the Supreme Court (http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-von-spakovsky/obamas-unilateral-immigration-amnesty-plan-gets-supreme-court)

"On Friday, the U.S. Justice Department filed a 35-page petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review Texas v. U.S., the case filed by 26 states against President Obama’s immigration amnesty plan.

The government is appealing a preliminary injunction that stopped implementation of Obama’s amnesty plan, which was issued by a federal district court and upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 9."


JWK




The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[Contumacious]

....channeling contumacious and bmx042.....

OUR GLORIOUS LEADERS SHOULD DO IT LIKE THEY DID IT IN LEWISTON, MAINE. THAT IS, DON'T TELL ANYONE WHAT'S GOING ON, JUST DO IT! IF IT HADN'T HAVE BEEN FOR WISE, SECRETIVE LEADERS LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH THE WORD MAY HAVE GOTTEN OUT AND THE WHITE WING SUPREMACISTS IN NORTHERN MAINE WOULD HAVE BEEN DISGUSTINGLY LOUD. (HERE'S SOME WIKI TRUTH FOR YOU WHITE WINGERS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Somalis_in_Maine )

SOME OF THESE DISGUSTING, IGNORANT HILLBILLIES ARE JUST NOW FINDING OUT WHAT HAPPENED OVER A DECADE AGO!! AND THAT'S A VERY GOOD THING! MAINE'S WHITENESS IS EVIDENCE OF THEIR IGNORANT RACISM AND THIS WILL BE REMEDIED DESPITE ANY LOUDNESS AND FOOT-DRAGGING!

SOME PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THEIR PLACES. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TO AN IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL, STOP ARGUING WITH IVY-LEAGUERS!! IT'S BETTER TO REMAIN SILENT AND THOUGHT A FOOL BY IVY-LEAGUERS THAN OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Channeling Hank E. Panke

I stand by my previous posts.

All of them identify the sources supporting my position.

Our Founding Father and 3rd Prez : Thomas Jefferson

And the SCOTUS which provided a nice historical account

In conclusion , a Miami-Dade Community College education is superior to that of any Ivy League School.

.

[erowe1]

Erowe is an open borders boobus.

So is the guy this website is named after.

[erowe1]

no driver's licenses; prohibit employment; no access to any privileges created by a state; etc.



States have no right to do any of those things except the last, which doesn't make life difficult. We would all get along just fine without those privileges. And even if states tried the first two items, they couldn't enforce them.

[johnwk]

Quote Originally Posted by johnwk

no driver's licenses; prohibit employment; no access to any privileges created by a state; etc.


States have no right to do any of those things except the last, ....

Do you realize driver's licenses are a privilege created by a State? You just contradicted yourself!


JWK

[erowe1]

Do you realize driver's licenses are a privilege created by a State?

No, I don't. I think that without the state giving out drivers licenses people would still be able to drive. Why do you think otherwise?

[H. E. Panqui]

What does all that have to do with the subject of the thread? JWK

:eek:

THE ESSENCE OF YOUR THREAD, YOU APPARENT WHITE HILLBILLY RACIST, IS HOW TO KEEP 'THE DARKIES' OUT. ADMIT IT!!

...(another hillbilly leaguer, who has removed all doubt, arguing with ivy-leaguers)

IF YOU DON'T LIKE YOUR POLITICAL CONDITION, YOU NEED TO VOTE HARDER!!

[johnwk]

No, I don't. I think that without the state giving out drivers licenses people would still be able to drive. Why do you think otherwise?

They can't drive when they are in jail for driving without a state issued license.


deny illegal entrants any state funded medical care (excepting in a life death situation);

deny the children of illegal aliens access to a State’s public school system and public assistance programs;

forbid and make it a crime for illegals to live in any public housing unit or section eight housing;

evict section eight occupants and public housing occupants if caught harboring illegal aliens;


severely punish business owners who hire illegal aliens:


You bet life can be made very uncomfortable for illegals to remain in a state.


JWK




To support Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, or John Kasich is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!

[johnwk]

What does all that have to do with the subject of the thread? JWK

:eek:

THE ESSENCE OF YOUR THREAD, YOU APPARENT WHITE HILLBILLY RACIST, IS HOW TO KEEP 'THE DARKIES' OUT. ADMIT IT!!

...(another hillbilly leaguer, who has removed all doubt, arguing with ivy-leaguers)

IF YOU DON'T LIKE YOUR POLITICAL CONDITION, YOU NEED TO VOTE HARDER!!

Just as I thought. It has nothing to do with the subject of thread. But your attempt to fan the flames of racism is noted.


JWK




The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[erowe1]

They can't drive when they are in jail for driving without a state issued license.


But that's only because of the state doing things it has no right to do in infringing on our rights. That's not what "privilege" means.


They can't drive when they are in jail for driving without a state issued license.


deny illegal entrants any state funded medical care (excepting in a life death situation);

deny the children of illegal aliens access to a State’s public school system and public assistance programs;

forbid and make it a crime for illegals to live in any public housing unit or section eight housing;

evict section eight occupants and public housing occupants if caught harboring illegal aliens;

None of those things would do much. They certainly wouldn't make like difficult like you said. I'm all for denying all those things to everyone, regardless of immigration status.



severely punish business owners who hire illegal aliens:

This is something else entirely. This, again, is something the state has no right to do. Being able to hire someone to work for me is not a privilege.

[Sonny Tufts]

The irrefutable fact is, nowhere in our Constitution has our federal government, much less the President of the United States, been vested with a power over the immigration of foreigners into the United States

If this is true, then the provision of Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 was unnecessary. That clause clearly suggests that beginning in 1808 Congress could prohibit the migration of people into the States. It follows that Congress must have a preexisting power over immigration. But where does the power come from? There are several of possibilities:

1. Congress has the explicit power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. "Commerce" could be construed to include the movement of people in addition to the movement of goods and services.

2. Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 authorizes Congress to punish offenses against the Law of Nations. It could be argued that in the 18th century this included the power to prohibit illegal immigration.

3. Any sovereign nation has certain inherent powers that needn't be spelled out, including the power to establish foreign relations and to control immigration. For example, although the Constitution authorizes the President and the Senate to create and fill ambassadorships there is no explicit power to establish embassies in foreign countries. Yet would anyone seriously argue that the federal government can't do so?

This rationale was adopted by the Supreme Court in upholding federal legislation barring Chinese laborers from entering the country:


That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power. As said by this court in the case of The Exchange, 7 Cranch, 116, 136, speaking by Chief Justice MARSHALL: 'The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories, must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.'

Ping v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581, 603-604 (1889)

[PierzStyx]

Under the Constitution, the federal government has no authority to regulate immigration in any way whatsoever, to deny it or support it. The only power granted to Congress in this regard is the power to set laws determining citizenship requirements, not who can enter or exit.

So, theoretically this could be a state power. But just because it could be a state power does not mean it is one. The states have to respect the inherent inalienable rights of everyone to be able to move and associate with whom they please. The concept of "public property" or state-owned property is anti-liberty in and of itself. The only property that exists in private property. So you can keep an immigrant or refugee off your property, but your just power to regulate who enters what land ends at your privately owned property line. Thus, states don't have a right to limit immigration either.

So the answer to your question is: No one has the power to regulate a state's immigration.

[Contumacious]

If this is true, then the provision of Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 was unnecessary. That clause clearly suggests that beginning in 1808 Congress could prohibit the migration of people into the States. It follows that Congress must have a preexisting power over immigration. But where does the power come from? There are several of possibilities:

1. Congress has the explicit power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. "Commerce" could be construed to include the movement of people in addition to the movement of goods and services.

2. Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 authorizes Congress to punish offenses against the Law of Nations. It could be argued that in the 18th century this included the power to prohibit illegal immigration.

3. Any sovereign nation has certain inherent powers that needn't be spelled out, including the power to establish foreign relations and to control immigration. For example, although the Constitution authorizes the President and the Senate to create and fill ambassadorships there is no explicit power to establish embassies in foreign countries. Yet would anyone seriously argue that the federal government can't do so?

This rationale was adopted by the Supreme Court in upholding federal legislation barring Chinese laborers from entering the country:




BULLSHIT.


THE CHINESE EXCLUSION CASE CONSTITUTES A BOLD FACE USURPATION

According to Founding Father and 3rd Prez , Thomas Jefferson, the power to control immigration was RETAINED by the states.

The federal government has those powers SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED

S-P-E-C-I-F-I-C-A-L-L-Y E-NU-M-E-R-A-T-E-D

4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

Thomas Jefferson (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.asp)


NOW YOU CAN ARGUE THAT A RACIST SCOTUS CREATED AN EMERGENCY IN ORDER TO USURP POWERS

.

[erowe1]

3. Any sovereign nation...

Stop right there. No such thing exists.

[TheCount]

If this is true, then the provision of Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 was unnecessary. That clause clearly suggests that beginning in 1808 Congress could prohibit the migration of people into the States.

That clause referred to property, not people.

[Sonny Tufts]

Stop right there. No such thing exists.

In your ideal world, perhaps. But they do in the real world.

[Sonny Tufts]

That clause referred to property, not people.

While the main purpose of the clause may have been to restrict the government from curtailing the slave trade, its language certainly isn't confined to slavery (compare the Fugitive Slave Clause, which is so confined).

[Weston White]

The question has yet to be answered!

Under what wording in our Constitution have the states granted a power to the federal government to allow entry to tens of thousands of foreigners on to U.S. soil and then compel a state to accept them?


JWK

There is the duty-bound clause:


Article IV Section 4.
The United States shall 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.

[johnwk]

While the main purpose of the clause may have been to restrict the government from curtailing the slave trade, its language certainly isn't confined to slavery (compare the Fugitive Slave Clause, which is so confined).

Exactly! Additionally, each of the original States had exclusive power to police and regulate immigration into their State. This power has certainly not been repealed by any provision of our Constitution and thus, it is retained under the Tenth Amendment.


JWK

[erowe1]

In your ideal world, perhaps. But they do in the real world.

No they don't. Furthermore, the claim I was responding to was not merely a statement of fact about the real world, but a value-laden statement that such is how it ought to be.

[The Gold Standard]

Who has the power to regulate immigration? Well, who has the most and the biggest guns? Who has the authority? No one, except property owners if they are violated.

[erowe1]

While the main purpose of the clause may have been to restrict the government from curtailing the slave trade, its language certainly isn't confined to slavery (compare the Fugitive Slave Clause, which is so confined).

Can you find any sources from the time of the ratification of the Constitution that referred to anyone interpreting it as applicable to free people?

[johnwk]

Let us recall some historical facts regarding Congress’ delegated power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”


Under the Articles of Confederation which was in full force and effect during the writing of our existing Constitution, each State regulated the flow of immigration into their State. Likewise, each State made its own rules by which a foreigner living in their State became a citizen of that State. Keep in mind the above powers are two distinct and separate powers: the former dealing with the flow of foreigners into a state [ a power retained by the States under the Tenth Amendment], while the latter establishes how a foreigner living in a state may become a citizen of that state.


During the Convention of 1787 and the writing of our existing Constitution, the power of a State to make its own rules by which a foreigner became a citizen of that State became a bone of contention, especially considering the new Constitution proposed under Article 4, Section 2.


”The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”


Thus, if one State’s rules allowed citizenship to foreigners indiscriminately and without assurances the granting of citizenship required loyalty, good character, and that a productive person was being granted citizenship, in addition to other beneficial qualities necessary to promote the State’s general welfare, an undesirable person could be granted citizenship in one State and then move to another State and be entitled to that State’s privileges and immunities without the State’s consent!


And this is why the limited power to set rules by which a foreigner living in a particular State could obtain citizenship was delegated to Congress. It was to prevent one State from granting citizenship to undesirable foreigners allowed into their State, and then forcing these "citizens" upon other States who would then be entitled to that States privileges and immunities.


Chief Justice Taney summarized the very object of allowing the federal government to set the rules for naturalization as follows: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others and upon the General Government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” Passenger Cases (1849). And Justice Taney’s statement is in full harmony with the intentions of our forefathers expressed during 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)


Finally, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578)

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.


So, as it turns out, the kind of immigrants Obama is attempting to force upon the states from Mexico, Central America and now Syria ___ the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, and/or destitute populations of other countries ____ ought to be viewed as a “high misdemeanor” which happens to be an impeachable offense!


JWK




The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[johnwk]

See: Can Governors Legally Block Refugees from Coming to Their States? (http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/11/17/judge-andrew-napolitano-states-dont-have-authority-block-syrian-refugees-coming)

”In response to the influx of migrants “from the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq,” Congress in 2005 gave President George W. Bush unlimited authority to admit people for humanitarian purposes, noted Judge Napolitano.

And that has since been passed over to President Obama, he added.

“Here, he has the absolute lawful authority – may not like the way he’s exercising it, but he has it,” said the judge. “To admit people for political asylum and humanitarian purposes.”

What Judge Napolitano and Foxnews ignore is, Congress cannot assume powers not granted it by the Constitution. This is basic 101 constitutional law! And there is nothing in the Constitution remotely suggesting our federal government was granted a power to allow tens of thousands or millions of foreigners to enter upon American soil, and then force a State to accept any of them. As a matter of fact the historical evidence establishes Judge Napolitano is flat wrong in his assertion as I have previously documented.

Perhaps someday we will at least find one big media source which supports and defends our written Constitution and its documented legislative intent.


JWK




The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[johnwk]

I wonder why Judge Napolitano was not asked by a Foxnews personality to point to the wording in our Constitution under which the federal government was granted a power to allow tens of thousands or millions of foreigners to enter upon American soil, and then allows the federal government to force a State to accept any of them.

Where is the fair and balanced reporting on Foxnews with regard to this issue? It appears that Foxnews repeatedly asserts our federal government has exclusive power over "immigration", but constantly fails to establish the wording in our Constitution granting this power to our federal government. WHY?


JWK



The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[Anti Federalist]

What Judge Napolitano and Foxnews ignore is, Congress cannot assume powers not granted it by the Constitution.


Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

And to make sure you understand, 9 government judges will be sure to let you know that what the government is doing is 100 percent CONstitutional.


The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

Well, sure.

I've watched it unfold in my lifetime.

But to say that the President/King does not have the power, is untrue.

The Anti Feds warned everybody what would happen under the 1787 CONstitution, but were shouted down and ignored.

So now we reap the whirlwind.

All legal.

All perfectly constitutional.

[Sonny Tufts]

Can you find any sources from the time of the ratification of the Constitution that referred to anyone interpreting it as applicable to free people?

I haven't really researched that issue, although to me the word "migration" connotes a voluntary act, as opposed to "importation", which would suggest importing persons who at the time were considered property by some.

But that raises an interesting point: if, as the Migration Clause suggests, Congress could curtail or ban the slave trade beginning in 1808, what delegated power gave it the authority to do so? It might be able to do so with respect to newly-admitted states, but how could it do so with respect to the existing states? One might think of the Commerce Clause, but if that is the source of the power it means either (a) the Clause applies to the movement of free people as well as to the movement of goods and services, which therefore means that Congress can regulate immigration, or (b) you have the anomalous situation in which a clause that supposedly applies only to the movement of property and services is being used to curtail or prohibit the importation of certain people who are being treated as property. In other words, you ban or curtail a practice that treats certain people as property by using a clause that assumes they are.

I did run across an interesting letter from Madison that sheds a little light on the Migration Clause:


As to the intention of the framers of the Constitution in the clause relating to "the migration and importation of persons, &c" the best key may perhaps be found in the case which produced it. The African trade in slaves had long been odious to most of the States, and the importation of slaves into them had been prohibited. Particular States however continued the importation, and were extremely averse to any restriction on their power to do so. In the convention the former States were anxious, in framing a new constitution, to insert a provision for an immediate and absolute stop to the trade. The latter were not only averse to any interference on the subject; but solemnly declared that their constituents would never accede to a Constitution containing such an article. Out of this conflict grew the middle measure providing that Congress should not interfere until the year 1808; with an implication, that after that date, they might prohibit the importation of slaves into the States then existing, & previous thereto, into the States not then existing. Such was the tone of opposition in the States of S. Carolina & Georgia, & such the desire to gain their acquiescence in a prohibitory power, that on a question between the epochs of 1800 & 1808, the States of N. Hampshire, Masstts. & Connecticut, (all the eastern States in the Convention,) joined in the vote for the latter, influenced however by the collateral motive of reconciling those particular States to the power over commerce & navigation; against which they felt, as did some other States, a very strong repugnance. The earnestness of S. Carolina & Georgia was farther manifested by their insisting on the security in the V article, against any amendment to the Constitution affecting the right reserved to them, & their uniting with the small states, who insisted on a like security for their equality in the Senate.

But some of the States were not only anxious for a Constitutional provision against the introduction of slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase, "migration or importation of persons;" the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s20.html

[Zippyjuan]

So, as it turns out, the kind of immigrants Obama is attempting to force upon the states from Mexico, Central America and now Syria ___ the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, and/or destitute populations of other countries ____ ought to be viewed as a “high misdemeanor” which happens to be an impeachable offense!

Don't you mean Asians?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/immigrants-to-u-s-from-china-top-those-from-mexico-1430699284


Immigrants to U.S. From China Top Those From Mexico

Increasing numbers move to study, work and unite with families in the country

SAN DIEGO—Move over, Mexico. When it comes to sending immigrants to the U.S., China and India have taken the lead.

China was the country of origin for 147,000 recent U.S. immigrants in 2013, while Mexico sent just 125,000, according to a Census Bureau study by researcher Eric Jensen and others. India, with 129,000 immigrants, also topped Mexico, though the two countries’ results weren’t statistically different from each other.

For the study, presented last week at the Population Association of America conference in San Diego, researchers analyzed annual immigration data for 2000 to 2013 from the American Community Survey.

The mandatory annual survey conducted by the Census Bureau asks where respondents lived the year before. Researchers counted as an “immigrant” any foreign-born person in the U.S. who said they previously lived abroad, without asking about legal status. (So while the data include undocumented immigrants, it may undercount them.)

A year earlier, in 2012, Mexico and China had been basically tied for top-sending country—with Mexico at 125,000 and China at 124,000.

It isn’t just China and India. Several of the top immigrant-sending countries in 2013 were from Asia, including South Korea, the Philippines and Japan.

For a decade, immigration from China and India, which boast the world’s largest populations, has been rising as increasing numbers move to the U.S. to study, work and unite with families already in the country.

Meanwhile, immigration from Mexico has been declining due to improvements in the Mexican economy and lower Mexican birthrates. More recently, the U.S. recession also reduced illegal immigration from Mexico.

130,000 from India in a year while the proposed Syrian immigrants could be 10,000 in a decade. "Immigrant" includes those here temporarily as well as those here legally and illegally.

[erowe1]

I haven't really researched that issue, although to me the word "migration" connotes a voluntary act, as opposed to "importation", which would suggest importing persons who at the time were considered property by some.

I agree about the way that term sounds to me today. But from what I can find about the original intent of the clause, it was specifically and only about slaves.

See especially this section of Federalist 42:

The regulation of foreign commerce, having fallen within several views which have been taken of this subject, has been too fully discussed to need additional proofs here of its being properly submitted to the federal administration. It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!
Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html

Other relevant sources are available here:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_1.html

[johnwk]

I agree about the way that term sounds to me today. But from what I can find about the original intent of the clause, it was specifically and only about slaves.

See especially this section of Federalist 42:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html

Other relevant sources are available here:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_1.html

One thing is certain, there is no wording in our Constitution under which the federal government was granted a power to allow tens of thousands or millions of foreigners to enter upon American soil, and then allows the federal government to force a State to accept any of them.


JWK





The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

[Anti Federalist]

One thing is certain, there is no wording in our Constitution under which the federal government was granted a power to allow tens of thousands or millions of foreigners to enter upon American soil, and then allows the federal government to force a State to accept any of them.

What constitution are you reading?

[johnwk]

What constitution are you reading?

If you object to what I have posted, then explain your objection.

JWK

[Pericles]

Can you find any sources from the time of the ratification of the Constitution that referred to anyone interpreting it as applicable to free people?

William Rawle in his book on the Constitution mentions a few items of interest. As Rawle voted for the Constution, presumably he knew what he intended it to mean.

From Chapter X

"In Virginia, what is termed expatriation is authorized by an act of assembly passed in 1792. This is a fair compact which an independent state has a right to make with its citizens, and amounts to a full release of all future claims against the emigrant who, if taken in war against the state, would not be liable to the charge of treason. But the release is effective only so far as relates to the state which grants it. It does not alter his relation to the United States, and it was questioned in the case of Talbot v. Janson how far such a law would be compatible with the Constitution of the United States. The Virginia act makes no distinction between the time of peace and of war.
Whether the citizen, having formed the unnatural design of aiding the actual enemies of his country, could make use of its legal forms to enable him to commit such a crime with impunity, remains to be decided by the tribunals of that state."

Earlier in Chapter X, he mentions the authority of the federal government to impose restrictions more stringent than those of any particular state "Until these rights are attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere. The nature, extent, and duration of the allegiance due to the United States, the right to the general protection and to commercial benefits at home and abroad, derived either from treaties or from the acts of congress, are beyond the control of the states, nor can they increase or diminish the disadvantages to which aliens may, by such measures on the part of the general government, be subjected."

[johnwk]

William Rawle in his book on the Constitution mentions a few items of interest. As Rawle voted for the Constution, presumably he knew what he intended it to mean.

From Chapter X

"In Virginia, what is termed expatriation is authorized by an act of assembly passed in 1792. This is a fair compact which an independent state has a right to make with its citizens, and amounts to a full release of all future claims against the emigrant who, if taken in war against the state, would not be liable to the charge of treason. But the release is effective only so far as relates to the state which grants it. It does not alter his relation to the United States, and it was questioned in the case of Talbot v. Janson how far such a law would be compatible with the Constitution of the United States. The Virginia act makes no distinction between the time of peace and of war.
Whether the citizen, having formed the unnatural design of aiding the actual enemies of his country, could make use of its legal forms to enable him to commit such a crime with impunity, remains to be decided by the tribunals of that state."

Earlier in Chapter X, he mentions the authority of the federal government to impose restrictions more stringent than those of any particular state "Until these rights are attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere. The nature, extent, and duration of the allegiance due to the United States, the right to the general protection and to commercial benefits at home and abroad, derived either from treaties or from the acts of congress, are beyond the control of the states, nor can they increase or diminish the disadvantages to which aliens may, by such measures on the part of the general government, be subjected."

It is your kind of post which gets to the heart of the matter and follows the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is summarized 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.

Thank you for you post!

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

[AmericanSpartan]

BULLSHIT.


THE CHINESE EXCLUSION CASE CONSTITUTES A BOLD FACE USURPATION

According to Founding Father and 3rd Prez , Thomas Jefferson, the power to control immigration was RETAINED by the states.

The federal government has those powers SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED

S-P-E-C-I-F-I-C-A-L-L-Y E-NU-M-E-R-A-T-E-D

4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

Thomas Jefferson (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.asp)


NOW YOU CAN ARGUE THAT A RACIST SCOTUS CREATED AN EMERGENCY IN ORDER TO USURP POWERS

.


Do you control the borders of your home and who may enter? If yes then you have to explain why it does not apply to nations.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

"the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force. [/COLOR][/B]"

Thomas Jefferson (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.asp)

This was written in 1978, ten years before 1808-- the year when Congress acquired the power to limit migration under the Constitution. Jefferson acknowledged the 1808 date elsewhere in the Kentucky Resolutions.

Hope this helps.