Migration, Naturalization & Congress’ powers vs State powers

[johnwk]

This is meant to clear up some of the inaccurate information regarding Arizona’s new law regarding aliens and Congress‘s authority under our Constitution in the matter, and identify powers which the States have retained under the Tenth Amendment.

Congress has been granted power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. What specifically does this mean? Naturalization is the act by which an alien is made a citizen of the united States. Sherman, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution notes the intentions for which the power was granted. 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

Indeed, the power over naturalization granted to Congress is very limited in its scope and merely determines who shall or shall not be a Citizen of the united States.

In 1824, Chief Justice Marshall pointed out:

“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an Act of Congress, but the Act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise Of this power exhausts it, so far as regards the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstance under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.” ___ OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 22 U. S. 738 (1824)

In debating naturalization, Rep. WHITE notes the narrow limits of the power in question and ”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

Also see:

“MR. 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.[page 1157] Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157


Listening to the assertions made today regarding the supremacy of our federal government’s powers over aliens, and particularly an alleged federal supreme power over those who have invaded the borders of any one of the united States, it is stunning to study the Naturalization Debates of 1790 which repeatedly confirms our States have retained a policing power and power to legislate upon the rights and privileges of citizens and persons within their borders. In fact, they delegated a limited power to Congress to merely establish how an alien might become a citizen of the united states which then extended the rights and privileges of each State to those declared to be citizens of the united states by Congress‘s rule of Naturalization.

THE 14TH AMENDMENT, ITS LEGISLATIVE INTENT

After studying the debates which framed the 14th Amendment it is found that to secure rights and privileges to Blacks as were secured to White citizens prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment under each State’s laws, the objective of the 14th Amendment was to secure and extend these same rights and privileges to all people without distinction based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery. This was the narrow objective of the 14th Amendment and was never intended to enlarge or establish new rights and privileges under a State‘s laws.


The 14th Amendment accomplishes this by first making Blacks Citizens of the united states and of the State wherein they resided, and then forbid every State to make or enforce any law which abridged its recognized privileges or immunities, or deprives any “Citizen” or any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process under state law; nor allowed any State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws, which included a State‘s Bill of Rights. In fact, whatever a state’s Bill of Rights was, the 14th Amendment was intended to make those rights equally applicable to Blacks as they were to Whites! The legislative intent of the 14th Amendment is summed up by Rep. Shellabarger, in the following words:


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293


So, with regard to aliens who are not “citizens of the united States“, and especially with regard to aliens who have invaded a State’s borders, the 14th Amendment actually confirms Arizona is free to enact their own legislation dealing with aliens who are not entitled to the privileges and immunities as bestowed upon “citizens” of the united States. The exception to a state’s policing power is, that no person, alien or not, within a particular State, may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law as determined under the State’s statutory laws which must be applied equally to aliens as they are applied to any “person“.

PROTECTING OUR BORDERS

Unlike Congress’ power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, meant to say who is and who is not a citizen of the united States, and there the power ends, our Constitution charges our federal government with the duty To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Those who point to Congress’s power over Naturalization and clamor in support of “comprehensive immigration reform” so as to have Congress reward those who have invaded a State’s borders with “citizenship“, thereby granting them the same rights and privileges of “citizens” of the particular state they are found in, are attempting to have the federal government subjugate those powers retained by the States under the Tenth Amendment by misapplying Congress‘s power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” and are very much in favor of violating the very intentions and beliefs for which the power was granted!

Who is behind the attempted subjugation of our written Constitution and is working to give aid and comfort to those who have invaded our borders? OBAMA and THIS CROWD!

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)

[constituent]

Unlike Congress’ power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, meant to say who is and who is not a citizen of the united States, and there the power ends, our Constitution charges our federal government with the duty To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

I find it humorous that you would put all that effort into conceding the Naturalization point only to assert that Congress should regulate the borders as part of their duty to "repel invasions" while giving no contextual information to advance the case that the mass exodus of immigrants we've seen leaving the United States over the last year is anything similar to what the founders would have classified as an "invasion."

The thesis statement typically belongs much closer to the beginning so that it can then be supported with additional information, rather than just asserted as a fact at the end.

Better luck next time though.

[johnwk]

I can’t understand our media personalities. Do they not care about their country? Do they not care about how they are helping to undermining the future for their children who will suffer the consequences of those who now give aid and comfort to those who care not about our constitutionally limited system of government?


Aside from that, another very interesting thing to note regarding Naturalization as distinguished from migration is, when reading Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, of our federal Constitution we find an important semantic distinction being made in the body of the Constitution between “Migration” of persons into a state, and, “Naturalization” the Act by which an alien becomes a citizen of the united States ___ the latter being entrusted to Congress’s powers but not the former!

As such, Arizona’s law is within those powers retained by the States under the Tenth Amendment. Keep in mind this power [Migration control into a state] was originally exercised by each of the various states prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution, and, there is nothing to be found in the framing debates of our Constitution, nor in the text of our Constitution, by which an intended power is granted to Congress to compel a state to accept an unrestrained migration of aliens, especially when they have entered the United States in violation of our laws, and as such, are law breakers!

As a matter of fact, Sherman, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution notes the intentions for which the power [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

I don’t know why some are so persistent in ignoring the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, in addition to ignoring the text of our Constitution which distinguishes “Migration” of persons into a state from “Naturalization” by which an alien becomes a citizen of the united States. But I will say, they are persistent in their attempt to discredit Arizona’s authority to exercise a power the united States have never delegated to Congress, and therefore is retained by them under the Tenth Amendment!

Keep in mind Federalist Paper No. 45 tells us:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. “

Were the above words not given force and effect by the Tenth Amendment? Indeed, the various states have reserved authority over aliens who have not only invaded the borders of the United States, but in so doing have illegally migrated into a particular state which includes Arizona.

JWK



We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.