Is this just more usurpation of the Constitution? What about the 10th amendment? I'm not getting why the Governor of a State whose citizens don't want Syrian refugees can't make that call. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
Originally Posted by phill4paul
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
First of all, maybe there would have to be a vote of some sort to determine whether the people of a given state do or do not want these refugees (maybe a vote of the state legislature.) After that, depending on the result of the vote, I think it would be fine to invoke the 10th Amendment...but, alas we no longer have it. It's racist.
We already have laws in place to deal with refugees. Obama is acting within the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act
He's only outside the law if he admits more than 50,000 refugees a year. If the states want to change refugee policy they will have to do it through the legislature. The states have no power really other than non-cooperation to stop refugees from being placed here.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
The Constitution very clearly spells out that it is Congress that makes the laws regarding naturalization.
The Federal government, not the States, has power over admitting aliens into the United States and the conditions in which they are admitted. The States have no power over this.
It's not clear at all what 'establishing a uniform rule of naturalization' is. And even if you just go by the phrase itself, Congress sure as hell hasn't been establishing anything "uniform" as it pertains to naturalization, in decades.
I found this bit of info interesting:
But governors command state offices that are an integral part of this refugee-resettlement process. Governors can order their state personnel not to lift a finger to help the Obama administration, or to spend a single dollar of state money on the project. Obama would have to assign federal agents to bring these refugees to America, fly them to their new state, drive them to their new house (which the federal government would have to obtain for them), and take care of the all the logistical and physical needs that normally state and local staffs would handle or assist.
Obama can’t make the governors cooperate. In the 1997 case United States v. Printz, the Supreme Court declared that the Tenth Amendment’s limits on federal power include that no branch of the federal government—Congress, the Supreme Court, or the president—can require state or local officers to implement or assist any federal law or program. This anti-commandeering principle is a cornerstone of the constitutional system. The states are co-sovereigns with the federal government, equal in power and authority with Washington, D.C. The federal government has whatever powers the Constitution grants to it, with all other powers reserved to the states.
But Congress can stop Obama. Congress has plenary power over immigration, including admitting refugees. Congress can change federal law at any time. Congress can also refuse to renew funding for Obama to resettle refugees and insert explicit language into annual appropriations laws forbidding the various agencies of the federal government from spending a single dollar of federal money or assigning a single federal agent to carry out Obama’s resettlement efforts.
Obama wouldn’t even be able to drive the moving truck himself, because he wouldn’t be authorized to put fuel in the gas tank.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-congress-can/
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Judge Nap had something about it just the other day. In the meantime, there's this. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-refugee-plans
EDIT: Here's Judge Nap. http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/11/1...efugees-coming
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Naturalization rules are exactly the same throughout the country, which is what "uniform" means. It's the same law in California, Texas, and Vermont.
USURPATION, INDEED.
LET'S SEE WHAT FOUNDING FATHER AND 3rd President said about the subject matter:
"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
Federal officials were so embarrassed that the law was allow to expire in 1800.
In 1898 SCOTUS USURPED federal immigration authority in the Chinese Exclusion case.
Federal scumbags believe that in cases of emergency WHICH THEY TYPICALLY CREATE , they can USURP powers.
.
.
Last edited by Contumacious; 11-19-2015 at 07:56 AM.
.
.DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!
.
.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)
Immigration and naturalization are two different animals. And, what about amnesty? There's nothing "uniform" about that.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
In that article the Judge states:
Notice he states, "the court has ruled". The Constitution seems vague in this area. Especially when taking this particular situation (states that do not want the refugees) and the 10th amendment into consideration.“The court has ruled that the admission of immigrants – whether for humanitarian purposes, political asylum purposes, or pursuant to the quotas that we have – is strictly a federal function,” he continued.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
I'm 100% behind any county that either accepts or rejects them.
State government is too far removed from the people affected and the feds damn sure are.
The first problem I see here is that there are no states whose citizens all agree that they don't want to accept any refugees. What these governors are trying to do is prohibit citizens who want to help them from being able to. Neither the federal nor state governments have any right to do that.
Well that's bull$#@! because these rules are anything but "uniform". Illegals and "refugees" come in through the back door and get amnesty. Everyone else has to wait 10 years.
Or you can prey on the emotional vulnerabilities of a lonely America citizen and marry them. Hispanics do this all the time.
I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!
Andrew Jackson, 1834
Agreed. But that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
The Constitution absolutely is not vague in this area.
http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...ralization?s=t
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalizeverb (used with object), naturalized, naturalizing.1. to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/naturalize#websterstransitive verb
1: to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/d...ish/naturalizeto confer the rights of citizenship upon (an alien)
...
To grant full citizenship to (one of foreign birth).
to make someone a legal citizen of a country that the person was not born in
Deborah, you wanna see usurpation of the US Constitution? Here it is:
The entire argument in favor of the federal government keeping people out of the country, governing the length of their stay, and kicking them out if they don't have permission to be here, is predicated on the idea that somewhere the definition of "naturalization" includes all of these. I suppose one could make the argument that the definition of "naturalization" was different in 1788, but then the anti-immigration crowd would have to explain why the federal government went for 100 years without doing it if it had originally claimed the power.
Or let's jump forward to the next argument: that this is an invasion, and the federal government has the power to repel invasions. Same story: they're redefining the word "invasion" as opposed to "naturalization" to grant the federal government a power it clearly, under the 10th Amendment, does not and never did have.
(That one's a bad logic double-dip, because it states the federal government has the power to call for the militia to repel invasions, and says bupkiss about establishing entire extra departments for that purpose.)
As I've stated often here before, this is the reason I do not support the US Constitution: because those who claim to support it do the same thing the living document people do. They redefine words to mean what they want them to mean.
Last edited by fisharmor; 11-19-2015 at 09:54 AM.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
You can't possibly think a statewide, unanimous decision on anything political is ever possible. I must insist you remove yourself from La-La Land immediately!!
More likely, they are abiding by the dictates of their constituents.What these governors are trying to do is prohibit citizens who want to help them from being able to.
On this we agree but....back to reality and how best to deal with it.Neither the federal nor state governments have any right to do that.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
With respect, I don't think that is a good reason to not support the Constitution. EVERYTHING, and I mean everything is up for interpretation. That was the point of having the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, our problem (in my mind), has less to do with how it's been interpreted and more to do with its subversion - just as it stands. Had it been strictly adhered to, I doubt this country would be in the mess it's in. I agree with others that it isn't perfect, but the Founders put in place procedures to amend it. The problem is that our governments from then to now, don't bother with following procedure.
No, the Constitution doesn't prevent people from being corrupt, nor does it guarantee liberty in and of itself. It is only as good as the people who have sworn an oath to abide by it.
So no, I don't think the Constitution is the problem, it's our 'selected' officials that are the problem.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
So Syrian refugee comes in through New York, get's New York drivers license, drives to Texas and the Texas governor keeps him out how exactly? By posting state troopers on at every border crossing and stopping people demanding proof of origin?
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Well put.
I guess that would have to be left up to the 'logistics experts' at HS.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
It's you who needs to be removed from La-La land for precisely that reason.
Since no statewide unanimous decision is possible, the governors of states have no right to impose a prohibition of accepting refugees on their whole state and pretend to be doing so with the consent of the governed.
They clearly are not. If none of their constituents wanted to help refugees, they wouldn't need their governors to tell them they can't.
Which is why I wrote earlier that immigration and naturalization are two different animals.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Erowe, explain to me how a civilized society can make decisions based on unanimous consent on all matters. Because if you expect it in this case, then by logic, you have to go across the board with it on all matters. And if you don't, then who decides what is unanimously agreed upon and what is not?
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Easy. Just leave people alone. Let individuals make their own individual decisions without some central manager trying to direct them.
In the present case, all state and federal governments should do nothing about the refugees. They should spend $0 helping them, and $0 preventing them from entering and staying in any of the United States. Let individuals and private organizations help them according to their own principles.
HS as in "Homeland Security" as in the Federal department of "Homeland Security" that really shouldn't even exist? But if this is about states rights shouldn't the states that want this be responsible for its implementation? And if states can keep refugees who have already been let into one state from going to their state why stop there? Why not keep out anyone from another state with a criminal record? Why not keep out anyone on welfare? Anybody with the HIV virus? Couldn't this end up with a whole series of internal checkpoints at every state crossing across all 50 states looking at all kinds of people that supposedly don't have the right to travel across interstate borders? I'm not sure that's a "right" I want states to have.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
The real issue isn't immigrants/refugees but governments role.
Which layer of government are you going to rely on to protect your interests?
I suppose it depends what those particular interests are doesn't it?
That and whether or not you believe it's government's place to try and protect them.
Fear of the Boogeyman is just as real as fear of governments agents, the desire to help others is just as real as some folks desire to harm others.
Some people do well commingled with other cultures others don't...
There was a reason this mass of land was divided up into separate states, many of which had less people occupying them than today's counties.....
With respect right back at you... no, not everything is up for interpretation. That was my point: words have meanings. If the approach to the constitution is to make a good faith effort to follow the meaning of the words in it, that's one thing... and I might not be so radical if I had found evidence that anyone has actually done that, ever.
But what we see throughout the entire period of the Constitution's supposed operability, is exactly what we see in this thread. "It means what I say it means, and we're not even going to address the fact that the word I'm using quite obviously does not have a definition which encompasses what I say it means."
Ok, I can think of one example of people making an effort to change the constitution where it was genuinely not clear.
Here's a bit of history nobody knows: it's about President John Tyler. Unless you're a total nerd, or played a game in grade school designed to learn facts about presidents, you may not even know he was the 10th US President, from 1841-45.
He succeeded the presidency when WH Harrisson died 90 days after taking office. But nobody had ever succeeded a dead president before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T...2.80.931845.29
The original text of the US Constitution says:
Now this is a case where the text actually is confusing. Does this mean the powers and duties of the president devolve on the vice president, meaning the vice president stays vice president and merely assumes the powers of the president? Or does it mean the office devolves on the vice president and he becomes the president?In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President
All things considered I can't fault Tyler for doing what he did: he threw his balls on the table. He took the position that he was president, had himself sworn in, and the office continued. This was a political maneuver since he had opponents who sought to control things behind the scenes in the power vacuum... but considering there was a good faith interpretation of that lousily worded statement, I'd be ok with what happened.
The story has a happy constitutional ending because in the end, the congress passed an amendment to the constitution that codified that what Tyler had done was the actual method of succession.
They passed this amendment in 1967, one-hundred and twenty-two years after Tyler left office.
This is a historical example of constitutionalism "working". And this wasn't even a reaction to the Tyler incident: that was just one thing piled on top of Wilson being a vegetable for part of his presidency, Truman not having a vice president at all, and the recent assassination of JFK was the catalyst for the whole argument.
So again, I don't fault those who did what they had to do to keep the system going, but also again, this was genuinely a hole in the process caused by poor planning and and genuinely poor wording.
And we're not talking about poor wording when we talk about "naturalization". We're talking about expanding definitions.
I'd also make the point that procedural issues like who takes over when someone dies is a bit different from the idea that we should put people on a boat and send them off into the ocean because they didn't have the proper paperwork.
But the point is, that's the level of institutional devotion we have to constitutionalism in the US: when procedural problems pile up to the point where we need to revisit something as basic as who is in charge, only then, after 122 years, will we fix the wording.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
For me, this is one of those situations where I think each state has the right to decide if they want to take the refugees or not. How they go about it is another matter. I just don't think the federal government should have the right to force states to accept these immigrants if they don't want to. And, the Constitution, while it covers naturalization, is vague on the issue of immigration. As I've already stated, they are not the same thing, even though many have tried to conflate them.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Philosophically speaking, I couldn't agree with you more, Erowe. However, that is NOT going to h.a.p.p.e.n.!
I don't understand why just about every discussion on this forum has to be a strictly philosophical debate, which virtually produces nothing substantial that can actually be disseminated into public opinion.
Can we hammer this out using the cards we are dealt at the moment? Or are we just going to continue on and on about Utopian belief systems?
I'd like someone with expertise on the Constitution to explain to me how it is that the 10th amendment doesn't apply where immigrants are concerned. I get that the fedgov is in control of naturalization. But again, naturalization and immigration are not the same thing.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Do you apply this same reasoning to immigration in general? The federal government shouldn't be involved in restricting it at all?
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us