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

[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:

BULL$#@!.


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


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


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


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 and 1157


Finally, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790

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?

”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/found...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/immigran...ico-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/found...cs/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/found...cs/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]

BULL$#@!.


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


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

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.