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

[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/publicati...n-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


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


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/Histor...malis_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/Histor...malis_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.

[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.

[LibertyEagle]

Erowe is an open borders boobus.

[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

"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/Histor...malis_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



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



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)