U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-11-2010, 07:35 AM
 
114 posts, read 86,456 times
Reputation: 42

Advertisements

SEE: Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania Town’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said that Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act usurped the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration.

But the truth is, Congress has not been granted an exclusive power to regulate “immigration”. What Congress has been granted an exclusive power over is stated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, the specific wording in our Constitution being a power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization“!

Immigration and naturalization are two entirely different and distinct things. Migration or immigration is the movement of people from one place to another, while naturalization is the act by which an alien becomes a citizen.

The regulation over immigration within a State's borders is a power originally exercised by the States prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution and was never intended to be relinquished to Congress, nor was it relinquished by any wording in our Constitution. The only exception with regard to the Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States then existing thought proper to admit, is stated in Article 1, Section 9 and was expressly limited by its wording!

As to the power over naturalization, which was placed exclusively under Congress’s powers, it amounts to nothing more then setting the requirements which an alien must meet to become a citizen of the united states.

And why this power placed under Congress’s powers, REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution gives us that answer! 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

Our founders were very concerned about the quality, loyalty and virtue of immigrants who became a citizen of one of the States, because once an immigrant became a citizen of one state, they would be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States[ SEE: Article 4, Section 2 U.S. Constitution].

The very intentions for placing the power over “Naturalization” in the hands of Congress was to prevent some states from granting citizenship to unworthy aliens. The idea was to have Congress set a number of specific requirements an alien must meet before being granted citizenship, and the requirements were to insure a high quality immigrant population. But the States retained the power over aliens within their borders!

Those who are interested in the truth regarding the limited power granted to Congress concerning its power over “naturalization”, which is far different from the misrepresentations which Chief Judge Theodore McKee of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has put forth in his opinion, need to study our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization to refute the crap which Judge McKee has made up.

For example, 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 REPRESENTATIVE STONEconcluded 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

Bottom line is, Chief Judge Theodore McKee is making crap up regarding Congress’s authorized powers, and ignoring the powers retained by the various states!

JWK

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.___ Tenth Amendment
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-12-2010, 04:14 PM
 
114 posts, read 86,456 times
Reputation: 42
Thumbs up Hazleton’s mayor to take immigration law to Supreme Court

SEE:
Pa. mayor to take immigration law to Supreme Court

“Appeals courts are split on whether states and municipalities have the right to enforce laws dealing with immigration. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over a 2007 Arizona law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants“

Hazleton’s law has nothing to do with setting the requirements which an alien must meet to become “naturalized” [a citizen of the united States] which is the limited power granted to Congress under our Constitution. When will those who report the news make the distinction between "immigration" and "naturalization"?

Neither Congress, the Executive nor federal judges have power to dictate how the various states treat aliens within the respective borders of the united states. The only pertinent requirement a state must comply with is found in our Constitution’s 14th Amendment which forbids an alien to be deprive of life, liberty or property without a State extending the State’s due process as statutorily written, or the equal application of the State’s laws whatever the are ,e.g., if it is illegal to rent to an alien from Mexico, it must likewise be illegal to rent to an alien from Germany!

Hazleton is well within its retained powers to adopt and enforce the law it has legislated regarding aliens within its borders, and, there is nothing in the Constitution under which Pennsylvania, or its municipalities, have delegated this original power to the federal government.

Those who support and defend our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” need to show their support for Mayor Lou Barletta and the people of Hazleton in their fight to exercise powers reserved by the States!

JWK

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.___ Tenth Amendment
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 08:07 PM
 
1,891 posts, read 2,180,489 times
Reputation: 909


Very noteworthy articles. Unforunately those in powers think they can do anything and get away with it.

Hazelton won't back down!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 11:55 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,127 posts, read 9,214,508 times
Reputation: 8988
Congress does have the power to mobilize the militia to repel invasion.

Do illegal immigrants rate as an invasion force?

They certainly violate our laws, with impunity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2010, 07:15 AM
 
114 posts, read 86,456 times
Reputation: 42
Angry Chief Judge Theodore McKee lied in Hazleton's case!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lariat View Post


Very noteworthy articles. Unforunately those in powers think they can do anything and get away with it.

Hazelton won't back down!
I hope Hazelton won`t back down. We need to give the town our full support!

Chief Judge Theodore McKee is nothing more than a despotic piece of garbage who has spat upon our Constitution and his oath to support and defend it.

Hazleton’s law has absolutely nothing to do with “naturalization” which is setting the requirements which an alien must meet to become a “citizen of the united States”, and is a power delegated to Congress. Judge McKee asserted Hazleton’s law interfered with Congress’s power over “immigration”, which is nowhere to be found in our Constitution. The irrefutable fact is, the united States have never relinquished their original power over “immigration” to Congress, excepting of course Art 1, Section. 9 under which Congress may prohibit the Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States may think proper, but such power does not authorize Congress to compel a state to accept the Migration or Importation of such Persons as Congress may think proper.


Bottom line is, Chief Judge Theodore McKee misrepresented Congress’s powers, and ought to be punished for his tyrannical act.


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)

Last edited by johnwk1; 09-13-2010 at 07:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top