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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-02-2010, 03:08 PM
 
114 posts, read 86,431 times
Reputation: 42

Advertisements

The following 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. Shallabarger, 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. Shallabarger, Cong. Globe, 1886, 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)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2010, 08:39 PM
 
114 posts, read 86,431 times
Reputation: 42
It is utterly incredible that those who are attempting to protect foreign nationals who have invaded our borders continue to get a pass by our big media when they assert Arizona’s law circumvents the “supremacy clause” in our Constitution because Congress has been delegated power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The power as documented involves nothing more that writing legislation by which foreign nationals obtain citizenship in the united States. The Arizona law is not an attempt to write the rules for citizenship. Quite the contrary, Arizona’s law is specifically directed at those who are not citizens of the united States, and more importantly, is directed at foreign nationals who have invaded the borders of Arizona, and as such, they are not entitled to the privileges and immunities which the citizens of Arizona are entitled to. The bottom line is, Arizona, nor any other State, has surrendered their State’s internal policing powers to the federal government. However, Arizona, to be in compliance with our federal Constitution, may not deprive aliens 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“. This protection is found in the 14th Amendment.

Now, getting back to Obama and his PROGRESSIVE GANG ON CAPIT0L HILL. They have a specific constitutional obligation to protect Arizona from the ongoing invasion of its borders:

Article I, Section 8.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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.

But instead of protecting Arizona from the ongoing invasion of its borders, Obama and his hand picked Attorney’s General are attempting to manipulate the law to give aid and comfort to those who have invaded Arizona’s borders. Some would say such actions meet the very elements of treason!

We are told that Congress has supremacy jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.

I surely would like someone to cite that part of the Constitution they are referring to.

What Congress has be delegated a power over is “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. Why they confuse writing a law by which foreign nationals may become a citizen of the united states with “immigration” is beyond me. Fact is, they just make things up as they go along!

The question remains: What provision of our Constitution was intended by our founding fathers to have delegated a power to Congress over immigration? The answer to this question is in fact found in our Constitution. No such power has been granted and the truth is found in

Article 1, Section 9.

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.

The States retained the power covering the Migration of persons as they thought proper to admit. Congress was granted power to make a rule for Naturalization of aliens, which is granting them citizenship. We really need to take the time to read the Constitution, and then read the Naturalization Debates conducted by our founding fathers. We must arm ourselves with the truth and historical facts! Those interested may START HERE

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2010, 10:08 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,150 posts, read 30,614,837 times
Reputation: 12825
In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- you read that right, the Ninth Circuit -- concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.”





In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”





Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”





In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘ to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”





In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.





In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.





In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage."





In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a


lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."





in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.





In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2010, 10:09 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,150 posts, read 30,614,837 times
Reputation: 12825
You lose, SUCKERS!


Blaze a trail, Arizona!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 05:33 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
6,515 posts, read 4,153,767 times
Reputation: 2565
Thanks John and Bent Bow for the educational info on the role of the fed and the states on immigration.It is threads like this that I appreciate because there is something to learn unlike 95% of threads of pure BS with no subsatnce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 05:36 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,311,199 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
You lose, SUCKERS!


Blaze a trail, Arizona!
I win,

Arizona changed the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 06:39 AM
 
114 posts, read 86,431 times
Reputation: 42
It is amusing how some continue to ignore 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 [immigration] , and, “Naturalization” by which an alien becomes a citizen of the united States; the former authority being retained by the States, the latter power being delegated to Congress.

I don’t know why some, including our courts, continue to ignore the distinction between “Migration” of persons into a state, and, “Naturalization” by which an alien becomes a citizen of the united States, and ignore the fact that the various states retained the power over migration of aliens into their States.

Does Federalist Paper No. 45mean nothing?


“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. “

Is it not a fact that the above words were given force and effect by the Tenth Amendment which states:

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

So where in the debates which framed our Constitution, or in the text of the Constitution, have the States intentionally granted a power to Congress under which Congress may compel a State to accept unwanted aliens into their State, especially those who have invaded the borders of the united States?

Where is the historical documentation?

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 Americaqn Law (1858)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 06:48 AM
 
Location: SXSW
640 posts, read 1,514,220 times
Reputation: 607
johnwk, you need to post this in the illegal immigration forum. this is good stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 07:01 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,150 posts, read 30,614,837 times
Reputation: 12825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
I win,

Arizona changed the law.


Then, what's the problem now? Why all the squeaking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Neither here nor there
14,810 posts, read 13,562,403 times
Reputation: 32925
At last! A thread in P&OC with real substance!! Thanks for starting this.
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
Similar Threads
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