Supreme Court gives Biden the green light to remove barriers in Texas. (Mexico border, invasion)
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.
Greg Price
@greg_price11
·
34m
BREAKING: The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 that the Biden admin can remove physical barriers Texas put at their border to stop the invasion.
Barrett and Roberts voted with the libs.
Why would Biden even ask Abbott to take these down. They seem to be working and doesn't Biden claim he wants to slow illegals from coming in? lol Biden says one thing and then does the opposite. What a liar.
I can't wait until the old fool and Jean Pierre Van dam is gone. All that lying they do. They all lie.
S.C. majority subvert State's power to repel an invasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackF
Greg Price
@greg_price11
·
34m
BREAKING: The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 that the Biden admin can remove physical barriers Texas put at their border to stop the invasion.
Barrett and Roberts voted with the libs.
My advice is to ignore the S.C. The federal government has not been delegated a power to force upon the States unwanted foreign nationals. In fact, the very reason for granting Congress power to adopt a uniform rule of "naturalization’ [keep in mind there is a vast distinction between the terms “naturalization” and “immigration”] was to prevent unwanted foreign nationals being forced upon an unwilling state.
The bottom line is, the reserved power of the States to protect their borders from invasions still stands under the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court Justices giving their consent to this blatant attack on the reserved powers of the State of Texas, and giving a green light to an ongoing invasion, need to be punished severely. . . no appropriate punishment to be left off the table.
How was the case argued-The state had a right to secure it's borders or they secured the border because the mass migration created a public emergency hence use of the National Guard?
The ruling is that Texas does not have the right to protect Texans from the Invasion across our Southern Border.
In essence, the Supreme Court is saying that the federal government can FORCE Texas to allow in invaders and PAY for them .
Quote:
Originally Posted by BELMO45
Not sure what the supposed constitutional logic they used in this decision was
They didn’t say, they have no intention to explain at all.
It’s a giant Middle Finger to US Citizens.
The fence around the US Supreme Court is Hunky-Dory. Gotta protect those Black Robes from the Citizens. Perhaps that might be a good drop off spot for Texas outbound buses.
Texas should ignore the opinion. Though I realize that would mean the end of the country. But allowing this to continue will also lead to the end of the country. Choose your ending.
The ruling is that Texas does not have the right to protect Texans from the Invasion across our Southern Border.
In essence, the Supreme Court is saying that the federal government can FORCE Texas to allow in invaders and PAY for them .
They didn’t say, they have no intention to explain at all.
It’s a giant Middle Finger to US Citizens.
The fence around the US Supreme Court is Hunky-Dory. Gotta protect those Black Robes from the Citizens. Perhaps that might be a good drop off spot for Texas outbound buses.
Today's Supreme Court's majority ignored the federal government has not been delegated a power over immigration nor allowed to force upon a State, unwanted foreign nationals.
Naturalization vs immigration, defined.
There is nothing to even remotely suggest from historical documentation that our federal government has been delegated an exclusive power to regulate immigration.
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 with regard to our nation’s initial immigration law, 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.
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
CONCLUSION:
Naturalization involves the process by which a foreign national, who is already in our country, is granted citizenship. Immigration, on the other hand involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States . . . two very distinct activities!
Keep in mind what our Constitution's Tenth Amendment declares and was intended to protect federalism, our Constitution's design:
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.
You are reacting politically to the decision. From a Constitutional perspective, the federal government has jurisdiction over immigration. I agree it isn't doing its job in that respect, but that does not shift the jurisdiction to the states. The Court is supposed to consider these questions from a purely legal perspective, and from that perspective this is the right result.
Well, since SCOTUS didn't bother to explain their reasoning, we are left to wonder:
While it is the result I expected, they could have had the courtesy to explain it. I wonder if there is a good argument that federal preemption doesn't apply when the federal government refuses to enforce its own laws.
One has to assume federal preemption, but it seems to me there is at least an argument it shouldn't apply when feds completely advocate their duty by failing to apply federal law.
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.
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.
S.C. majority subvert State's power to repel an invasion.
