Texas law, SB 4, protecting against an ongoing invasion, is now before U.S. Appeals Court (Congress, illegal aliens)
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.
The hearing before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will focus on whether the law is constitutional as Texas tries to create its own arrest-and-deportation policies to curb unauthorized immigration into the state.
Let us acknowledge some specific facts concerning the case.
Nowhere in our federal Constitution has Congress been granted an exclusive power to regulate immigration.
Congress has been granted power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” 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!
And according to our very own Supreme Court, with respect to this power (Naturalization), “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, 48 U. S. 283 (1849).
Regulating immigration is an original power exercised by our States prior to the adoption of our current Constitution. And a number of states prior to the ratification of our current constitution adopted laws prohibiting the importation of foreign nationals who might become a “public charge”, e.g., ”The Massachusetts colony led these efforts and as early as 1645 the colony passed a law forbidding the admission of indigent migrants. This law was followed in the 18th century by other laws prohibiting the landing of “Sick, Lame, or Otherwise Infirm Persons,” and calling for bonds that were forfeited if immigrants of questionable means became public charges.”SOURCE
And, in New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837) - a New York law “intended to prevent the state’s being burdened with an influx of foreigners and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such”, our very own Supreme Court emphatically confirms the following:
“That the act of the Legislature of New York mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration assumes to regulate trade and commerce between the port of New York and foreign ports, and is unconstitutional and void.” . . .“The act of the Legislature of New York is not a regulation of commerce, but of police, and, being so, it was passed in the exercise of a power which rightfully belonged to the state. The State of New York possessed the power to pass this law before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The law was “intended to prevent the state’s being burdened with an influx of foreigners and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such.” The end and means here used are within the competency of the states, since a portion of their powers were surrendered to the federal government."
So, as we have learned, the authority to regulate immigration is an original power exercise by the states prior to the adoption of our federal Constitution, and nowhere in our federal Constitution have the states surrendered that original power.
Additionally, and with respect to the current invasion of unwanted foreign nationals into the State of Texas - an invasion which is destructive to the general welfare of the State of Texas - our federal Constitution states, in crystal clear language, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Consequently, the nonsense asserted by U.S. District Judge David, that SB 4 is likely unconstitutional because the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration matters, is a flat out lie unsupported by the wording of our federal Constitution, as documented above.
For those interested in an amicus brief filed in support of the Texas law, SB 4, CLICK HERE
Just for the record, the stated intentions of our forefathers, expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, provide clarifying insights regarding the subject of unwanted 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 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 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
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.
I would question whether this meets the founders’ definition of an invasion. It’s shaky ground at the very best to use that as justification for a state to usurp a power which is otherwise not reserved to a state.
I would question whether this meets the founders’ definition of an invasion. It’s shaky ground at the very best to use that as justification for a state to usurp a power which is otherwise not reserved to a state.
This is worse than some simple invasion. This is a blatant attack on the American people by our own federal government. They want these illegals here to break down society and destroy the US. If you can't see that, you are either blind or dumb.
This is worse than some simple invasion. This is a blatant attack on the American people by our own federal government. They want these illegals here to break down society and destroy the US. If you can't see that, you are either blind or dumb.
I’m talking about how judges will interpret the word “invasion”. The entire case hinges on that. Not having read all of the founders’ works, federalist papers, etc., I’m sure there is more context around what constitutes an invasion and whether or not a judge will accept Texas’ assertion that this meets the definition well enough to allow Texas to continue. My hunch is that invasion will be taken to mean an organized, armed military type invasion, and not simply a large migration of civilians, but I’m also not psychic.
this land is your land, this land is my land. That noble, famous statement indicates why we should share this planet with all of humanity (just not climate changing resources), and not have racist things like borders getting in the way of jobs recent gender studies graduates don’t want to do
Let us acknowledge some specific facts concerning the case.
Nowhere in our federal Constitution has Congress been granted an exclusive power to regulate immigration.
Congress has been granted power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” 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!
And according to our very own Supreme Court, with respect to this power (Naturalization), “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, 48 U. S. 283 (1849).
Regulating immigration is an original power exercised by our States prior to the adoption of our current Constitution. And a number of states prior to the ratification of our current constitution adopted laws prohibiting the importation of foreign nationals who might become a “public charge”, e.g., ”The Massachusetts colony led these efforts and as early as 1645 the colony passed a law forbidding the admission of indigent migrants. This law was followed in the 18th century by other laws prohibiting the landing of “Sick, Lame, or Otherwise Infirm Persons,” and calling for bonds that were forfeited if immigrants of questionable means became public charges.”SOURCE
And, in New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837) - a New York law “intended to prevent the state’s being burdened with an influx of foreigners and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such”, our very own Supreme Court emphatically confirms the following:
“That the act of the Legislature of New York mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration assumes to regulate trade and commerce between the port of New York and foreign ports, and is unconstitutional and void.” . . .“The act of the Legislature of New York is not a regulation of commerce, but of police, and, being so, it was passed in the exercise of a power which rightfully belonged to the state. The State of New York possessed the power to pass this law before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The law was “intended to prevent the state’s being burdened with an influx of foreigners and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such.” The end and means here used are within the competency of the states, since a portion of their powers were surrendered to the federal government."
So, as we have learned, the authority to regulate immigration is an original power exercise by the states prior to the adoption of our federal Constitution, and nowhere in our federal Constitution have the states surrendered that original power.
Additionally, and with respect to the current invasion of unwanted foreign nationals into the State of Texas - an invasion which is destructive to the general welfare of the State of Texas - our federal Constitution states, in crystal clear language, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Consequently, the nonsense asserted by U.S. District Judge David, that SB 4 is likely unconstitutional because the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration matters, is a flat out lie unsupported by the wording of our federal Constitution, as documented above.
For those interested in an amicus brief filed in support of the Texas law, SB 4, CLICK HERE
.
"Invasion" in this case refers to an organized, armed invasion from a foreign power, not simply a set of people entering the country without prior authorization. The way you are using the term is only a very recent invention that has gained traction within the past decade or two in right-wing circles. Thus, your argument about the states' power fails.
That said, you could make a more plausible argument based on the 10th amendment, but this would at most justify a quasi-civil penalty for these individuals, somewhat akin to that for trespassing. It would not justify actually putting them in jail with no option to simply be taken back across the border or to a country they are legally allowed to enter.
This is worse than some simple invasion. This is a blatant attack on the American people by our own federal government. They want these illegals here to break down society and destroy the US. If you can't see that, you are either blind or dumb.
What is your evidence for this massive accusation and ad hominem attack as applied to the federal government as a whole?
What is your evidence for this massive accusation and ad hominem attack as applied to the federal government as a whole?
Seriously?
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.
Founders' views regarding today's unwanted immigration
