Federal Court lies in Hazletons Illegal Immigration Relief Act case

Discussion in 'Immigration/Illegal Immigration' started by johnwk, Sep 12, 2010.

  1. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    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

    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 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


    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
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    lol it's not a lie. A bad interpretation of the constitution sure, but a lie? lol pretty simplistic.
     
  3. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    If what you say is correct, then the court would have to not understand the distinction between “immigration” and “naturalization”, which are two entirely different things.

    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. The court 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, the Court misrepresented Congress’s powers which I would say is akin to lying !

    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)
     
  4. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +762
    Pa. Town's Immigration Law Falls in Court
    Friday, 10 Sep 2010 08:24 AM

    The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Hazleton, in northeastern Pennsylvania, cannot require landlords to check renters' immigration status, nor can it require businesses to use an electronic database to check whether potential employees are authorized to work.

    The decision conflicts with a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld an Arizona law requiring businesses to use the electronic database, called E-Verify. The federal government considers E-Verify voluntary for most businesses, though it does require the system's use for federal contractors and subcontractors.

    Having conflicting decisions from appeals courts increases the chances that the Supreme Court eventually will decide the cases.

    Pa. Town's Immigration Law Falls in Court


    If nothing else works, let pray about the issue of illegal immigration.
     
  5. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +762
    It amazes me how many people who write about illegal immigration do not know what "illegal" means.
    Question is "how do we get the feds to enforce their own laws"Maybe states making own immigration laws is the wrong way of doing it. It's not working, so let go to plan "B" Get a plan "B"
     

Share This Page