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
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
