S.C., founding fathers, and immigration vs. naturalization!

[johnwk]

SEE: SCOTUS Upholds AZ Law Imposing Penalties On Employers


Published: May 26, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that imposes harsh penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

___cut___


The challenge to the Arizona law that was the subject of Thursday’s decision was brought by a coalition of business and civil liberties groups, with support from the Obama administration.


They said the law in question, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, conflicted with federal immigration policy.

Now, just for the record, let us review our founding fathers own words regarding immigration and naturalization.


The big lie, which Eric Holder and his puppet big media have been promoting is, that the federal government has supreme authority to deal with “immigration” and thus, exclusive authority over aliens who have invaded a State’s borders. They claim the exclusive power is found in Article VI, clause 2 of our federal Constitution which declares:


“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”


But the above “supremacy” only applies to those powers specifically enumerated and delegated by the States to the federal government in our written federal Constitution. And the irrefutable fact is, there is no power granted to Congress to regulate “immigration” mentioned in our Constitution! More importantly, a reading of the debates of our founding fathers involving our nation’s Rule of Naturalization in 1790 established beyond any doubt, the various States specifically avoided granting a sweeping power over immigration to Congress. And, the limited power granted is over “Naturalization” which is stated as follows: Congress shall have power:


To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization … __ Article 1, Section 8


The Constitution also states The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States (Article IV, Section 2)


NOTE: It is important to keep in mind that prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution citizenship was bestowed under state law. And upon the adoption of our existing Constitution, as stated above, the Citizens of each State became entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. However, once the Constitution was ratified, the federal government was granted exclusive authority To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization …


Now, let us determine our founding fathers use of the word “Naturalization” and if there is a clear distinction between the word “Naturalization” as distinguished from “immigration” which is not even mentioned in our Constitution!


REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [a 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


In addition, REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution expreses the very intentions for which the power [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 fact, the power delegated to Congress over Naturalization was to preclude a State from granting citizenship on easy terms and allowing undesirables to gain citizenship, and those citizens then moving to another state and upsetting local customs or become disruptive to the general welfare of the State. The founders wanted to make certain that those who obtained citizenship would be productive citizens and loyal to America! And thus, the power was granted to Congress To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization… But, no power was ever granted to our federal government over the various States original policing powers dealing with immigration and aliens who enter their borders, and especially not over aliens who have entered our country or a state illegally!.


The only expressed authority regarding “migration“ found in our Constitution is Article 1, Section 9 which declares:



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. And this provision was of course the precursor to ending slavery in America, and not a grant of power to the federal government to enter a state and meddle in a state‘s policing powers designed to promote its internal general welfare ___ a power specifically retained by the States!


From the above we learn that, “migration” is the act by which people move from one place to another, while “Naturalization” is the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. We also learn that the rules by which a foreign national may become a citizen of the united States have been entrusted to Congress and done so for a specific reason ___ to ensure the general welfare of the states against undesirable aliens becoming citizens. So, while Obama may pretend that the federal government has authority to determine immigration policy within a State‘s borders, our Constitution is very clear in granting Congress a power to establish how an alien may become a citizen of the united states which has nothing to do with the State of Arizona, or any State in the union, from dealing with aliens who have entered their state illegally. The power over this subject matter has never been relinquished by the various united States and remains in tact as it was prior to the adoption of our Constitution which declares in crystal clear language: 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


JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Now, just for the record, let us review our founding fathers own words regarding immigration and naturalization.

The snag here is Chamber of Com. v. Whiting didn’t address immigration or naturalization, it addressed only the issue of whether the Arizona statue preempted Federal legislation. Since the states were already authorized by Congress to require employers to check the status of employees, the punitive component of the law didn’t conflict with Congress’ intent. From the ruling:

As an alternative to its express preemption argument, the Chamber contends that Arizona’s law is impliedly preempted because it conflicts with federal law. At its broadest level, the Chamber’s argument is that Congress “intended the federal system to be exclusive,” and that any state system therefore necessarily conflicts with federal law. Brief for Petitioners 39. But Arizona’s procedures simply implement the sanctions that Congress expressly allowed Arizona to pursue through licensing laws. Given that Congress specifically preserved such authority for the States, it stands to reason that Congress did not intend to prevent the States from using appropriate tools to exercise that authority.

And here Arizona went the extra mile in ensuring that its law closely tracks IRCA’s provisions in all material respects. The Arizona law begins by adopting the federal definition of who qualifies as an “unauthorized alien.” Compare 8 U. S. C. §1324a(h)(3) (an “unauthorized alien” is an alien not “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” or not otherwise authorized by federal law to be employed) with Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23–211(11) (adopting the federal definition of “unauthorized alien”); see De Canas, 424 U. S., at 363 (finding no preemption of state law that operates “only with respect to individuals whom the Federal Government has already declared cannot work in this country”).

Not only that, the Arizona law expressly provides that state investigators must verify the work authorization of an allegedly unauthorized alien with the Federal Government, and “shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States.” §23–212(B). What is more, a state court “shall consider only the federal government’s determination” when deciding “whether an employee is an unauthorized alien.” §23–212(H) (emphasis added). As a result, there can by definition be no conflict between state and federal law as to worker authorization, either at the investigatory or adjudicatory stage.7

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-115.pdf

Arizona is thus acting as an authorized agent of the Federal government per a Federal statute in the context of Congress’ sole authority to grant such authorization. Arizona has contrived no policies or procedures of its own that conflict with Federal law.

The big lie, which Eric Holder and his puppet big media have been promoting is, that the federal government has supreme authority to deal with “immigration” and thus, exclusive authority over aliens who have invaded a State’s borders.

It’s not a ‘lie’ and Holder is indeed correct:

Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy. Except for questions regarding aliens' constitutional rights, the courts have generally found the immigration issue as nonjusticiable.

Immigration | LII / Legal Information Institute

The plenary power doctrine, therefor, authorizes only Congress and the Executive - not the Judiciary or the states – to determine immigration policy.

 

[johnwk]

It’s not a ‘lie’ and Holder is indeed correct:

Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy. Except for questions regarding aliens' constitutional rights, the courts have generally found the immigration issue as nonjusticiable.

Immigration | LII / Legal Information Institute

The plenary power doctrine, therefor, authorizes only Congress and the Executive - not the Judiciary or the states – to determine immigration policy.

Wrong! No power has been granted to the federal government to regulate "immigration" nor enter a state and meddle in a State’s authority to deal with aliens. I am not interested in judicial decisions to the contrary. I am only interested in the expressed intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and of our founding fathers to be enforced which is required under the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is summarized as follows:

“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling


As long as a person has not become a naturalized citizens as per federal law, each state retains the authority via the Tenth Amendment to deal with an alien to preserve the State’s general welfare. Of course, aliens may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without being afforded the equal protection and due process of a state’s statutory law which is enforceable by the 14th Amendment! But keep in mind aliens are not afforded “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States“ by the 14th Amendment until they in fact become “citizens’.

The 14th Amendment by its very language requires every State to make distinctions between “citizens“, and “any person” (which would include an alien), because an alien is not entitle to “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States“!


Arizona as well as every state in the union is free to deal with aliens in their own chosen way excepting of course they must abide by the restrictions stated in the 14th Amendment which requires a State’s statutorily defined due process to be afforded when dealing with an alien. Such rights would include, the right to a attorney, the right to a trial, the right to speak in one’s own defense during judicial proceedings, i.e., an alien is guaranteed a State’s established judicial proceedings which are designed to safeguard the legal rights of an individual, that is all.


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)

 

[johnwk]

The big lie, which Eric Holder and his puppet big media have been promoting is, that the federal government has supreme authority to deal with “immigration” and thus, exclusive authority over aliens who have invaded a State’s borders.

It’s not a ‘lie’ and Holder is indeed correct:

.

Gee, I thought by now you would have posted the documented intentions of our founding fathers to support your contentions.


JWK