The federal government has NO AUTHORITY to interdict, detain and deport. NONE.

[Skylar]

4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "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," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the - day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

Thomas Jefferson

The Kentucky Resolution was condemned by 10 other State Legislatures at the time and opposed by everyone from Hamilton to Washington. Even if you follow the 'compact theory' of the constittuion, 2 of 13 does not a compact make.

As for where in the constitution the federal government is granted authority over issues of immigration, that would be Article 1, Section 8:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

[Contumacious]

Consequently, the states are subject to Federal immigration law, the states have no authority whatsoever to interfere with that law, and the states have no authority to 'grant' citizenship to immigrants, particularly those undocumented.

REPEATING

There is NOT supposed to be federal immigration law.

The states still have the right to confer their ----not US ---citizenship upon whomever.


US citizenship can only be granted by the federal government.

.

 

[Skylar]

Consequently, the states are subject to Federal immigration law, the states have no authority whatsoever to interfere with that law, and the states have no authority to 'grant' citizenship to immigrants, particularly those undocumented.

REPEATING

There is NOT supposed to be federal immigration law.

The states still have the right to confer their ----not US ---citizenship upon whomever.


US citizenship can only be granted by the federal government.

.

Article 1, Section 8 says otherwise. Rules of naturalization are clearly within the purview of Congress per the constitution. Which immigration falls under. The opinion you offered in the OP was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the founders, including Washington. And even Madison who wrote the Virginia version of the same resolution rejected the idea that a State can nullify a federal law.

 

[Contumacious]

Consequently, the states are subject to Federal immigration law, the states have no authority whatsoever to interfere with that law, and the states have no authority to 'grant' citizenship to immigrants, particularly those undocumented.

REPEATING

There is NOT supposed to be federal immigration law.

The states still have the right to confer their ----not US ---citizenship upon whomever.


US citizenship can only be granted by the federal government.

.

Article 1, Section 8 says otherwise. Rules of naturalization are clearly within the purview of Congress per the constitution. Which immigration falls under. The opinion you offered in the OP was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the founders, including Washington. And even Madison who wrote the Virginia version of the same resolution rejected the idea that a State can nullify a federal law.

SHUT THE FUCK UP.

"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right."
http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm
James Madison

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Consequently, the states are subject to Federal immigration law, the states have no authority whatsoever to interfere with that law, and the states have no authority to 'grant' citizenship to immigrants, particularly those undocumented.

REPEATING

There is NOT supposed to be federal immigration law.

The states still have the right to confer their ----not US ---citizenship upon whomever.


US citizenship can only be granted by the federal government.

.

Repeating your ignorance doesn't convert it into coherence.

A resident of a state is not -- on that basis -- a citizen of our republic. A non US citizen is subject to deportation from the country. The fact that dipshits like you don't like that sovereign power of the federal government doesn't make it cease to be the actual state of facts.

,

 

[Contumacious]

Consequently, the states are subject to Federal immigration law, the states have no authority whatsoever to interfere with that law, and the states have no authority to 'grant' citizenship to immigrants, particularly those undocumented.

REPEATING

There is NOT supposed to be federal immigration law.

The states still have the right to confer their ----not US ---citizenship upon whomever.


US citizenship can only be granted by the federal government.

.

Repeating your ignorance doesn't convert it into coherence.

A resident of a state is not -- on that basis -- a citizen of our republic. A non US citizen is subject to deportation from the country. The fact that dipshits like you don't like that sovereign power of the federal government doesn't make it cease to be the actual state of facts.

,

Listen shit for brains, that's what I said. Let me know what your native language is and I will translate.

The State of Texas , for example, can only confer TEXAS --- not US citizenship. At the time the Constitution was ratified - 1787 - the states were SOVEREIGN ---S-O-V-E-R-E-I-G-N . Read the Supreme Court case posted earlier.


.

 

[Skylar]

Consequently, the states are subject to Federal immigration law, the states have no authority whatsoever to interfere with that law, and the states have no authority to 'grant' citizenship to immigrants, particularly those undocumented.

REPEATING

There is NOT supposed to be federal immigration law.

The states still have the right to confer their ----not US ---citizenship upon whomever.


US citizenship can only be granted by the federal government.

.

Article 1, Section 8 says otherwise. Rules of naturalization are clearly within the purview of Congress per the constitution. Which immigration falls under. The opinion you offered in the OP was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the founders, including Washington. And even Madison who wrote the Virginia version of the same resolution rejected the idea that a State can nullify a federal law.

SHUT THE FUCK UP.

"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right."
James Madison

Until Madison himself was president. At which point he made it clear that he never intended the Virginia Resolution to infer that the States can nullify laws. Worse, 10 of 13 State legislatures at the time condemned the Kentucky/Virginia Resolutions. As did Hamilton and George Washington himself.

Its clear that the view expressed by Jefferson and Madison did not reflect the view of the founders as a whole, as their resolutions were condemned by a ratio of about 5 to 1.

Article 1 section 8 clearly gives congress authority over naturalization. You can ignore it. But you can't make us ignore it.

 

[Skylar]

Consequently, the states are subject to Federal immigration law, the states have no authority whatsoever to interfere with that law, and the states have no authority to 'grant' citizenship to immigrants, particularly those undocumented.

REPEATING

There is NOT supposed to be federal immigration law.

The states still have the right to confer their ----not US ---citizenship upon whomever.


US citizenship can only be granted by the federal government.

.

Repeating your ignorance doesn't convert it into coherence.

A resident of a state is not -- on that basis -- a citizen of our republic. A non US citizen is subject to deportation from the country. The fact that dipshits like you don't like that sovereign power of the federal government doesn't make it cease to be the actual state of facts.

,

Listen shit for brains, that's what I said. Let me know what your native language is and I will translate.

The State of Texas , for example, can only confer TEXAS --- not US citizenship. At the time the Constitution was ratified - 1787 - the states were SOVEREIGN ---S-O-V-E-R-E-I-G-N . Read the Supreme Court case posted earlier.


.

The 14th amendment makes it ridiculously clear that those who were born or naturalized in the US were US citizens. And as naturalization is the exclusive purview of the federal government as per Article 1 Section 8, that means that the States cannot confer US citizenship.

As the United States is the States and territories, anyone in violation of federal law is subject to federal jurisdiction. Including those who violate our immigration law. That a State has granted 'state citizenship' has no relevance to Federal laws....unless the Federal laws say that it does.

Which they don't. Nor ever have.

 

[Contumacious]

Consequently, the states are subject to Federal immigration law, the states have no authority whatsoever to interfere with that law, and the states have no authority to 'grant' citizenship to immigrants, particularly those undocumented.

REPEATING

There is NOT supposed to be federal immigration law.

The states still have the right to confer their ----not US ---citizenship upon whomever.


US citizenship can only be granted by the federal government.

.

Article 1, Section 8 says otherwise. Rules of naturalization are clearly within the purview of Congress per the constitution. Which immigration falls under. The opinion you offered in the OP was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the founders, including Washington. And even Madison who wrote the Virginia version of the same resolution rejected the idea that a State can nullify a federal law.

SHUT THE FUCK UP.

"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right."
James Madison

Until Madison himself was president. At which point he made it clear that he never intended the Virginia Resolution to infer that the States can nullify laws. Worse, 10 of 13 State legislatures at the time condemned the Kentucky/Virginia Resolutions. As did Hamilton and George Washington himself.

Its clear that the view expressed by Jefferson and Madison did not reflect the view of the founders as a whole, as their resolutions were condemned by a ratio of about 5 to 1.

Article 1 section 8 clearly gives congress authority over naturalization. You can ignore it. But you can't make us ignore it.

BULLSHIT.


We had no immigration laws after the alien and sedition act expired in 1800.that was the case until the mid 1880's when the presence of Chinese folks in our midst presented an "emergency".(wink, wink)

In case of an "emergency" as when Chinese are marrying white women and competing against white Europeans for employment in the California mines then racist Supreme Court justices will find that authority need not be specifically enumerated but that it can be usurped. "the power of exclusion of foreigners [is] an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution."


The previous case law stating that the individual states RETAINED the authority to control the treatment of aliens within their borders was summarily overruled .

Now you see the reason Jonathan Gruber referred to Americans as completely stupid. According to the sheeple "
"Rights are special privileges the government gives you."


.

 

[Contumacious]

This is a point many have made. The tenth amendment gives the states, not the feds, authority to deport illegals. So how did the feds get it? They just grabbed it and the states let them.

States need to stand up and start deporting illegals. The constitution is on their side.

EXACTLY..

Each state has the right to prevent aliens from coming in . The States are ---supposed to be --- sovereign.


.

 

[Contumacious]

Consequently, the states are subject to Federal immigration law, the states have no authority whatsoever to interfere with that law, and the states have no authority to 'grant' citizenship to immigrants, particularly those undocumented.

REPEATING

There is NOT supposed to be federal immigration law.

The states still have the right to confer their ----not US ---citizenship upon whomever.


US citizenship can only be granted by the federal government.

.

Article 1, Section 8 says otherwise. Rules of naturalization are clearly within the purview of Congress per the constitution. Which immigration falls under. The opinion you offered in the OP was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the founders, including Washington. And even Madison who wrote the Virginia version of the same resolution rejected the idea that a State can nullify a federal law.

SHUT THE FUCK UP.

"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right."
James Madison

Until Madison himself was president. At which point he made it clear that he never intended the Virginia Resolution to infer that the States can nullify laws. Worse, 10 of 13 State legislatures at the time condemned the Kentucky/Virginia Resolutions. As did Hamilton and George Washington himself.

Its clear that the view expressed by Jefferson and Madison did not reflect the view of the founders as a whole, as their resolutions were condemned by a ratio of about 5 to 1.

Article 1 section 8 clearly gives congress authority over naturalization. You can ignore it. But you can't make us ignore it.

BULLSHIT.


We had no immigration laws after the alien and sedition act expired in 1800.that was the case until the mid 1880's when the presence of Chinese folks in our midst presented an "emergency".(wink, wink)

In case of an "emergency" as when Chinese are marrying white women and competing against white Europeans for employment in the California mines then racist Supreme Court justices will find that authority need not be specifically enumerated but that it can be usurped. "the power of exclusion of foreigners [is] an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution."


The previous case law stating that the individual states RETAINED the authority to control the treatment of aliens within their borders was summarily overruled .

Now you see the reason Jonathan Gruber referred to Americans as completely stupid. According to the sheeple "
"Rights are special privileges the government gives you."


.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Consequently, the states are subject to Federal immigration law, the states have no authority whatsoever to interfere with that law, and the states have no authority to 'grant' citizenship to immigrants, particularly those undocumented.

REPEATING

There is NOT supposed to be federal immigration law.

The states still have the right to confer their ----not US ---citizenship upon whomever.


US citizenship can only be granted by the federal government.

.

Repeating your ignorance doesn't convert it into coherence.

A resident of a state is not -- on that basis -- a citizen of our republic. A non US citizen is subject to deportation from the country. The fact that dipshits like you don't like that sovereign power of the federal government doesn't make it cease to be the actual state of facts.

,

Listen shit for brains, that's what I said. Let me know what your native language is and I will translate.

The State of Texas , for example, can only confer TEXAS --- not US citizenship. At the time the Constitution was ratified - 1787 - the states were SOVEREIGN ---S-O-V-E-R-E-I-G-N . Read the Supreme Court case posted earlier.


.

I cannot be responsible for your general incoherence.

Fuck, girl. You can't even fart intelligibly.

But let me clear stuff up for you.

1. You are a lowlife piece of useless crap.

2. You don't understand diddly dog -- about anything.

3. The Federal government (i.e.. Congress ALONE) DOES have the Constitutional authority to grant naturalization; and consequently, a mindless piece of useless shit like you needs to learn to grasp that the Federal Government DOES have the authority to deport aliens. It's what flows from the denial of naturalization, you cretinous lummox.

4. See number 1, above.

5. Go fuck yourself you dumbass motherfucker.

6. See number 4, above.