See:
www.kxan.com
It’s about frickin time! The unfortunate truth is, the American people have been led to believe that our federal government has been delegated an exclusive power to regulate immigration.
What may come as a surprise to many is, nowhere in the text of our constitution is the word “immigration” to be found! As a matter of fact, a review of historical documentation with regard to immigration confirms the limited power delegated to our federal government by our constitution is to set a uniform rule for “naturalization” of foreign nationals who have already immigrated to one of the United States and wish to become a citizen of the United States.
There is nothing to even remotely suggest from historical documentation that our federal government has been delegated an exclusive power to regulate immigration or force upon an unwilling state a flood of foreign nationals.
So, just what was the specific intention for our framers and those who ratified our constitution to delegate a power to Congress to establish a “. . . uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . ”[Article 1, Section 8, Clause, 4]? And, exactly what does the power encompass?
According to our very own Supreme Court, “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). And, the Court’s statement is confirmed by the following documentation!
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 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 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
And, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790
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.
So, as it turns out, allowing the kind of foreigners who are now invading our borders to stay here should be considered as a “high misdemeanor” which happens to be an impeachable offense!
CONCLUSION:
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!
Now, with respect to Texas protecting itself from the consequences of an ongoing tsunami of unwanted foreign nationals flooding across its border, our Constitution states the following:
“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.” ___ Article 1, Section 10.
So, it is perfectly within the text of our federal Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, that the current situation in Texas will not admit of delay, and that its Governor and Legislature not only has authority to protect against the current invasion of unwanted foreign nationals flooding across its borders, but it would be a dereliction of duty of both to not take action to stop the invasion in its tracks.
JWK
“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
New bill would allow Texas to deport migrants
Texas lawmakers on Thursday gave initial approval to legislation that would create a new state-level offense for illegally entering the state from a foreign nation and allow officers to order migra…
www.kxan.com
It’s about frickin time! The unfortunate truth is, the American people have been led to believe that our federal government has been delegated an exclusive power to regulate immigration.
What may come as a surprise to many is, nowhere in the text of our constitution is the word “immigration” to be found! As a matter of fact, a review of historical documentation with regard to immigration confirms the limited power delegated to our federal government by our constitution is to set a uniform rule for “naturalization” of foreign nationals who have already immigrated to one of the United States and wish to become a citizen of the United States.
There is nothing to even remotely suggest from historical documentation that our federal government has been delegated an exclusive power to regulate immigration or force upon an unwilling state a flood of foreign nationals.
So, just what was the specific intention for our framers and those who ratified our constitution to delegate a power to Congress to establish a “. . . uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . ”[Article 1, Section 8, Clause, 4]? And, exactly what does the power encompass?
According to our very own Supreme Court, “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). And, the Court’s statement is confirmed by the following documentation!
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 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 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
And, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790
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.
So, as it turns out, allowing the kind of foreigners who are now invading our borders to stay here should be considered as a “high misdemeanor” which happens to be an impeachable offense!
CONCLUSION:
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!
Now, with respect to Texas protecting itself from the consequences of an ongoing tsunami of unwanted foreign nationals flooding across its border, our Constitution states the following:
“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.” ___ Article 1, Section 10.
So, it is perfectly within the text of our federal Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, that the current situation in Texas will not admit of delay, and that its Governor and Legislature not only has authority to protect against the current invasion of unwanted foreign nationals flooding across its borders, but it would be a dereliction of duty of both to not take action to stop the invasion in its tracks.
JWK
“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
