.
SEE: Why Texas cannot declare an ‘invasion’ at the border
Well, isn’t this special? The Hill confidently asserts “There are legal and practical reasons why states cannot take immigration matters into their own hands. It is well-settled law that immigration enforcement is the jurisdiction of the federal government.”
The truth is, our federal constitution delegates to Congress a limited power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, and nowhere in the federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear.
The allowance to establish a uniform rule of naturalization is nothing more than providing the steps by which a foreign national may become a citizen of the United States. It is not a delegation of a power by which a State, and people therein, have surrendered their inalienable and preexisting right to self-defense, and that would include the preexisting power to protect against an invasion of its borders by foreign nationals.
In fact it is expressly stated in our federal Constitution that:
“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.”
So, there is a specific exception clearly indicating a state may act on its own if invaded, or imminent danger exists as will not admit of delay.
Surely this wording preserves the preexisting power of a state and people therein, to defend against an invasion and/or other such “imminent danger”, and especially so if the federal government neglects and actually refused to be obedient to the terms of the Constitution and its guarantee that the federal government “shall” protect each of the States against “Invasion”.
The fact is, Congress cannot by legislative acts delegate enforceable powers to itself which the States have not expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution. And, nowhere in the federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear. And so, The Hill’s assertion that Texas cannot declare an “invasion” at its border and protect itself from said invasion, is an assertion not substantiated by the text of the Constitution nor its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
And with reference to the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization, our very own Supreme Court summarized this limited power as follows: “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)
Finally, a review of the CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 confirms the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization is very limited indeed and most certainly does not include an all-encompassing power over “immigration” nor a power to prohibit the various states from protecting against invasions.
.
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.
SEE: Why Texas cannot declare an ‘invasion’ at the border
Well, isn’t this special? The Hill confidently asserts “There are legal and practical reasons why states cannot take immigration matters into their own hands. It is well-settled law that immigration enforcement is the jurisdiction of the federal government.”
The truth is, our federal constitution delegates to Congress a limited power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, and nowhere in the federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear.
The allowance to establish a uniform rule of naturalization is nothing more than providing the steps by which a foreign national may become a citizen of the United States. It is not a delegation of a power by which a State, and people therein, have surrendered their inalienable and preexisting right to self-defense, and that would include the preexisting power to protect against an invasion of its borders by foreign nationals.
In fact it is expressly stated in our federal Constitution that:
“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.”
So, there is a specific exception clearly indicating a state may act on its own if invaded, or imminent danger exists as will not admit of delay.
Surely this wording preserves the preexisting power of a state and people therein, to defend against an invasion and/or other such “imminent danger”, and especially so if the federal government neglects and actually refused to be obedient to the terms of the Constitution and its guarantee that the federal government “shall” protect each of the States against “Invasion”.
The fact is, Congress cannot by legislative acts delegate enforceable powers to itself which the States have not expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution. And, nowhere in the federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear. And so, The Hill’s assertion that Texas cannot declare an “invasion” at its border and protect itself from said invasion, is an assertion not substantiated by the text of the Constitution nor its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
And with reference to the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization, our very own Supreme Court summarized this limited power as follows: “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)
Finally, a review of the CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 confirms the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization is very limited indeed and most certainly does not include an all-encompassing power over “immigration” nor a power to prohibit the various states from protecting against invasions.
.
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.
