The Hill says Texas cannot declare an “invasion” at its border

[pknopp]

Actually it is criminal invasion.

A misdemeanor.

 

[blackhawk]

If Congress would get off it’s increasingly useless collective ass and do it’s job in regards to immigration and border security there would be no reason for any state to have to declare anything.

 

[TNHarley]

And you don't use proper references. The meaning of "naturalization" as found in the Constitution is to be determined from the context in which it was used by those who framed and helped to ratify the Constitution.

According to Alexander Hamilton, Naturalization referred to "becoming a citizen" which, by any logical outcome, would mean immigration.
Not to mention, immigration is only a couple hundred years old.

 

[Missourian]

Sure but that is not what was claimed. I'll wait for the proposal to raise taxes to build a place to hold all these people.

Arizona style tent jail.

 

[pknopp]

Arizona style tent jail.

You won't even pay for that. Health care, food, etc. People come up with all of these solutions they know will not happen to cover for the ones they know should happen but also will not.

 

[Missourian]

According to Alexander Hamilton, Naturalization referred to "becoming a citizen" which, by any logical outcome, would mean immigration.
Not to mention, immigration is only a couple hundred years old.

Yes..but ... immigration means presenting oneself at a port of entry and making a claim for asylum.

Invasion is illegally crossing the border into the US without any attempt to notify US authorities.

 

[pknopp]

Yes..but ... immigration means presenting oneself at a port of entry and making a claim for asylum.

Our laws state you can arrive here even illegally and apply for asylum. But you know this by now.

Invasion is illegally crossing the border into the US without any attempt to notify US authorities.

Sure, but if you are seeking asylum our laws say you can do that. (If you apply within one year)

 

[Missourian]

Our laws state you can arrive here even illegally and apply for asylum. But you know this by now

Show me.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

They can not violate the Constitution. No one can be displaced without a hearing to determine their eligibility to be here.

You would also be violating the law which states it is legal for one to arrive here to seek asylum.

When they enter the country without going through the proper procedures they are breaking the law.

 

[Missourian]

Sure, but if you are seeking asylum our laws say you can do that. (If you apply within one year)

Then it's time to change that law.

Let the Democrats argue for allowing illegals a year to declare their intent to seek asylum.

That is a political loser.

 

[pknopp]

Show me.

I've posted it likely 50 times.

Can I Still Apply for Asylum Even if I Am in the United States Illegally?​

Yes. You may apply for asylum with USCIS regardless of your immigration status if:

You are not currently in removal proceedings

You file an asylum application within 1 year of arriving to the United States or demonstrate that you are within an exception to that rule.

Questions and Answers: Affirmative Asylum Eligibility and Applications

 

[pknopp]

Then it's time to change that law.

Let the Democrats argue for allowing illegals a year to declare their intent to seek asylum.

That is a political loser.

Work to change it but stop the whining until then.

 

[johnwk]

According to Alexander Hamilton, Naturalization referred to "becoming a citizen" which, by any logical outcome, would mean immigration.
Not to mention, immigration is only a couple hundred years old.

Did you miss what the court stated in the PASSENGER CASES, 48 U. S. 283 (1849) with regard to naturalization?

“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.”


This is verified 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 finally, 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

CONCLUSION:
Naturalization involves the process by which a foreign national, who is in our country, is granted citizenship. Immigration involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States.

 

[johnwk]

When they enter the country without going through the proper procedures they are breaking the law.

And if Texas posts No Trespassing Signs along the border and anyone violates the posting, they can be forced off the property at gun point if necessary or taken into custody and prosecuted.

 

[Correll]

They can not violate the Constitution. No one can be displaced without a hearing to determine their eligibility to be here.

You would also be violating the law which states it is legal for one to arrive here to seek asylum.

What is the penalty for falsely claiming that you are seeking asylum? Or lying in your claim for "asylum"?

 

[pknopp]

What is the penalty for falsely claiming that you are seeking asylum? Or lying in your claim for "asylum"?

I'm not sure how one would do that. Could you explain? Your claim may be denied but that wouldn't mean you lied.

 

[Correll]

I've posted it likely 50 times.

Can I Still Apply for Asylum Even if I Am in the United States Illegally?​

Yes. You may apply for asylum with USCIS regardless of your immigration status if:

You are not currently in removal proceedings

You file an asylum application within 1 year of arriving to the United States or demonstrate that you are within an exception to that rule.

Questions and Answers: Affirmative Asylum Eligibility and Applications

What is the penalty if you claim to have only been in the state for a month, so you can claim asylum, but it is discovered that you lied and had been in the country for more than a year?

 

[pknopp]

What is the penalty if you claim to have only been in the state for a month, so you can claim asylum, but it is discovered that you lied and had been in the country for more than a year?

I'd guess it's a misdemeanor just as it would be for arriving here illegally without applying.

 

[Correll]

I'm not sure how one would do that. Could you explain? Your claim may be denied but that wouldn't mean you lied.

You say you are here because you fear evul oppression in your homeland, but really, you just want economic opportunity.

That would be a false claim.

What is the punishment for that?

 

[Correll]

I'd guess it's a misdemeanor just as it would be for arriving here illegally without applying.

Has anyone ever been charged with that?