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

[johnwk]

TheHill is an Opinion Site.

Are you sure about that? I thought it was a public relations group available to the highest bidders.

JWK

Today’s Fifth Column media ___ MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, in addition to Facebook, Twitter, Politico, Snopes, Fact Check… ETC., and countless Yellow Journalists who are socialist revolutionaries ___ make Russia’s old Pravda, [an organ of the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union] look like propaganda amateurs.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The State of Texas and its citizens can do a whole lot, including patrolling the border and returning any foreign nationals who cross it back to where they came from or even lock them up. All they need to do is post No Trespassing Signs along the border. Blood River

Roaches Check In, But They Don't Check Out

Old-School Texans would post the Old-School sign TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

A misdemeanor.

A Capital Offense, Pardoned by Traitors on Capitol Hill

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So many people are now talking about this. Here, certainly, but also mention of a possible Hillary re-run in news articles, a steady drip. The Dems just don't have a deep bench! Apart from the hopeless Biden and Harris, who have they got? Gavin Newsom is clearly running, and what a bad start he just made. And the rest ---- something very wrong with them, for the most part, a fake Mexican who is actually Irish, another who is openly homosexual --- they really just don't have anyone plausible to run.

So it has to be Hillary.

Child's Play

Chucky Schumer

 

[struth]

They can declare whatever they want. They just can't do much about it. Now Texas could pass a law making e-verify mandatory for every employer with strong enforcement behind it but won't.

that won’t keep people from coming across the border, to go to sanctuary cities, once released from the xiden admin …where they can purchase on the black martlet a US citizens or legal residences ID

 

[Correll]

It's not like it isn't deserving.



I don't care.

Every other nation in the world is allowed to have policies to serve their interests of their citizens. But not US.

Thanks to the way that the left has become anti-American, you are more concerned with the interests of the illegal immigrants, than your fellow Americans.


That is the break down of our system, and teh decline of our culture. We ARE being invaded, and you are on teh side of the invaders.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Actually it's illegal immigration

"Illegal immigration" is not immigration

 

[Couchpotato]

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.

They could just start shooting them. Bet that would curb the border crossings rather quickly.

 

[johnwk]

Arizona style tent jail.

Who was it that made inmates wear pink jail garb? We need to re-elect sheriff Joe Arpaio

 

[Couchpotato]

pknopp

You disagree that if they started shooting them for trespassing that the border crossings in Texas would be greatly reduced rather quickly?

 

[struth]

Biden doesn't make the determination.

what? who do you think is in charge of enforcing federal law?

 

[johnwk]

Jonathan Turley is wrong on this one!​

Johathan Turley was just on FoxNews and asserted Texas does not have a case regarding the invasion at their border. His argument was the word “invasion” as it appears in the Constitution, is not that which is taking place at the Texas border.

What Turley overlooks is the full wording of the provision in question, Article 1, Section 10:

“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.”

“or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”.​

That wording was intended to cover such emergencies as is now occurring at the Texas border. I think Turley simply made a mistake in focusing only on the word “invasion”.

I personally like Turley . . . no disrespect intended on my part!

Fox News needs to address this discrepancy.

JWK

What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

 

[Couchpotato]

pknopp

Im confused. You're disagreeing with your disagreement?

 

[johnwk]

Fox News needs to contact Bernadette Lancelin in Texas, and have her on as a guest! She was spot on several years back!​

.



.

Any thoughts?

JWK

 

[johnwk]

pknopp

Im confused. You're disagreeing with your disagreement?

I think you nailed it!

 

[tahuyaman]

Remember Rachel Maddow's idiotic fake melt-down over the stiuation on our southern border durin the Trump administration? A situation which was much safer and calm than it is today


Has she addressed current events in a similar way?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Fox News needs to contact Bernadette Lancelin in Texas, and have her on as a guest! She was spot on several years back!​

.



.

Any thoughts?

JWK

Preach, sister!!! PREACH!!!

 

[busybee01]

.
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.

Unarmed illegals crossing the border is not a invasion. The federal government should declare war on Texas and send federal troops to stop it.

 

[busybee01]

Texas to The Hill

Washington to Texas.

You are under arrest.

 

[busybee01]

The State of Texas and its citizens can do a whole lot, including patrolling the border and returning any foreign nationals who cross it back to where they came from or even lock them up. All they need to do is post No Trespassing Signs along the border.

The federal government should arrest them.