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

[johnwk]

Strom Thurmond was a Dixiecrat who turned Republican. They both renounced their racist past.

Why do you hate American citizens who are people of color and are suffering the devastating consequences of illegal immigration?

 

[johnwk]

The federal government should secure the border and enforce immigration laws.

Should or "shall"?

Our federal government, by the terms of our Constitution, is commanded to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion” ___ Article 4, Section 4. Constitution of the United States

 

[johnwk]

It is Republicans like you that are attacking our democracy.

Democracy? You know-nothing nitwit.

And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they


"…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: "Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"


And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."

And finally, our Constitution, in crystal clear languages declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government . . . "



Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced directly by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership.

JWK

Our federal government, by the terms of our Constitution, is commanded to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion” ___ Article 4, Section 4. Constitution of the United States

 

[tahuyaman]

Should or "shall"?

Our federal government, by the terms of our Constitution, is commanded to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion” ___ Article 4, Section 4. Constitution of the United States

The bottom line is that our current federal government is failing to fulfill their obligation to secure the border and control entry into the country. They are placing our national security at risk.

 

[tahuyaman]

The federal government owns land that is not private property.

One can still trespass on that land.

 

[Correll]

The right wing fascists in the Republican Party are anti-America.

Because why? I just posted a number of policy points. Something there seems to have greatly offended you.


You talk shit, but you don't say why. Because you know my points are valid. Better you just talk shit then try to explain yourself and let people know what you really mean.

 

[tahuyaman]

Michigan Republicans have imploded. Half of their field is gone and the leader is someone who has been arrested for participating in the Jan 6 attack on the capitol.Whitmert is not rotten or evil. You are the one who is a fascist and represents evil.

What “Republican leader?”


Whitmer is a typical liberal elitist who abides by the concept of “rules for thee, but not for me.”

 

[pknopp]

A source within CBP who has worked in law enforcement for 20+ years – who is familiar with the process – who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity tells me DHS is bracing for as many as 500,000 migrants in the six weeks following Title 42 being lifted.

Well by'gosh, it must be true with sources like that.

 

[johnwk]

One can still trespass on that land.

And that is why the State of Texas needs to post "no trespassing" signs where federal lands end and Texas land begins. And then the Texas government can legally deal with the swarm of ticks and fleas invading Texas and devouring American citizens' resources.

 

[johnwk]

See Biden admin confirms talks about using Veterans Affairs resources to treat migrants at southern border

"Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas confirmed that his department is in talks to divert Veterans Affairs (VA) resources, doctors and nurses to help care for illegal immigrants Wednesday.

Mayorkas made the statement during testimony before the House Appropriations Committee. Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, pressed Mayorkas to answer whether the resources would be diverted as part of the DHS plan to address an expected spike in migration."


So, the Democrat Party Leadership first drops the citizenship requirement for public housing vouchers so America’s vets must now compete with illegal aliens for scare public housing, and now the Democrat Party Leadership is about to divert and spend public monies for the healthcare needs of hundreds of thousands of illegal entrants while our vets must shoulder the cost.

JWK

American citizens are being made into tax slaves to pay for the economic needs of millions of foreign nationals who have invaded the United States’ border.

 

[johnwk]

Because why? I just posted a number of policy points. Something there seems to have greatly offended you.


You talk shit, but you don't say why. Because you know my points are valid. Better you just talk shit then try to explain yourself and let people know what you really mean.

Trolls and paid provocateurs will always "talk shit" in order to disrupt any productive discussions.

JWK

Today's Democrat Party Leadership is infested with Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the same kind that took over Cuba and now rule over the people with an iron fist!

 

[dudmuck]

Yo! Isn't that Joe Biden alongside Robert Byrd a former member of the KKK?


View attachment 670872



.

JWK


The Democrat Party Leadership has been angry, stupid and obnoxious ever since the Republican Party Leadership freed democrat owned slaves and put the KKK out of business. ___ Author unknown

 

[bodecea]

.
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.

What's taking so long on their secession?

 

[GWV5903]

According to you

1. The act of naturalizing, or the state of being naturalized; specifically, in law, the act of receiving an alien into the condition, and investing him with the rights and privileges, of a natural subject or citizen.
2. The act or process of naturalizing, esp. of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native or citizen; also, the state of being naturalized.

according to its definition…

 

[johnwk]

1. The act of naturalizing, or the state of being naturalized; specifically, in law, the act of receiving an alien into the condition, and investing him with the rights and privileges, of a natural subject or citizen.
2. The act or process of naturalizing, esp. of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native or citizen; also, the state of being naturalized.

according to its definition…

With regard to the language of the constitution see:
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)


And, with reference to the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization, our very own Supreme Court summarized its 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)


Additionally, 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.


PAGE 1148

It is also interesting to note what the power of
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

Naturalization involves the process and steps 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.

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.

 

[GWV5903]

With regard to the language of the constitution see:
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)


And, with reference to the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization, our very own Supreme Court summarized its 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)


Additionally, 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.


PAGE 1148

It is also interesting to note what the power of
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

Naturalization involves the process and steps 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.

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.

Understood, the definition remains the same, sad how our government finds a way out of everything…

 

[YoursTruly]

I dont define words, bro
Naturalization : the admittance of a foreigner to the citizenship of a country

Not the same as immigration.

 

[AZGAL]

Obama sued Arizona for trying to enforce federal immigration laws the federal government refused to enforce, so Obama sued them and won


States should now sue the Federal government for not enforcing their own laws in their state.

Then take it all the way to SCOTUS and see how things go.

June 25, 2012

Supreme Court has split verdict on Arizona immigration law​

By James Vicini, Jonathan Stempel

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants on Monday but struck down three other parts of the state law, delivering a mixed ruling for the Obama administration on federal power to enforce immigration statutes in the United States.

 

[johnwk]

Not the same as immigration.

They just love to make crap up. Don't they?

And I'm still waiting for one in our open border crowd to step up and explain why they are so intent on defending the flooding of the United States with millions upon millions of other countries poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminals, and especially so when we are having trouble helping to feed, house and care for our own needy citizens?

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, subdue and bring to its knees a prosperous and freedom loving country than by flooding it with deadly drugs, an inflated currency and the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminal populations of other countries.

 

[YoursTruly]

They just love to make crap up. Don't they?

And I'm still waiting for one in our open border crowd to step up and explain why they are so intent on defending the flooding of the United States with millions upon millions of other countries poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminals, and especially so when we are having trouble helping to feed, house and care for our own needy citizens?

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, subdue and bring to its knees a prosperous and freedom loving country than by flooding it with deadly drugs, an inflated currency and the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminal populations of other countries.

I have yet to see any of them actually take up for the open door policy. They're constantly just trying to discredit the rights push to close the border and research every migrant who crosses before they cross.

This is the trick. They know that open borders causes a lot of harm to our economy, it increases government spending, it devalues American labor. (legal migrants cause the same effects, btw)
So in essence, all they're doing is expressing their party loyalty on an issue they know is wrong. They're so loyal, they have to side with their party.
It's the same as a liberal who could never have an abortion, because they know it's wrong. But because their party stands for abortion, they're compelled to just follow along with what ever their party leaders are pushing.

It wasn't that long ago, during Clinton, that the democrats were pro border security. They're the ones who come up with the idea of fences. Somewhere along the way, the right decided to be the pro border security party. The left couldn't just agree with the right on this issue, so they flip flopped just to oppose the right.

After all, we can't have both sides agreeing with each others. (Except for spending, debt ceilings, MIC, NDAA, FISA 702, Patriot Act, etc etc etc)