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

[pknopp]

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?

You say it would be a false claim but look at what is happening in Mexico with the drug Lords? How do you prove one is not concerned over that?

 

[pknopp]

Has anyone ever been charged with that?

A misdemeanor for being here illegally? Yes.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

I understand, but naturalization is a by-product of immigration.

 

[Hellokitty]

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

Sounds like Texas is declaring all those crossing illegally under removal proceedings.
It's honestly unbelievable anyone would try and defend the right for 1000's illegally crossing the boarder many aided by the cartels.
As for Abbott this is nothing more than another political stunt like the 3 busses of illegals to DC or wherever. Neither side is willing to do anything to solve illegal immigration. At this point we should be thankful the majority of illegals do assimilate.

 

[Billy_Bob]

.
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.

Thank you. That is the way I interpret it as well. Texas can and has the right to declare itself being invaded. Biden has abrogated his duties and needs to be charged with Treason. The fact he is not enforcing our laws as written is also a criminal issue. HE has no authority to write his own laws as he has done. The Hill is incorrect in its assessment.

 

[Correll]

You say it would be a false claim but look at what is happening in Mexico with the drug Lords? How do you prove one is not concerned over that?

Who cares how? I'm asking a question about if the process you describe is abused.

I mean, you're serious about what you typed, right? You're not just playing a game where you ask illegals,

"Hey buddy, you're here for asylum, right? wink, wink, nod, nod. you are? Good, go right in, NEXT!!!"

 

[Correll]

A misdemeanor for being here illegally? Yes.

NO, for lying in the application for asylum process. You seem to have trouble with the idea. Illegal immigration is one crime. You are describing something that is supposed to be different.

Lying, to try to abuse that system, to get into the county, "legally" but based on lies, and abusing the system, would be a different action. Has anyone every been charged for that?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Under our laws, you must present yourself at a border check point to claim asylum. It does not state that you must be allowed into the country. Every person coming over at any other point is an illegal invader and can be returned to Mexico.

 

[pknopp]

NO, for lying in the application for asylum process. You seem to have trouble with the idea. Illegal immigration is one crime. You are describing something that is supposed to be different.

Lying, to try to abuse that system, to get into the county, "legally" but based on lies, and abusing the system, would be a different action. Has anyone every been charged for that?

I don't operate the system. As I said, I imagine the result would be you are charged with the misdemeanor and order deported.

 

[pknopp]

Under our laws, you must present yourself at a border check point to claim asylum. It does not state that you must be allowed into the country. Every person coming over at any other point is an illegal invader and can be returned to Mexico.

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.

 

[whitehall]

The Supreme Court is declared irrelevant but a Constitutional issue judged by "The Hill" is set as a precedent. Sometimes you gotta wonder.

 

[Orangecat]

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.

That place is Mexico. No new taxes or construction necessary.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

SO you say we can just ignore the laws... You fuckers are lawless POS... and this is why America is collapsing..

 

[pknopp]

SO you say we can just ignore the laws... You fuckers are lawless POS... and this is why America is collapsing..

What I said is that you are full of crap in what you claim.

 

[johnwk]

I understand, but naturalization is a by-product of immigration.

But nothing. Congress has not been delegated a power to force upon any state a swarm of unwanted foreign nationals i.e., immigrants who are not citizens of the United States.

JWK

 

[pknopp]

But nothing. Congress has not been delegated a power to force upon any state a swarm of unwanted foreign nationals i.e., immigrants who are not citizens of the United States.

JWK

Bus them. Bus them to Ohio and then Ohio can bus them to Texas and then Texas can bus them to Virginia where Virginia can bus to Texas.

Or Texas can pass mandatory e-verify and most will leave on their own.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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



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

What percent of Illegals Aliens seek asylum?

What are they seeking asylum from??

 

[pknopp]

What percent of Illegals Aliens seek asylum?

What are they seeking asylum from??

I have no idea how many do or all the reasons why.

 

[TNHarley]

But nothing. Congress has not been delegated a power to force upon any state a swarm of unwanted foreign nationals i.e., immigrants who are not citizens of the United States.

JWK

Never said they did.

 

[Batcat]

Texas can enforce it’s border if it secedes.

The way things are going in this nation it wouldn’t surprise me if Texas did just that. It might not be legal but it could still happen.

Perhaps the Democrats will wake up and realize that Biden’s Reverse Midas Touch could doom their Party to second place status for the next decade and decide to impeach Joe Biden. Unfortunately that would put Giggles Kamala in the Oval Office and she is far from a good leader.

Of course after the Midterms there is an excellent chance the Republicans will impeach Joe and if they do enough Senate Democrats may decide to go along and Joe will be booted from office.

If so you can expect Hillary to become the Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.

Texas Could Vote to Secede From U.S. in 2023 as GOP Pushes for Referendum

The Texas GOP's platform calls for a referendum so Texans can vote on "whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation."

www.newsweek.com