Someone else challenged the amount of money in question. I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
"In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the
immigration commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a
cost of 75 cents per inspection (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808. I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response. So, let us see how much
authority the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
"Congress shall have the power to ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution
...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
Now let us get to the facts:
1) Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
2) Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed. The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
3) In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
"22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer
Japan that journeyed from
China to
San Francisco, arriving in 1875.
[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of
habeas corpus, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of
Japan, which had already left on its trip to China.
[2]
The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the
United States Supreme Court.
[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.
[9]
Supreme Court decision[edit]
Justice
Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.
[2]
On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {
the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.
[2][3][10]
The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.
[3]
The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.
[2]
The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.
[2]"
Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
My commentary in red.
The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants. And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
The problem is, Congress has
NO AUTHORITY to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind. They are to interpret the law, not legislate. Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional. Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
"In
United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to
judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the
power to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
Plenary power - Wikipedia
I thank wikipedia for using that word
POWER instead of
AUTHORITY.
