Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree6Likes
  • 3 Post By lorrie
  • 1 Post By pkskyali
  • 1 Post By Judy
  • 1 Post By Judy

Thread: Stunner! Constitution lets states tackle immigration

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member lorrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    6,765

    Stunner! Constitution lets states tackle immigration

    Stunner! Constitution lets states tackle immigration

    Analysis by top legal minds reveals feds didn't get involved for first 100 years


    09/06/2016 at 9:56 PM



    A report analyzing America’s legislative gridlock on immigration under the Obama administration shows that the states originally controlled foreign nationals’ access to their territory, a policy that worked well for the nation in its first century.

    It was when Washington stuck its fingers into the pie that the circumstances leading to today’s gridlock developed.

    The analysis was done by Herb Titus, who taught constitutional law for 26 years and finished his academic career as dean of Regent Law School, and Bill Olson, who served in three positions in the Reagan administration.

    They now practice constitutional law at William J. Olson, P.C.

    The legal policy paper was produced as part of a series on contemporary legal issues by the United States Justice Foundation.

    Titled “The Constitutional Case for an Interstate Border Compact,” it argues that states have the right to reach agreements among themselves to address previously uncontrolled illegal invasion of their territories, even without the permission of Congress.

    “Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to establish a ‘uniform rule of naturalization,’ but, contrary to general belief, there is no enumerated power granting Congress authority to regulate immigration.

    Nor does Article 2 of the Constitution confer upon the president any express authority over immigration.

    “As a result, for the first 100 years of our history, it was the individual states that controlled immigration of foreign nationals into their states,” the report explains. “Then gradually, the branches of the federal government began to assert themselves into immigration policy, which has ultimately led to the present gridlock, with no coherent policy to prevent illegal immigrants from flooding into our country.”

    As a result of President Obama’s use of executive actions to grant amnesty to illegal aliens – a move struck by the courts – and his insistence states have no voice in immigration, “all states have suffered financially” and “the very sovereignty of the United States as a nation is at stake,” Titus and Olson contend.

    But the remedy is in the Constitution, the policy paper argues.

    “Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution allows states to enter into agreements, known as Interstate Compacts, with the consent of Congress,” it points out.

    Compacts already are widely used for allocating waters of the rivers in the West, where multiple states claim rights to use waters from the Colorado River, the North Platte and other rivers.

    “However, the Supreme Court has ruled that congressional consent ‘is necessary only in the case of a compact that enhances the political power of the member states in relation to the federal government.’ In the case of border security, the states are only exercising their inherent powers and their powers under the 10th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, not contravening any legitimate federal powers,” the paper explains.

    “After extensive legal research done by the attorneys at the United States Justice Foundation, we have concluded that congressional consent is not required by the Constitution for an Interstate Compact on Border Security such as the one recently proposed by State Sen. Bob Hall of Texas.”

    Hall’s plan was prompted by “the refusal of the federal government to protect our national borders,” to which he attributes the “unnecessary loss of thousands of lives and millions of dollars in property.” He suggests a “Border Security Interstate Compact.”

    Video: Clinton calls for pathway to citizenship



    He explained in an online statement, “It is time for the Texas Legislature to accept its responsibility of protecting Texas’ citizens from the illegal alien-criminals and pass SB 1252, which will give the governor the authority to develop and enter into a Border Security Interstate Compact.”

    Cited as support for the move are the $12.1 billion costs paid by Texans in 2013 alone for the needs of illegal aliens.

    The policy paper explains that while the Department of Homeland Security claimed in 2011 there were “11.5 [million] illegal aliens in the United States … a study a decade earlier by Bear Sterns had put the estimate much higher – at 20 million.”

    “Last year, Mexico’s former ambassador estimated that in 2015 there were 30 million illegal aliens in the United States.”

    “What is known for certain is that the federal government has failed to protect the nation’s borders and solve the problem of illegal immigration. Congress, whether led by Democrats or Republicans, is deeply divided,” the paper states.

    While the authors of the Constitution set up a system that would occasionally produce gridlock – through their division of powers and insistence that Washington’s power be limited, and the federal courts have simply ruled over and over for more authority for Washington, “no power that has been taken from the states is as significant to the lives of each American as the state’s role in regulating immigration.”

    The Texas plan was approved by the state Senate, but it stalled in the House. The paper argues Texas can move forward with its proposal and not even address whether Congress needs to give its approval.

    It explains that the Constitution gives the national government power over naturalization “but not immigration.”

    That fact was acknowledged in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, in which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged “the framers split the atom of sovereignty.”

    “It has only been since the late 19th and 20th centuries that the federal government has entered and come to dominate the field on the assumption that the enumerated power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization subsumed the power to regulate immigration,” the paper states. “But, as Justice Scalia has demonstrated, the federal government’s power over immigration has no necessary connection to the Naturalization Clause; rather, such power ‘is an inherent attribute of sovereignty no less for the United States than for the states.””

    “Indeed, under the Fourteenth Amendment, constitutional citizenship in both sovereign entities presupposes border integrity and security. Thus, United States citizenship is vested on birth within the geographic area of the nation, and state citizenship is vested upon residency within the geographic [area] of a particular state.

    “If the geographic borders of the United States are disregarded or left undefended, then both the United States and the 50 individual states have lost the defining characteristic of sovereignty, undermining their very existence as a nation and as states, respectively.”

    Over the years, states have spent billions of dollars on illegal aliens because of the failure to adhere to what the framers intended, the contends.

    So, now, California households now spent $2,370 each yearly for benefits for illegal aliens, the paper notes.

    States’ rights previously were addressed by the Supreme Court over taxation.

    “As a sovereign, a state has the inherent power to tax, subject only to limits expressed in the Constitution. So also, as a sovereign, a state ‘has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress.'”

    The fact is that states are not “wards of the federal government” but instead are “independent sovereign political entities.”

    Even the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged the argument, stating in one 20th century case: “The Constitution did not purport to exhaust imagination and resourcefulness in devising fruitful interstate relationships. It is not to be construed to limit the variety of arrangements which are possible through the voluntary and cooperative actions of individual states with a view to increasing harmony within the federalism created by the Constitution.”

    Not only do states “have the inherent right” to refuse entry to illegal aliens, “they also have the power to remove such persons found in their states, even without sanction of the national government.”

    The legitimacy of a compact seems beyond question, the paper states. Whether or not it would need congressional approval would rest solely on whether it increases the state power over federal operations and the proposal would not “authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in [the compact’s] absence.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/stunner-c...W2yKj6F9Om3.99
    grandmasmad, patbrunz and Judy like this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member patbrunz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,567
    Bttt
    All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke

  3. #3
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    YES!! YES!! YES!!! Spread the word!!
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,150
    Protecting our country's borders is a federal responsibility. The states that are on the our country's borders have a burden to share with the federal responsibility. So also is the managing of immigrants a federal responsibility. States cannot decide on their own who and who should not be allowed to be citizens. That's just ridiculous. The only problem with the current president or any other federal authority regarding our immigration problem is that they are subverting the very idea of immigration control. They don't believe in controlling immigration, they believe in open borders. This is the problem, it is not a problem of states rights. States do not have an independent right to decide immigration policy.


    Controls over immigration have been slowly corrupted since the fifties when we assumed the "territories" that include Puerto Rico and allowed its residents citizenship outside of statehood. We need to clarify what immigration means and expose how it has been corrupted over this long period of time in order to prevent any authority from providing for open borders in the future. Displacing this issue onto a state's right legal nicety is just a further cloak for the real problem.
    Judy likes this.
    Support ALIPAC'sFIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    The US government, all branches, has only ONE constitutional power over immigration and that is to prevent it. States have both the right to prevent it and allow it, subject to any prevention by the US government.

    To break this down in simple terms:

    1. Sanctuary Cities allowing illegal immigration in their community in violation of US immigration law are acting illegally and unconstitutionally. No city or state has the right to allow, aid, abet, protect or harbor illegal aliens.

    2. States Enforcing US Immigration Law, like Arizona with their SB 1070, are acting both legally and constitutionally because the law (s) prevent illegal immigration in accordance with federal immigration law.

    3. Federal Admission of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers, Visa Workers, Green Card Holders, Work Permits etc. without a prior legal request for immigrants from a State, a request approved by the state legislature from the States wanting immigrants are both illegal and unconstitutional.

    It's that simple folks.

    STOP THE STUPIDITY!

    VOTE FOR DONALD J TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!
    Last edited by Judy; 09-21-2016 at 04:47 PM.
    pkskyali likes this.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #6
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    This is the problem with letting states make their own decisions.

    . . . The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2006.

    The government of Mexico and ministers of several Latin American countries have condemned the plans.[15]

    Rick Perry, governor of Texas, also expressed his opposition saying that instead of closing the border it should be opened more and through technology support legal and safe migration. . .


    @ http://www.alipac.us/f12/what-happened-fence-306742/
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #7
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    U.S. Constitution

    Article I



    Section 8.


    The Congress shall have power to . . .


    To make rules for the government . . .


    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #8
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    The US government, all branches, has only ONE constitutional power over immigration and that is to prevent it. States have both the right to prevent it and allow it, subject to any prevention by the US government.

    To break this down in simple terms:

    1. Sanctuary Cities allowing illegal immigration in their community in violation of US immigration law are acting illegally and unconstitutionally. No city or state has the right to allow, aid, abet, protect or harbor illegal aliens.

    2. States Enforcing US Immigration Law, like Arizona with their SB 1070, are acting both legally and constitutionally because the law (s) prevent illegal immigration in accordance with federal immigration law.

    3. Federal Admission of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers, Visa Workers, Green Card Holders, Work Permits etc. without a prior legal request for immigrants from a State, a request approved by the state legislature from the States wanting immigrants are both illegal and unconstitutional.

    It's that simple folks.

    STOP THE STUPIDITY!

    VOTE FOR DONALD J TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!
    pkskyali likes this.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. States Tackle Immigration Because Feds Won’t
    By zeezil in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-11-2008, 09:15 AM
  2. Missouri Joins States' Rush to Tackle Immigration
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-07-2008, 02:37 AM
  3. States tackle immigration as national moves fail
    By dragons5 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-07-2007, 09:25 AM
  4. Cities, states tackle illegal immigration on their own
    By Brian503a in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-26-2006, 05:39 PM
  5. Hill Impasse Spurs States to Tackle Illegal Immigration
    By Brian503a in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-03-2006, 02:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •