Thread: Can Republican Governors Block Syrian Refugees From Settling in Their States?

12/5/15

Texas backs down from effort to block Syrian refugees

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

12/5/15

Texas backs down from effort to block Syrian refugees

The Texas AG put on a good show, but seems to be working in concert with Obama to allow these unwanted foreigners to enter Texas.

The fact is, our President is not authorized under the Constitution to compel a state to accept unwanted foreigners. The States have never ceded their original policing powers over immigration, and a power not delegated is a power retained!

Additionally, the argument that Texas "has made no showing that these refugees pose any threat, much less an imminent one, to the safety or security of Texas residents or any other Americans," is not a legal argument indicating a State must accept them. Every state is free to adopt their own rules in this regard and our federal courts are not authorized to second guess policy decisions made by a state! This rule was confirmed by our very own Supreme Court!

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess. ELDRED etal. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)


Why is the Texas AG folding like a cheap suit?


JWK


When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?

Additionally, the argument that Texas "has made no showing that these refugees pose any threat, much less an imminent one, to the safety or security of Texas residents or any other Americans," is not a legal argument indicating a State must accept them. Every state is free to adopt their own rules in this regard and our federal courts are not authorized to second guess policy decisions made by a state! This rule was confirmed by our very own Supreme Court!

Exactly. Righto!

States can refuse to admit immigrants for any reason or no reason at all. Their right, their authority, their power.

Just BUTT OUT, Feds! This is not and was never your job to admit immigrants let alone push or force them into our states against the will of our states. NEVER. Your job is to prohibit immigration, NOT promote, initiate, perpetuate or license or permit foreign migration into our States. You are doing the complete opposite of what you're supposed to be doing, so STOP IT!

From the arguments above, it seems that the federal government doesn't really have the power to admit them, but just for the sake of argument, let's say it does. If states, and even cities, can nullify federal immigration laws to become so-called "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens and states can nullify federal drug laws by "legalizing" a drug like marijuana that is illegal according to federal law, why can't a state nullify federal authority to take in refugees?

Originally Posted by patbrunz

From the arguments above, it seems that the federal government doesn't really have the power to admit them, but just for the sake of argument, let's say it does. If states, and even cities, can nullify federal immigration laws to become so-called "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens and states can nullify federal drug laws by "legalizing" a drug like marijuana that is illegal according to federal law, why can't a state nullify federal authority to take in refugees?

Great idea!! State legislatures need to immediately pass laws that refuse all immigration, refugees, green cards, asylum-seekers, illegal aliens, DAPAs, DACA's, all of it. They do that right here right now and the states need to argue their right to do so under Article 1, Section 9, as well as Articles 9 and 10 of the US Constitution.

States however can not over-ride federal prohibition of immigration and allow immigrants into their state prohibited by the federal government so the states with sanctuary cities are in fact violating the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9.

Furthermore, all these "Constitutionalists" who are claiming "religious liberty" under the First Amendment, who harbor, aid and abet and advocate for illegal aliens, they are also violating the US Constitution when they violate US immigration law.

Originally Posted by patbrunz

From the arguments above, it seems that the federal government doesn't really have the power to admit them, but just for the sake of argument, let's say it does. If states, and even cities, can nullify federal immigration laws to become so-called "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens and states can nullify federal drug laws by "legalizing" a drug like marijuana that is illegal according to federal law, why can't a state nullify federal authority to take in refugees?

Actually, I believe Congress can admit whom they please, but only in Washington, D.C., where Congress has exclusive power to legislate. However, the surrounding states do not have to accept unwanted foreigners as they have retained their original policing power over immigration, which is a power never delegated to the federal government!


JWK




When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like NewYork City?

Originally Posted by johnwk

Actually, I believe Congress can admit whom they please, but only in Washington, D.C., where Congress has exclusive power to legislate. However, the surrounding states do not have to accept unwanted foreigners as they have retained their original policing power over immigration, which is a power never delegated to the federal government!


JWK




When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like NewYork City?

Congress does not have the right or authority to admit immigrants, not even into DC, not anywhere, because it has no authority to admit any immigrants.

Congress has no authority under the US Constitution to admit any immigrants to anywhere, not to a state, not to a territory, not to the District of Columbia. Congress only has the authority to prohibit immigration after the year 1808, not admit it.

Originally Posted by Judy

Congress does not have the right or authority to admit immigrants, not even into DC, not anywhere, because it has no authority to admit any immigrants.

Congress has no authority under the US Constitution to admit any immigrants to anywhere, not to a state, not to a territory, not to the District of Columbia. Congress only has the authority to prohibit immigration after the year 1808, not admit it.

Judy,

I'm not going to argue the issue with regard to Washington, D.C. I can only go by what our Constitution states in crystal clear language. Congress has power:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

But don't get me wrong because I stand by the fact that our federal government has absolutely no power to force upon the states unwanted migrants. The fact is, the entry of such was of great concern by the States and why Congress was granted a power to make the rules by which a foreigner may become a citizen of the United States.

To confirm the States were concerned about unwanted foreigners being forced upon them, and to prevent this from happening, they granted power to Congress to adopt a uniform rule over naturalization. Let us review the legislative intent expressed by our founders with regard to this issue.


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 to prevent 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, 1790PAGE1148

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 acitizen 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,page1152

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, pages1156and 1157



In regard to the year 1808, you are absolutely correct that Congress, after 1808, has been vested with a power to lay a tax on foreigners which a state thinks proper to admit.


JWK