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

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

I keep telling you: The question has nothing to do with congress, the president of the federal government.

The question is: DO GOVERNORS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO KEEP ANYONE OUT OF THEIR STATE?

I hope they do but no one has answered this question with a link to data supporting this claim.

That leads me to believe that there isn't any such authority.
I can't find it if there is, and apparently no one else can either.

Any answer without a link to supporting data is just more "he said, she said".

Absolutely! Governors have the right to keep illegal aliens and immigrants unconstitutionally admitted to their state by the federal government out of their state. State and local law enforcement have been throwing American citizens out of their counties, cities and states since the beginning of our country for speeding, crimes, drinking under-age, fighting and a whole lot of other reasons. It's the ole "get your ass out of here and don't ever come back" deal. Where have you been??!! You think foreigners have some rights that US citizens don't have? Ask black people, native Americans, if state and local law enforcement can keep you out of their state. Ask college kids who drive across the state borders to buy liquor and get caught.

GOVERNORS CAN’T STOP OBAMA ON REFUGEES, BUT CONGRESS CAN

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

NO. The question is NOT about the president, congress or the federal government.

(I hope governors CAN keep any and all foreigners out of their state.)

The question is DOES THE GOVERNOR HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO KEEP ANYONE OUT OF THEIR STATE?

If the answer is YES. What is the source of that authority? WITH A LINK TO THE EXACT WORDING THAT GRANTS THAT AUTHORITY TO THE GOVERNORS.

An answer without a link is just more he said, she said.

Tell us John Doe, under what wording in our Constitution have the states delegated their original power over immigration to the federal government? If that wording cannot be pointed to then yes, under the Tenth Amendment the States can refuse to allow the President to fill their States with unwanted refugees.


The fact is, Congress cannot assume powers not granted nor delegate powers to the President not authorized by our Constitution. To assume otherwise is to assume ”the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”___ quoting Hamilton in Federalist No 78.


So, Mr. Doe, under what wording in our Constitution have the states delegated their original power over immigration to the federal government?


JWK



The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

The issues is far from simple or settled. There are many arguments on all sides.

Immigration and the US Constitution
_________ cut long winded content from post __________

Why do you refuse to engage in a discussion and continue to post long winded articles? Is this your admission you cannot defend the fact that our federal government has never been granted power over a State's immigration policies?


JWK




To support Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or John Kasich is tosupport a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includesgiving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded ourborders!

What troubles me at this time is why the States who object to Obama flooding their State with unwanted "refugees" AKA immigrants, are not in Court and filing for an injunction to stop Obama's unconstitutional actions which threaten the general welfare of the United States and the America People's safety.

Keep in mind a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled against the Obama administration’s controversial immigration program, upholding a lower court's injunction barring the plan from taking effect while awaiting the outcome of a full trial on the lawsuit's underlying arguments. One of the reasons for granting the injunction was the devastating effects thrust upon the States without their permission.

It's time for the Governors who object to Obama's plan to go into Court and Stop Obama's arbitrary decision to import thousands of refugees who cannot be vetted which in turn poses a very real threat to the American People as witnessed in Paris.

JWK



The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

Yes, these 31 states should file for an injunction to stop all federally-permitted immigration. It's all been unconstitutional, all these years. The federal government can prohibit immigration, it can prevent it, it can remove illegal aliens from the country, it can stop immigration invasions into our states, and it can establish provisions to secure borders and ports to prevent immigration. Under separate provisions of the Constitution, the federal government can determine who can be naturalized and establish a uniform code for nationalization of immigrants admitted by the states, that are not prohibited by the federal government. But under the US Constitution, it can not permit or admit immigrants into the United States, it can't even admit into the District of Columbia because they might travel into the States.

Therefore, we need an immediate Moratorium on All Immigration for at least 20 years so this mess can be sorted out, reset and and resumed at such time as the federal government can learn to abide the US Constitution and States who are pro-immigration can afford to feed those they import without harming taxpayers, workers or citizens of the United States.

This renegade rogue immigration system we have now is madness, pure insanity and must be stopped.

This whole "immigration" crap is part of our

Global Governance Crowd's master plan.


JWK



Members of Congress who supported Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House supported our Global Governance Crowd and their FAST TRACK, WTO, NAFTA, GATT,CAFTA, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

I have noticed over the past few days that FoxNews has stepped up its unsubstantiated assertion that our federal government has exclusive power over a States' immigration policy. Of course, FoxNews continually fails to support its contention by pointing to the words in our Constitution under which the various states delegated this alleged power to our federal government. Seems that FoxNews is following a very old and tired tactic, that if you repeat a lie over and over people will begin to believe it’s the truth.

I expect this tactic to be used by the Government’s loyalist main stream media, but thought FoxNews was “fair and balanced” in its reporting. But, it is becoming more apparent as each day passes that FoxNews has joined our main stream media in repeating a big lie ___ that our founding fathers delegated a power to Congress to assume the various state’s original power to set immigration policy as each state originally saw fit.

But the truth is found in Article 1, Section 9, under which Congress was granted a limited power over the importation of foreigners. That limited power allows Congress to impose a tax or duty on the importation of foreigners, but leaves the States otherwise free to admit whom they please.

The wording referred to in Article 1, Section 9 is as follows:

"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."

So, the challenge to FoxNew is, please point to the wording in our Constitution under which the States delegated the power to Congress to set a state’s immigration policy.

JWK



"TheConstitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law, 1858.

I'm still waiting for someone at FoxNews to quote the wording in our Constitution under which the president or Congress has been granted a power to flood a state with unwanted "refugees".

I certainly cannot find a power delegated to Congress or the President in our written Constitution repealing a power exercised by the States under the Articles of Confederation during which time each state was free to regulate immigration into their own state. But there is an exception made to this power under our existing Constitution which the States knowingly and willingly greed to ___ the exception being Article 1, Section 9, which reads:

"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."

The above delegated power allows Congress to lay a tax or duty on the importation of foreigners, but leaves each State otherwise free to admit whom they please and set its own immigration policy in a manner which serves each particular State's interests, general welfare and safety.

So, the question remains, under what wording in our Constitution has Congress or the president been delegated a power to admit tens of thousands, or even millions of poverty stricken or destitute foreigners on to American soil and then require unwilling states to accept them?

Let us recall what Chief Justice Marshall emphasized while the ink was barely dry on our existing Constitution:

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)


JWK



The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Despite the implication of some, states do not have the authority to refuse to accept refugees that are admitted by the federal government. The Refugee Act of 1980 authorizes the president to admit refugees who face persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. This Act also creates the Federal Refugee Resettlement Program to provide for the effective resettlement of refugees and to assist them to achieve economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible after arrival in the United States. The resettlement process is federally-driven and federally-funded.

Quote is an excerpt from the response via email by gov tom wolf Pennsylvania