Foxnews’ Judge Napolitano ignores constitutional limits in immigration/refugee debate
See: Can Governors Legally Block Refugees from Coming to Their States?
”In response to the influx of migrants “from the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq,” Congress in 2005 gave President George W. Bush unlimited authority to admit people for humanitarian purposes, noted Judge Napolitano.
And that has since been passed over to President Obama, he added.
“Here, he has the absolute lawful authority – may not like the way he’s exercising it, but he has it,” said the judge. “To admit people for political asylum and humanitarian purposes.”
What Judge Napolitano and Foxnews ignore is, Congress cannot assume powers not granted it by the Constitution. This is basic 101 constitutional law! And there is nothing in the Constitution remotely suggesting our federal government was granted a power to allow tens of thousands or millions of foreigners to enter upon American soil, and then force a State to accept any of them. As a matter of fact the historical evidence establishes Judge Napolitano is flat wrong in his assertion!
Let us recall some historical facts regarding Congress’ delegated power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”
Under the Articles of Confederation which was in full force and effect during the writing of our existing Constitution, each State regulated the flow of immigration into their State. Likewise, each State made its own rules by which a foreigner living in their State became a citizen of that State. Keep in mind the above powers are two distinct and separate powers: the former dealing with the flow of foreigners into a state [ a power retained by the States under the Tenth Amendment], while the latter establishes how a foreigner living in a state may become a citizen of that state.
During the Convention of 1787 and the writing of our existing Constitution, the power of a State to make its own rules by which a foreigner became a citizen of that State became a bone of contention, especially considering the new Constitution proposed under Article 4, Section 2.
”The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
Thus, if one State’s rules allowed citizenship to foreigners indiscriminately and without assurances the granting of citizenship required loyalty, good character, and that a productive person was being granted citizenship, in addition to other beneficial qualities necessary to promote the State’s general welfare, an undesirable person could be granted citizenship in one State and then move to another State and be entitled to that State’s privileges and immunities without the State’s consent!
And this is why the limited power to set rules by which a foreigner living in a particular State could obtain citizenship was delegated to Congress. It was to prevent one State from granting citizenship to undesirable foreigners allowed into their State, and then forcing these "citizens" upon other States who would then be entitled to that States privileges and immunities.
Chief Justice Taney summarized the very object of allowing the federal government to set the rules for naturalization 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 (1849). And Justice Taney’s statement is in full harmony with the intentions of our forefathers expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790!
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
Finally, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790
Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.
So, as it turns out Judge Napolitano is flat wrong in his assertion regarding Obama’s power. In addition, the kind of immigrants Obama is attempting to force upon the states from Mexico, Central America and now Syria ___ the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, and/or destitute populations of other countries ____ ought to be viewed as a “high misdemeanor” which happens to be an impeachable offense!
Perhaps someday we will at least find one big media source which supports and defends our written Constitution and its documented legislative intent.
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.
Naturalization vs. immigration and Arizona’s S.B.1070 and HB 2745 laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Judy
I've not been impressed with him for awhile now. He's very selective about what administration actions he deems constitutional and what state actions he deems unconstitutional. He was wrong on AZ SB 1070 as I recall
You are absolutely correct about him being wrong on AZ SB 1070.
Google "Naturalization vs. immigration and Arizona’s S.B.1070 and HB 2745 laws".
I wrote about this in a number of forums.
JWK
