Thread: Obama lied about federal authority over unwanted immigration!

I came across the following article a while back and thought it would be productive to comment on it now considering immigration is one of the priorities in the coming election. SEE: Obama administration tells states they can't refuse Syrian refugees


November 26, 2015

”The Obama administration warned states over the Syrian refugee crisis Wednesday, telling them in a letter they do not have legal authority to refuse the refugees, and states that do not comply may be subject to enforcement action.”

The problem with Obama’s assertion is, there is no provision in our Constitution to support his absurd threat of enforcement.

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. And keep in mind the Tenth Amendment declares powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the States. 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 regulate and set its own immigration policy in a manner which serves each particular State's interests, and the general welfare of the State.

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 and 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

The spineless GOP has found no way to rein in this muslim, African antichrist. He is stubbornly out to bring the white race into total subservience to his anti-American, anti-Christian anti European dogma. The democrats would be reined in were it not for organized labor bosses pandering to the multiculturalists. The ordinary people really don't want this. It is being force upon up by those who consider themselves superiors.

One state does not participate in the refugee program -Wyoming is the only state in the nation that has never had a UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program. Montana, the only other state not ‘welcoming’ refugees at the moment, did have a small program a few years ago.
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wor...m/tag/wyoming/


This is a UN mandate also telling each country how many to take - the head distributor is a muslim - very convenient to spread islam globally. Carter, Clinton, gw, obama created the current problem including taking in those south of the border UAMs. Ted kennedy of course opened our gates too wide in 1965 to start this unreasonable amount of legal immigration.

We really do not need half of central america living in the USA on our dollar. And we also do not need hundreds of thousands of middle eastern & african muslims that have high inbreeding rates. One third of somalians are determined to be mentally ill. One half of the world's muslims are highly inbred resulting in low IQ, violent & schizo - aka butchers of human beings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim...on_Act_of_2000

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) is a federal statute passed into law in 2000 by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Clinton. The law was later reauthorized by Presidents Bush and Obama. The TVPA has the ability to authorize protections for undocumented immigrants who are victims of severe forms of trafficking.
How Human Traffickers Exploit U.S. Immigration Policies and What Can be Done

You can read @ it at the link but it just seems like a very big excuse to allow more poor over-breeding hispanics into our country. One third of El Salvadorians live in the USA. And
some have proven to be "older" children with drug cartel ties and are gang members. A lot of incest south of the border too, not afraid to kill a man or rape a women or child.
http://immigrationreform.com/2016/07...t-can-be-done/


Carter did the refugee act -
The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) was an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the U.S., and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.^[1] The act was completed on March 3, 1980, was signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 17, 1980 and became effective on April 1, 1980. This was the first comprehensive amendment of U.S. general immigration laws designed to face up to the realities of modern refugee situations by stating a clear-cut national policy and providing a flexible mechanism to meet the rapidly shifting developments of today's world policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act

WE HAVE OUR OWN HUMANITARIAN CONCERN!

SEND THEM ALL BACK!

The irrefutable fact is there no power connected to Congress' power to adopt a uniform rule of naturalization allowing Congress to regulate and control immigration into the various state borders. Congress' power is a narrowly defined power and is limited to setting the qualifications a foreigner, who is living in one of the States, must meet to become a citizen of the United States. And there is nothing in the debates during which time our Constitution was being framed and ratified to support Obama's absurd contentions.


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.

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 the historical facts do not support the absurd contention that our federal government has a delegated power to regulate immigration within the various state borders.


JWK


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

The irrefutable fact is, there is no evidence that a power was granted to Congress by our Founding Fathers when framing our Constitution to regulate immigration, and a power not granted is a power denied because our Constitution is one of defined and limited powers!

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)

The documentation I posted above establishes the legislative intent for which Congress was granted the limited power to adopt a universal rule for "naturalization". Can anyone point to a provision in our Constitution by which the States agreed to grant power to Congress to "control and regulate immigration into the various state borders" ___ a power originally exercise by each of the various states prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution and appears to be protected by the Tenth Amendment, and our founders expressed intentions to preserve and protect Federalism, our Constitutions' plan?

The only exception to the states original and retained power over immigration and to determine Persons thought proper to admit is found in Article 1, Section 9, the priority of which had to do with the importation of slaves and allowed Congress to levy a tax upon the importation of slaves.

Section 9. 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.


JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment