Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By johnwk
  • 1 Post By johnwk

Thread: Gregg Jarrett says policy allowing invasion is not high crime or misdemeanor

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,239

    Gregg Jarrett says policy allowing invasion is not high crime or misdemeanor

    Note: This evening on FOX News, Gregg Jarrett asserted LINK federal policy allowing the invasion of our border is not an impeachable offense. I disagree, based on the evidence.


    Aside from the fact that the Biden Administration is using federal assets in a manner which violates statutory law, e.g., 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens, and is also encouraging an ongoing invasion of our border via policy decisions when our federal government is commanded by our Constitution to protect the United States against “invasion”, the current invasion of our southern border by other country’s poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminal populations happens to fit the description of a class who, Representative Burk, indicates during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790, that the introduction of such a class ought to be considered as a “high misdemeanor”:
    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.”
    JWK


    There is no “humanitarian crisis” at our southern border as reported on Fox News. It is an outright invasion of the United States, intentionally orchestrated and perpetuated by the leadership of our tyrannical federal government which includes traitorous, judges, legislators, and our current president of the United States.
    Last edited by johnwk; 11-24-2022 at 12:03 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,239
    Encouraging the invasion of the United States border since the 2020 election as it has been, and now at about 5 million foreign nationals under Biden and Mayorkas, not only fits the particulars for impeachment, but it can also be reasonably considered as a treasonous act.


    JWK


    There is no “humanitarian crisis” at our southern border as reported on Fox News. It is an outright invasion of the United States, intentionally orchestrated and perpetuated by the leadership of our tyrannical federal government which includes traitorous, judges, legislators, and our current president of the United States.
    Beezer likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,239

    Question Gregg Jarrett may have moved over to the dark side.

    I wonder if Gregg Jarrett has gone over to the dark side, considering his absurd assertion.

    JWK

    They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. They are Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the very kind who took over Cuba and now rule over the people with an iron fist.
    Beezer likes this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,239

    Governors of border states have legal authority to protect against invasions!

    Just for the record, let us not forget that the Governors of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas have legal authority to protect their own border against invasions and/or, a flood of unwanted foreign nationals from streaming across their border.

    Over the years American citizens have been falsely led to believe that our federal government has been delegated an exclusive authority to regulate immigration and force unwanted foreign nationals upon the states.

    What may come as a surprise to many American citizens is, nowhere in the text of our constitution is the word “immigration” to be found! As a matter of fact, a review of historical documentation with regard to immigration confirms the limited power delegated to our federal government by our constitution is to set a uniform rule for “naturalization” of foreign nationals who have already immigrated to one of the United States and wish to become a citizen of the United States.


    There is nothing to even remotely suggest from historical documentation that our federal government has been delegated an exclusive power to regulate immigration.


    So, just what was the specific intention for our framers and those who ratified our constitution to delegate a power to Congress to establish a “. . . uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . ”[Article 1, Section 8, Clause, 4]? And, exactly what does the power encompass?


    According to our very own Supreme Court, “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, 48 U. S. 283 (1849). And, the Court’s statement is confirmed by the following documentation!


    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 STONEconcluded 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


    CONCLUSION:



    Naturalization involves the process by which a foreign national, who is already in our country, is granted citizenship. Immigration, on the other hand involves a foreign national traveling to and entering one the United States . . . two very distinct activities!



    Now, with respect to dealing with the ‘Invasion’ of the border of those states along Mexico’s border and protecting American citizens from the devastating consequences of an ongoing tsunami of unwanted foreign nationals flooding into a border state, our Constitution states the following:


    “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.



    So, it is not a stretch of the Constitution’s wording or its documented legislative intent, that the current situation in the above mentioned border states will not admit of delay, and that their Governors not only have the authority to protect against an invasion of unwanted foreign nationals flooding across their borders, but it would also be a dereliction of these Governors duty to not take action to stop the invasion in its tracks.



    The bottom line is, the Governors of states which border Mexico need to exercise their original policing powers which includes rejecting, expelling and even jailing unwanted foreign nationals who cross their border without permission.



    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
    Last edited by johnwk; 11-28-2022 at 01:40 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-14-2019, 06:19 PM
  2. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-11-2019, 01:21 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2019, 07:43 AM
  4. Gregg Jarrett: Big Lebowski, Esq., takes up Gen. Flynn's case
    By Judy in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-29-2017, 02:16 PM
  5. High Crime Or Misdemeanor’
    By kathyet2 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-14-2014, 04:57 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
  •