Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Texas law, SB 4, protecting against an ongoing invasion, is before U.S. Appeals Court

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
    2,500

    Texas law, SB 4, protecting against an ongoing invasion, is before U.S. Appeals Court

    See:

    Texas’ immigration-enforcement bill, SB4, is back in federal appeals court Wednesday

    The hearing before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will focus on whether the law is constitutional as Texas tries to create its own arrest-and-deportation policies to curb unauthorized immigration into the state.
    Let us acknowledge some specific facts concerning the case.

    Nowhere in our federal Constitution has Congress been granted an exclusive power to regulate immigration.

    Congress has been granted power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” 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 the United States . . . two very distinct activities!

    And according to our very own Supreme Court, with respect to this power (Naturalization), “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).

    Regulating immigration is an original power exercised by our States prior to the adoption of our current Constitution. And a number of states prior to the ratification of our current constitution adopted laws prohibiting the importation of foreign nationals who might become a “public charge”, e.g., ”The Massachusetts colony led these efforts and as early as 1645 the colony passed a law forbidding the admission of indigent migrants. This law was followed in the 18th century by other laws prohibiting the landing of “Sick, Lame, or Otherwise Infirm Persons,” and calling for bonds that were forfeited if immigrants of questionable means became public charges.” SOURCE

    And, in New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837) - a New York law “intended to prevent the state’s being burdened with an influx of foreigners and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such”, our very own Supreme Court emphatically confirms the following:

    “That the act of the Legislature of New York mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration assumes to regulate trade and commerce between the port of New York and foreign ports, and is unconstitutional and void.” . . . “The act of the Legislature of New York is not a regulation of commerce, but of police, and, being so, it was passed in the exercise of a power which rightfully belonged to the state. The State of New York possessed the power to pass this law before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The law was “intended to prevent the state’s being burdened with an influx of foreigners and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such.” The end and means here used are within the competency of the states, since a portion of their powers were surrendered to the federal government."

    So, as we have learned, the authority to regulate immigration is an original power exercise by the states prior to the adoption of our federal Constitution, and nowhere in our federal Constitution have the states surrendered that original power.

    Additionally, and with respect to the current invasion of unwanted foreign nationals into the State of Texas - an invasion which is destructive to the general welfare of the State of Texas - our federal Constitution states, in crystal clear language, “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.

    Consequently, the nonsense asserted by U.S. District Judge David, that SB 4 is likely unconstitutional because the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration matters, is a flat out lie unsupported by the wording of our federal Constitution, as documented above.

    For those interested in an amicus brief filed in support of the Texas law, SB 4, CLICK HERE

    JWK

    When terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership _ voted into office by your neighbors - who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and unvetted terrorist foreign nationals into our country.

  2. #2
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,500

    Founders' views regarding today's unwanted immigration

    .
    Just for the record, the stated intentions of our forefathers, expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, provide clarifying insights regarding the subject of unwanted immigration.


    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, 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 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


    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.

    JWK

    Let us never forget the Communist goals listed in the Congressional Record, January, 10th, 1963, many of which have already been accomplished.

  3. #3
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,500

    Our Supreme Court in 1837, confirmed why Texas 2023 law, SB 4, is constitutional.

    .
    Our United States Supreme Court in 1837, confirmed the object of the Texas law, SB 4, which is designed to protect the general welfare of the State by prohibiting an influx of unwanted foreign nationals who would financially or otherwise burden its citizens, falls within an original power exercised by the states prior to the adoption of our current Constitution, is constitutional.

    In support of my assertion, I will here take the liberty of quoting from United States Supreme Court Justice Barbour’s written opinion in New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), which involves a challenge to a New York Law “… intended to prevent the state being burthened with an influx of foreigners, and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such.”

    Supreme Court Justice Barbour begins by pointing out “… the state of New York possessed power to pass this law before the adoption of the constitution of the United States, might probably be taken as a truism, without the necessity of proof.” And, he goes on to quote a legal scholar of the time, Emer de Vattel, showing the origin and character of the power in question:

    “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory, either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state.”

    Justice Barbour continues:

    “It is apparent, from the whole scope of the law, that the object of the legislature was, to prevent New York from being burdened by an influx of persons brought thither in ships, either from foreign countries, or from any other of the states; and . . . to prevent them from becoming chargeable as paupers.” And this is essentially the same object of the Texas law SB 4.

    Justice Barbour then points out:

    ”New York, from her particular situation, is, perhaps more than any other city in the Union, exposed to the evil of thousands of foreign emigrants arriving there, and the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens from this evil; they have endeavoured to do so, by passing, amongst other things, the section of the law in question. We should, upon principle, say that it had a right to do so.”

    The bottom line is, New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), and the Texas 2023 law, SB 4, both seek to protect the citizens of these States from being financially, or otherwise, burdened with unwanted foreign nationals. And in the end, our Supreme Court confirmed:

    “ . . . it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a state, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation, which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.

    As noted elsewhere in the thread, Congress has been granted an exclusive power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Naturalization involves the process and steps 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 the United States . . . which is a distinct activity far different from naturalization.

    And according to our very own Supreme Court, with respect to this power (Naturalization), “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).

    The bottom line is, the Texas law, SB 4 is a reserved power of the States protected and guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment.

    JWK

    Is it not New York City’s Democrat Party Leadership which has filled NY’s inner-city schools, public housing and emergency care rooms with illegal entrant foreign nationals, and has given the finger to our nation’s needy CITIZENS?
    Last edited by johnwk; 04-05-2024 at 10:43 AM.

  4. #4
    Moderator Beezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    31,048
    Washington D.C. is not a state.

    They have no right to dump millions of disease infected, unvetted, criminals who are foreign citizens with no right to be here into our states and force us to pay for it.

    Hand the UACs over to their Embassy or Consulate to process and fly back home.

    All our Governors should round up these illegals, fingerprint them, put them in a database, and bus them to Washington D.C. They voted for this invasion, and they can live amongst them all.

    Not one dime of state taxpayers' dollars should fund any of them. No school, no healthcare, no housing, no shelter, no EBT card, no food, no clothing, no diapers, no giving birth in our states, give them nothing.

    Fast track the pregnant and sick ones full of TB, AIDS, HIV, STDs, Hepatitis, Shigella, lice, scabies, measles, polio, to D.C. hospitals, doctors' offices and Med Express. Dump them on their doorstep.



    ILLEGAL ALIENS HAVE "BROKEN" OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM

    DO NOT REWARD THEM - DEPORT THEM ALL

  5. #5
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,500

    Immigration is a subject matter involving federal and state regulatory powers.

    .



    Quote Originally Posted by Beezer View Post
    Washington D.C. is not a state.

    They have no right to dump millions of disease infected, unvetted, criminals who are foreign citizens with no right to be here into our states and force us to pay for it.

    And doing so is an intentional, and traitorous attack, on the general welfare of the States and their citizens.

    The ugly truth is, the Biden Administration is orchestrating and supervising a planned invasion of the United States, and is filling our states with millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and unvetted terrorist foreign nationals, who are then, as planned, taking over State inner city emergency care rooms, public schools and public housing, and draining scarce state resources meant for American Citizens.

    And we can predict these illegal entrant foreign nationals will most certainly begin to riot and cause mayhem if their economic, social, and political wants are not met and attended to, even though doing so leaves our own citizens destitute and turned into taxpaying citizen slaves . . . there to finance the invasion orchestrated by the Biden Administration.


    And as we have seen, the Biden Administration has taken the State of Texas into court every time Texas dares to exercise irrefutable powers allowed under our Constitution, including original powers not relinquished as mentioned in the Tenth Amendment, among which is the policing power of the State of Texas to repel an onslaught of unwanted foreign nationals.

    And what is most remarkable is, we find our federal judges lying about federal and state powers, as U.S. District Judge David did when recently putting a hold on Texas enforcing SB 4, and falsely asserting the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration matters, which is a flat out lie, unsupported by the wording, or legislative intent, of our federal Constitution, as I have documented in Texas law, SB 4, protecting against an ongoing invasion, is before U.S. Appeals Court

    In fact, as I have shown in Our Supreme Court in 1837, confirmed why Texas 2023 law, SB 4, is constitutional, Supreme Court Justice, Philip Barbour, emphatically confirms the States’ have retained policing power, including power to reject and protect itself from an onslaught of unwanted “foreign paupers” and avoid “. . . the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor.

    The sad truth is, this invasion is being perpetuated, not only by the Biden Administration, but by a number of traitorous judges who are intentionally ignoring and subverting the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

    Finally, and with reference to immigration and its regulation, immigration is a subject matter which may be acted upon by our federal, and individual state governments, each acting within their own sphere of constitutionally assigned powers.

    JWK

    The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
    Last edited by johnwk; 04-07-2024 at 12:48 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,500

    Why is New York v. Miln absent in case briefs involving Texas' SB 4 immigration law?

    .
    What I find both bewildering and troubling is, I could not find New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), cited in any case briefs involving SB 4, and that case actually goes into depth regarding a State’s retained power to refuse entry to an unwanted"influx" of foreign nationals, and the duty for a State to protect itself and her citizens from an onslaught of unwanted “foreign paupers” thereby avoiding “. . . the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor”, as stated in Miln, which upheld the law.

    Same with the Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. 7 How. 283 283 (1849) which emphatically emphasized the legislative intent of delegating power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization: “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.”

    Also, nowhere to be found in the briefs mentioned are quotes from our Forefathers expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, which provide an important insight regarding the subject of unwanted immigration.


    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, 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 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


    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.

    JWK

    Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

  7. #7
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,500

    Trump arrives in GA, confirms his position on Texas, SB 4 law, and abortion

    .
    .
    With all the accusations about Trump and his position on immigration, Texas SB 4 law and abortion, let us actually listen to him, today, 4/10/2024, as he takes question from the media when arriving in Atlanta, GA.



    WATCH: President Donald J. Trump Answers Questions from the Media in Atlanta, GA - 4/10/24

    So, as we can verify, unlike RINOs and extremists in the Republican Party, and authoritarian revolutionaries in the Democrat Party, Trump's positions are in total harmony with the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

    The irrefutable fact is, the issues of a state protecting itself from and invasion and legislating on abortion, are matters within the powers reserved by the States, and people therein, and that is something which RINOs and extremists in the Republican party, and authoritarian revolutionaries in the Democrat Party, reject with a passion and sets their hair on fire, and makes their heads explode.




    JWK

    When terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership _ voted into office by your neighbors - who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and unvetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.

  8. #8
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,500

    Does Edwards v. California contradict Justice Barbour's comments in New York v. Miln?

    .

    In a previous post regarding Texas’ SB 4 law, I pointed to New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837) to confirm the reserved power of Texas to prohibit the entry of unwanted foreign nationals.

    Since then, I was informed that Mayor of New York v. Miln was reversed in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941). So, I carefully reviewed the case.

    As I expected, I found there is absolutely nothing stated by the Court in Edwards, even remotely, suggesting a State does not maintain the power to refuse entry to an unwanted "influx" of foreign nationals, and moreover, a duty for a State to protect itself and her citizens from an onslaught of unwanted “foreign paupers” thereby avoiding “. . . the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor”, as stated in Miln by United States Supreme Court Justice Barbour

    But getting back to Edwards:

    It involved interstate commerce [commerce among the States], not migration of “foreign paupers,” illegally crossing into a particular State from foreign soil.

    The party’s involved in the Edwards case were citizens of the United States as noted in the case:

    Appellant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of California. In December, 1939, he left his home in Marysville, California, for Spur, Texas, with the intention of bringing back to Marysville his wife's brother, Frank Duncan, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Texas.”

    The law in question was § 2615 of the Welfare and Institutions Code of California, which provided:

    "Every person, firm or corporation or officer or agent thereof that brings or assists in bringing into the State any indigent person who is not a resident of the State, knowing him to be an indigent person, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

    The Court concluded:

    “We are of the opinion that § 2615 is not a valid exercise of the police power of California, that it imposes an unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce, and that the conviction under it cannot be sustained. In the view we have taken, it is unnecessary to decide whether the Section is repugnant to other provisions of the Constitution.”

    As everyone can see, Edwards v. California, not even remotely, conflicts with Justice Barbour’s comments in Miln, concerning a state having the authority, and duty, to forbid entry to unwanted foreign national paupers.

    In any event, I thought those interested in the case, would find the above factual, informative, and important in the fight to have Texas’ SB 4 upheld, and Biden’s orchestrated invasion of our border brought to an end.

    JWK

    When terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership _ voted into office by your neighbors - who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and unvetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-22-2024, 02:53 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-07-2024, 08:49 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-30-2023, 10:42 AM
  4. Federal appeals court rules against Obama-era DACA policy protecting 'Dreamers'
    By Beezer in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-09-2022, 10:49 AM
  5. INVASION OF THE UNITED STATES BORDER ONGOING - BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS EDITION
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-06-2014, 02:37 AM

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
  •