See: White House warns Texas governor against 'meddling' on immigration

“Immigration enforcement is a federal authority, and states should not be… meddling in it,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, accusing Abbott of having “a track record of causing chaos and confusion at the border.”

Also see Karine Jean-Pierre Says States “Shouldn’t Be Meddling In” Immigration Policy


This may surprise Karine Jean-Pierre, but the word “immigration” is nowhere to be found in our federal Constitution’s text. 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 “Immigration enforcement is a federal authority” as alleged by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. But hey, we all know how eager our federal government has always been with respect to usurping powers not granted.

So, just what was the specific intention for delegating to Congress a power to establish a uniform rule for naturalization? And, exactly what does it 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


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

Now as to White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s insulting and inaccurate comment accusing Abbott of having “a track record of causing chaos and confusion at the border,” we have learned over the years that the Democrat Party Leadership is known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of . . . witness the confusion, lawlessness and deadly consequences at our southern border which is the direct result of the Biden Administration’s own actions.

Finally, with respect to Governor Abbott’s constitutionally authorized power to deal with the confusion, lawlessness and deadly consequences now experienced in Texas resulting from a tsunami of unwanted foreign nationals flooding across its border, 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 intent, that the current situation will not admit of delay, and that the Governor of Texas not only has authority to protect against a massive flood of unwanted foreigners flooding across its borders, but it would also be a dereliction of duty to not take action to stop the flood in its tracks.

The bottom line is, once again the White House Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, is full of BS!


The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their most formidable domestic enemy.