Texas House Oks bill to deport illegal entrant foreign migrants which is perfectly constitutional

See:

It’s about frickin time! The unfortunate truth is, the American people have been led to believe that our federal government has been delegated an exclusive power to regulate immigration.

What may come as a surprise to many 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 or force upon an unwilling state a flood of foreign nationals.

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, 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

And, 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, allowing the kind of foreigners who are now invading our borders to stay here should be considered as a “high misdemeanor” which happens to be an impeachable offense!

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 the United States . . . two very distinct activities!

Now, with respect to Texas protecting itself from the consequences of an ongoing 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.” ___ Article 1, Section 10.

So, it is perfectly within the text of our federal Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, that the current situation in Texas will not admit of delay, and that its Governor and Legislature not only has authority to protect against the current invasion of unwanted foreign nationals flooding across its borders, but it would be a dereliction of duty of both to not take action to stop the invasion in its tracks.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story

3 Likes

Good. Defend yourselves, it’s your inherent right to do so.

3 Likes

All the Biden Administration has been doing is using asylum as ruse and excuse to throw open the border and as a result is beginning to destroy American communities! They have decided to piss away our right of national sovereignty as well. If we had true representation in Congress Biden would have been impeached by now.

2 Likes

This isn’t going to fly.

Well, it’s about time one of our States, the State of Texas, is exercising its constitutional authority to repel an invasion.

2 Likes

From the article:

Senate Bill 4, sponsored by state Sen. Pete Flores, R-Pleasanton, would increase the minimum sentence from two years to 10 years for smuggling immigrants or operating a stash house. SB 4 passed with bipartisan support in a 29-2 vote.

Hopefully, Texas will start arresting federal employees for engaging in these very acts.

2 Likes

What, isn’t “going to fly”?

Biden’s intentional assault on our sovereignty as a nation should indeed constitute grounds for his removal from office…along with the border czar and head of the department of Homeland Security.

I m proud of my home state for taking this step. It’s obvious the federal government is not going to do its job.

6 Likes

Absolutely…yes and yes.
Plus they, [ Illegals], should be called border jumpers or tresspassers.
If Arizona does the same …Oh my…California will be absorbing all of them.
It is realy pathetic that this problem exists for 50 + years that I know of and it’s only NOW that someone moved to act.
Apathy in this country is unbeliavable.

Never mind impeachment…
In the real world he would have been REMOVED by now.

Haven’t been doing their job for a long time.

I don’t think the courts are going to allow this but points for at least trying. And when Biden sues Texas, at least it will be one more example of Biden favoring foreign nationals over this country…as if any more illustrations were necessary.

Sadly that is true…

Biden’s lying incompetence would have gotten him fired in the private sector long ago.

Sadly this border crisis is not the result of simple stupidity….this is a planned invasion of the United States being made possible by the Biden administration and liberal left wing democrats…

He’s created a crisis of American sovereignty, a humanitarian, a crisis of drugs and human sex trafficking.

Joe Biden, kamala Harris, Alejandro Mayorkas and company have gotten 100000+ Americans killed by the fentanyl crossing our borders (the raw materials of which come from China which has paid the Biden’s millions)…

I’m saddened and disappointed that corrupt lying old man is apparently going to finish his term in office but if you simply look at the disaster that his administration has created, on purpose at that border you have to wonder how anyone can support him. Our national sovereignty has been completely ignored by that corrupt old man.

Don’t we already deport illegals when discovered?

And by illegals I mean non-asylum seekers and non refugees. If I had to guess, supporters are cheering this bill because they believe Texas should deport legal asylum seekers and refugees.

That won’t fly at all

Anyone can utter the words asylum seeker, murderers, rapists, gang members, etc., and of course anybody with a ■■■■■■■ mouth and functional vocal cords! You don’t think that there are 3-4 billion people in the world who would love top come to America to asylum seek? It’s become such an utterly stupid argument:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/indians-are-entering-the-u-s-illegally-in-record-numbers/ar-AA1j19LA?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4751f687056c4a07bf55a989f0283e47&ei=23

There are no countries bordering the US that qualify for asylum.

Send them ALL packing.

5 Likes

Sure, that is why we get those claims. Do you think we should never allow an immigrant to claim asylum. If your answer is no, then how should we vet them for their claims?

No. There is no interior enforcement unless the person has committed what the Biden administration considers a “serious” crime. Workplace enforcement has ended.

2 Likes

100% Agree!

What’s being done is actually a complete abuse of our asylum laws…

2 Likes

Anyone jumping the border should be deported. Anyone showing up at the border and crying asylum should be sent back to their home country to apply legally. No more allowing anyone and everyone into the country.
Want to come here follow the law and apply legally.

4 Likes