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


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


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.

From this conclusion… that states retain power to regulate immigration … does it also mean that a state can independently permit entry to non-citizens to their state?

And if not, what element of the constitution conditions this power to specific immigration circumstances?

The Texas State Constitution like (I’m assuming), the 49 other states and territories mandate the protection of its citizens.
The US goobermint presently has demonstrated not only to not commit to protecting US citizens but has facilitated the overrunning of hundreds of thousands of illegal invaders flooding into America monthly of largely undocumented and unvetted persons from all around the world. The number is a staggering 10 and perhaps as much as 13-15 million in just the last 3.25 years!
Considering there seems to be no end game by the current administration other than doing rug dances with green cards, handing out taxpayers money, ruination of what’s left of public education, voting rights and census numbers, Texas has at least taken some step to stem the flow of this madness.

1 Like

Sure. But I am more interested in legal resolution and it’s implications than the practical purpose for utilizing this inherent state power.

Perhaps the stated intentions of our forefathers, expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, will provide you with some insight regarding the subject of the thread.

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

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.


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)

It’s informing on naturalization powers, but interested in the implications of your words.

I’m not sure what stimulated your unique interest, but my interest is to see our courts uphold the text of our written constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text. Our Courts are not vested with power to speculate on the implications of our Constitution and adjust its meaning to accomodate the court’s speculative beliefs. If there is a perceived need for change or alteration to our Constitution, Article V is the constitutional method for change and not an arbitrary alteration manufactured and imposed by our Courts.

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?


“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

The legal resolutions are already in place. The current administration rescinded existing controls, refuses to enforce immigration laws and has enabled millions to illegally enter the country. OBiden and his inept handlers are even enticing the invasion with benefits? And placing the needs of US citizens as secondary priority?

1 Like

If the courts rule that federal power is restricted to naturalization and that states retain the right to regulate Immigration will that comport with the text and intent on the written constitution?

Take a second look at the thread title.

heres a fact

“An attorney defending Texas’ controversial immigration law told a federal appeals court on Wednesday that state legislators may have gone “too far” when they passed the law last year.

“may”. lol.


1 Like


And as a result, Texas has decided to exercise an original state authority, which has never been surrender, to protect its borders from unwanted foreign nationals flooding into Texas.


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.

I was referring to US resolutions.

I think maybe you’re referring (fishing for) to the interstate commerce clause.

Can the state ensure they stay within state boundaries?

Doubtful. First question I have (for the OP) is do they have this power to begin with. But that would be a great follow up… whether it is conditioned by them keeping their non-citizen immigrants contained.

Seems to me there is more to the argument than “States retain the right to regulate immigration”

Then no.

Only then? But the Framers!

1 Like


How can the courts legitimately rule “. . . that federal power is restricted to naturalization”? Our federal constitution delegates a number of enumerated powers to our federal government, e.g., see the specification of particulars which appears beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, and were thought proper to delegate “. . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”


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

1 Like

Yes. If you can’t keep them in your borders, you can’t force me to feed them.