1

Well, isn’t this special? The Hill confidently asserts “There are legal and practical reasons why states cannot take immigration matters into their own hands. It is well-settled law that immigration enforcement is the jurisdiction of the federal government.”

But the truth is, our federal constitution delegates to Congress a limited power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, and nowhere in the federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear.

The allowance to establish a uniform rule of naturalization is nothing more than providing the steps by which a foreign national may become a citizen of the United States. It is not a delegation of a power by which a State, and people therein, have surrendered their inalienable and preexisting right to self-defense, and that would include the preexisting power to protect against an invasion of its borders by foreign nationals.

In fact it is expressly stated in our federal Constitution that:

“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, by the very wording of the Constitution, there is a specific exception clearly indicating a state may act on its own if invaded, or imminent danger exists as will not admit of delay.

Surely this wording preserves the preexisting power of a state and people therein, to defend against an invasion and/or other such “imminent danger”, and especially so if the federal government neglects and actually refused to be obedient to the terms of the Constitution and its guarantee that the federal government “shall” protect each of the States against “Invasion”.

The fact is, Congress cannot by legislative acts delegate enforceable powers to itself which the States have not expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution. And, nowhere in the federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear. And so, The Hill’s assertion that Texas cannot declare an “invasion” at its border and protect itself from said invasion, is an assertion not substantiated by the text of the Constitution nor its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

And with reference to the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization, our very own Supreme Court summarized its limited power as follows: “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)

Finally, a review of the CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 confirms the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization is very limited indeed and most certainly does not include an all-encompassing power over “immigration” nor a power to prohibit the various states from protecting against invasions.

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.

1 Like
2

It would take a good deal of courage for,Abbott to,defend the border. That would mean using force, something the federal government will not do. However, Biden’s leftist handlers might finally agree to use force…to invade Texas and arrest Abbott.
This may be the only way to protect our country from a failed President who will not protect it himself.

3 Likes
3

Meh. Send it up to the New and Improved SCOTUS. Maybe they’ll encourage Texas to continue down this logical path. :person_shrugging:

2 Likes
4

Why is the concept of an opinion piece so hard to grasp here?

5

“It is well settled law that immigration enforcement is the jurisdiction of the federal government”. Something that they were quiet about when we were talking sanctuary cities or judges declaring their court houses off limit.

3 Likes
6

What I’d do is have buses at the border and simply ship every illegal alien to DC and to Delaware. Enjoy the fruits of your labors ■■■■■■■■ .

1 Like
7

We will not comply with the invasion.

Never let the Dem accomplices rest. Invade them.

1 Like
8

Settled law? Like abortion?

:rofl:

3 Likes
9

were there any exceptions for the nation of Texas before it became a state?

10

In regard to the meaning of “immigration” vs “naturalization”

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.

.
Congress has been delegated a power regarding “Naturalization”, not “Immigration”.

Let us not forget what our Supreme Court stated in the PASSENGER CASES, 48 U. S. 283 (1849)

: “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.”

And the above is verified by the following documentation:

This is verified 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 STONE … concluded 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 in our country, is granted citizenship.

Immigration involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States.

Congress has not been delegated a power to force upon any state a swarm of unwanted foreign nationals, i.e., immigrants who are not citizens of the United States.

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?

11

Seems to me if Texas posts No Trespassing Signs along the border and anyone violates the posting, they can be forced off the property at gun point if necessary or taken into custody and prosecuted.

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.

12

.
"We’re being invaded. The facts are there,” said Kinney County Judge Tully Shahan at a press conference in Brackettville, Texas. “This is real. We want America to know this is real. America doesn’t know what’s happening here.”

And the Biden Administration is not only encouraging the invasion, but also giving assistance to the invaders and bussing them into the interior of our country, which is a prosecutable offense:

JWK

I never thought I would live to see the day when American Citizens would stand idle and allow the United States to be invaded by millions of foreign nationals without a shot being fired.

1 Like
13

I think Governor Abbott has finally come to the conclusion that a vast majority of the American people are behind him on this issue and would not hesitate to defend him if push comes to shove. This situation is nothing like Governor George Wallace Attempting to Block Integration at the University of Alabama:

This is about the citizens of Texas, regardless of their color, suffering the devastating consequences of the Biden Administration filling Texas with millions of other country’s poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminal populations when Texas has a housing shortage, and trouble caring for our own needy citizens.

The Democrat Party Leadership’s open border policy is destructive to the general welfare of the State of Texas and her citizens, not to mention how it is also destructive to the citizens all those other cities and towns where the Biden Administration is shipping these invaders in the dead of night.

I am absolutely sure the American People will have Governor Abbott’s back if the current Administration decides to do something stupid.

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership has been angry, stupid and obnoxious ever since the Republican Party Leadership freed democrat owned slaves and put the KKK out of business. ___ Author unknown

14

Here is an example of what Biden’s open border invasion is doing to small border towns.

.

.

JWK

Our federal government, by the terms of our Constitution, is commanded to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion” ___ Article 4, Section 4. Constitution of the United States

.

15

The Justice Department is now investigating Texas to see if they have acted illegally in trying to slow the invasion of the state by discriminating based on nation of origin.
They don’t have the resources to stop the invasion, but they do have the resources to go after Texas.
Just unbelievable .

16

Illegal immigrants should be informed that any military aged male crossing illegally into the US will be regarded as a potential enemy combatant whoze intent is to do harm to US citizens, and they will be dealt with at the border accordingly.

1 Like
17

Meanwhile In Richmond Virginia:

But the “border is closed” right? :face_with_raised_eyebrow: Right Joe?
Mayorkas keeps telling us so.
81 million suckers voted for this ■■■■ right?
Illegals in possession of firearms? No invasion huh?
I guess if thousands of armed screaming ChiComs came ashore in Washington, Oregon or California J’Biden would call that a parade?

18

It’s coming to a head and the good news is, the American People, by and large, support Texas finally taking a stand!

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, subdue and bring to its knees a prosperous and freedom loving country than by flooding it with deadly drugs, an inflated currency and the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminal populations of other countries.

19

I have no doubt that would be the response from these Globalists controlling Biden. I wonder how the good people of Texas would respond to such an action?

20

SEE:

I hear tell on short-wave that patriotic Americans all around the country are beginning to pack their sporting gear and preparing for a trip to Texas.

JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?’ “A republic, if you can keep it,” responded Franklin.

1 Like