Obama lied about federal authority over unwanted immigration!


I came across the following article a while back and thought it would be productive to comment on it now considering immigration is one of the priorities in the coming election. SEE: Obama administration tells states they can’t refuse Syrian refugees

November 26, 2015

”The Obama administration warned states over the Syrian refugee crisis Wednesday, telling them in a letter they do not have legal authority to refuse the refugees, and states that do not comply may be subject to enforcement action.”

The problem with Obama’s assertion is, there is no provision in our Constitution to support his absurd threat of enforcement.

I certainly cannot find a power delegated to Congress or the President in our written Constitution repealing a power exercised by the States under the Articles of Confederation during which time each state was free to regulate immigration into their own state. And keep in mind the Tenth Amendment declares powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the States. But there is an exception made to this power under our existing Constitution which the States knowingly and willingly greed to ___the exception being Article 1, Section 9, which reads:

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

The above delegated power allows Congress to lay a tax or duty on the importation of foreigners, but leaves each State otherwise free to regulate and set its own immigration policy in a manner which serves each particular State’s interests, and the general welfare of the State.

So, the question remains, under what wording in our Constitution has Congress or the president been delegated a power to admit tens of thousands, or even millions of poverty stricken and destitute foreigners on to American soil and then require unwilling states to accept them?

Let us recall what Chief Justice Marshall emphasized while the ink was barely dry on our existing Constitution:

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)


The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47


Wait till HildaBeast gets in office.


Obama lied! What a revelation!


Not only does she want to import the poverty stricken populations of Mexico and Central America into the United States and then tax American Citizens to finance their economic needs including the hospital bill when they crank out newborn democrat voters, but she wants to extend this invitation to Syrian refugees to insure the majority of America’s population will be dependent upon government for their subsistence.


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon the federal government for its subsistence, (Obamacare, food stamps, section 8 housing, college loan checks, etc.) we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Democrat Party Leadership’s Marxist game plan___a plan to establish a federal plantation which confiscates and redistributes the bread which labor, business and investors have worked to produce.


It’s pretty simple to be able to tell when a liberal is lying. Their lips move & sound comes out of their mouth.


Just for the record, let us recall our founders expressed distinction between “naturalization” and “immigration”. And what were their reasons for granting power to Congress over “naturalization”?

If one studies our forefather’s concerns during the creation of our existing Constitution, it is easily established there was an apprehension that a state could be forced to accept foreigners that were indiscriminately granted citizenship by another state, who would then be able to enter another state and be entitled to the privileges and immunities created by that state. And so, to avoid being forced to accept citizens of another state who may endanger the general welfare of a particular state who were granted citizenship in another state under rules which were not designed to promote the general welfare, Congress was granted the power to make a uniform rule by which a foreigner may become a citizen of the “United States”. However, the power granted only applies to standards which a foreigner must meet to obtain citizenship. It is not a power which allows our federal government to force a state to accept foreigners who are not citizens. The States were left free to control and regulate migration as each saw fit, while the federal government was granted a power to set the rules by which a foreigner in any particular state may become a citizen of the United States.

Now, let me substantiate my claim with the words of our forefathers.

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

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. ***

So, as it turns out there is no authority granted to our federal government to force Texas or any other state to accept foreigners which the federal government feels they should accept. And the Tenth Amendment’s protection reserves the original power of the States to regulate foreign immigration in order to promote the state’s general welfare.


“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”***___ Justice Story