Yes! Texas can refuse to allow Syrian Refugees into their state!


#1

See Abbott: Texas to Block Syrian Refugee Resettlement

*** “Gov. Greg Abbott said Monday that Texas would refuse Syrian refugees after a terrorist attack in Paris killed more than 120 people.

“Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees — any one of whom could be connected to terrorism — being resettled in Texas,” Abbott wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama.”***

I contend that the power to regulate immigration is a power exercised by the original 13 States and preexisted our existing Constitution. I further contend that if this power has not been expressly delegated to Congress, then it is a power reserved by the States under our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.

Our federal government’s delegated power starts and stops with the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, not immigration.
There is a big difference between the words “immigration” and “naturalization”.

The ordinary meaning of the word “immigration” is the entrance into a country of foreigners for the purpose of permanent residence. This word does not appear in our Constitution.

“Naturalization” does appear in our Constitution in the following context:

Congress shall have power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”

We also find the words “Migration” in our Constitution in the following context:

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. see: Article 1, Section 9

As to the ordinary meaning of “naturalization”, its meaning is nothing more than the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. Congress, under our Constitution, is granted an exclusive, but limited power to establish a uniform rule by which an alien may become a citizen, regardless of what State the alien migrates to. But the power over “naturalization” does not, nor was it intended to, interfere with a particular state’s original policing power over foreigners wishing to immigrate into their State. This is verified by the following documentation taken from the debates dealing with our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790

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 to prevent 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

The irrefutable fact is, nowhere in our Constitution has our federal government, much less the President of the United States, been vested with a power over the immigration of foreigners into the United States or compel a state to accept them.

The limited power granted to the federal government is that which allows Congress to create the requirements which an alien, regardless of what state that alien has immigrated to, must meet in order to become a “citizen of the United States”.

It should also be noted that the 14th Amendment, by its very language confirms each State may make distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” when regulating and enforcing its laws!

Please note that a review of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment declares that “citizens” of the United States are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” offered by the state in which they are located. But those who are not “citizens of the united States” and referred to as “persons“ (which would include aliens and those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the “privileges or immunities“ which a state has created for its “citizens“.

The 14th Amendment only requires that “persons” may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s codified due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all other “persons” within the state in question.

CONCLUSION

The State of Texas, as well as every other State has retained its policing power to determine the flow of foreigners into their State, which is an original power exercised by each state and never ceded to our federal government.

Neither Congress nor the president has a power under the Constitution to force the unwanted populations of other countries upon the States. The various states should immediately go into Court and ask the Court for an injunction to stop Obama from forcing the states to accept unwanted foreigners while it determines the legitimacy of Obama’s or Congress forcing tens of thousands of foreigners upon the various United States, especially when the introduction of these foreigners pose a very real threat to the general welfare of the States.

Keep in mind a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled against the Obama administration’s controversial immigration program, upholding a lower court’s injunction barring the plan from taking effect while awaiting the outcome of a full trial on the lawsuit’s underlying arguments. One of the reasons for granting the injunction was the devastating effects thrust upon the States without their permission.

JWK


If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?



#2

The last I read 23 states have refused these"refugees" Another interesting tidbit it seems we are the second highest nation with ISIS supporters


#3

That’s wrong on its face. The largest foriegn support for ISIS has come out of Turkey. Iraq and Syria clearly leaves them in 3rd place to start with. Did you mean to preface that with “in the west”?


#4

The same Turkey who was killing Kurds fleeing Saddam?


#5

Under what constitutional authority has our federal government been granted authority to dictate refugee status and then force tens of thousands of “refugees” upon the states?

It seems to me a review of the founding of our country and the expressed legislative intent under which our Constitution was adopted contradicts such a power exists.

Let us look at one of our forefathers words stated during our nation’s 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 being forced upon the states by our federal government ought to be considered as a “high misdemeanor” which happens to be an impeachable offense!

While a State has power to import who they please, the federal government certainly has not be authorized to fill the States with whomever it pleases.

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.___Tenth Amendment



#6

Congress does not have authority to assume powers not authorized by our Constitution.

Under what provision of our Constitution has Congress authority to admit tens of thousands of immigrants into the United States and compel the States to accept them?

The only power I see in the Constitution relating to this issue is that which is found under Article 1, Section 9, and allows a tax or duty to be imposed on the importation of foreigners, but leaves the State free to admit whom they please.

"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."

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.***___ Tenth Amendment


#7

Trump or Cruz will have a Pen & a Phone & The House & Senate & G-d willing the SCOTUS too…


#8

Yes. They’re escorting fighters over the border, and makeing intentional gaps in their “fence”, just to let these people through.

These people will fight the Kurds, or they’ll fight Assad. Both are “wins” in the Turk’s book.


#9

I’m not sure what all that has to do with whether or not our President has been delegated a power under our Constitution to flood the States with the unwanted populations of other countries.

JWK


#10

I’m still waiting for someone to quote the wording in our Constitution under which the president or Congress has been granted a power to flood a state with unwanted “refugees”.

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. 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 admit whom they please and set its own immigration policy in a manner which serves each particular State’s interests, general welfare and safety.

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 or 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)

JWK


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



#11

SEE: Obama’s Unilateral Immigration Amnesty Plan Gets to the Supreme Court

***"On Friday, the U.S. Justice Department filed a 35-page petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review Texas v. U.S., the case filed by 26 states against President Obama’s immigration amnesty plan.

The government is appealing a preliminary injunction that stopped implementation of Obama’s amnesty plan, which was issued by a federal district court and upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 9."***

JWK


The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.



#12

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 absolutely no provision in our Constitution which can be pointed to supporting Obama’s contention/suggestion that the States delegated a power to our federal government which allows the federal government to compel a state to accept millions of immigrants who are pouring in from Mexico, Central America, Syria or any other country.

Our federal government’s power regarding immigrants is the limited power to set a uniform rule by which a foreigner who has entered a State may become a citizen of the United States. And that is where the federal government’s authority begins and ends! Keep in mind a power not delegated is a power denied! See the Tenth Amendment.

Additionally, there is no power which can be pointed to which repeals a power exercised by the States under the Articles of Confederation during which time each state was free to police and regulate immigration into their own state. But there is an exception to this original power which the States knowingly and willingly agreed 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."

In fact, the above delegated power allows Congress to lay a tax or duty on foreigners entering a State from a foreign country, but leaves each State otherwise free to admit whom they please and set its own immigration policy in a manner which serves each particular State’s interests, and the general welfare of the State.

So, those who contend our federal government has the power to compel the various united States to accept unwanted immigrants which the federal government allows to enter upon United States soil, are obligated to point to the wording in our Constitution that delegates the power to our federal government to admit tens of thousands, or even millions of poverty stricken or 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)

In closing, it’s a sad shame that Foxnews continually asserts that our federal government is vested with such power while being delinquent in substantiating its claim, just as Obama fails to provide the wording in our Constitution supporting his unsubstantiated contention.

JWK


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***