Hillary Rolls Out New Immigration Policy Rhetoric Aimed Squarely at Jeb Bush (The Amnesty Twins)

In an effort to contrast her position on immigration reform with that of Jeb Bush and other Republican presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton will stress that she supports the so-called “path to citizenship” for 11 million illegal immigrants during a campaign trip to Nevada, The Wall Street Journal reports:

“She will say that the standard for a true solution is nothing less than a full and equal path to citizenship,” said a Clinton aide, previewing her remarks. “She will say that we cannot settle for proposals that provide hardworking people with merely a ’second-class’ status.”

By contrast, Jeb Bush, whom some in the Clinton camp view as the potential GOP nominee, changed his position on the idea in 2013, according to The Washington Post:

“[O]ur proposal is a proposal that looks forward. And if we want to create an immigration policy that’s going to work, we can’t continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration. And so I think it’s important that there is a natural friction between our immigrant heritage and the rule of law.”

While Clinton has supported the “path to citizenship” since 2006, she’s also said she is opposed to driver’s licenses for illegals (although an aide now says that she supports the idea), and children crossing the border illegally should be sent back to their home countries.

The states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate vote-winning immigration. So the question is, between Hillary and Jeb, who will be the first to lead Congress to successfully propose an immigration amendment to the Constitution to the states (ahem)?

Regarding so-called federal immigration laws, note that both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had written, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration, immigration therefore a state power issue.

As mentioned in related threads, here is the relevant excerpt from Jefferson’s writing.

“4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.

And here is the related excerpt from the writings of James Madison in Virginia Resolutions.

"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...
…
… the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. ”— James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.

Also, regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs, activist judges and indoctrinated ACLU attorneys will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (5.2) aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration in this case, are prohibited to the feds.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


What difference does it make?