Posted on 11/27/2015 9:17:06 AM PST by JOHN W K
See: Can Governors Legally Block Refugees from Coming to Their States?
"In response to the influx of migrants "from the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq," Congress in 2005 gave President George W. Bush unlimited authority to admit people for humanitarian purposes, noted Judge Napolitano.
And that has since been passed over to President Obama, he added.
"Here, he has the absolute lawful authority – may not like the way he’s exercising it, but he has it," said the judge. "To admit people for political asylum and humanitarian purposes."
What Judge Napolitano and Foxnews ignore is, Congress cannot assume powers not granted it by the Constitution. This is basic 101 constitutional law! And there is nothing in the Constitution remotely suggesting our federal government was granted a power to allow tens of thousands or millions of foreigners to enter upon American soil, and then force a State to accept any of them. As a matter of fact the historical evidence establishes Judge Napolitano is flat wrong in his assertion!
Let us recall some historical facts regarding Congress' delegated power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
Under the Articles of Confederation which was in full force and effect during the writing of our existing Constitution, each State regulated the flow of immigration into their State. Likewise, each State made its own rules by which a foreigner living in their State became a citizen of that State. Keep in mind the above powers are two distinct and separate powers: the former dealing with the flow of foreigners into a state [ a power retained by the States under the Tenth Amendment], while the latter establishes how a foreigner living in a state may become a citizen of that state.
During the Convention of 1787 and the writing of our existing Constitution, the power of a State to make its own rules by which a foreigner became a citizen of that State became a bone of contention, especially considering the new Constitution proposed under Article 4, Section 2.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Thus, if one State's rules allowed citizenship to foreigners indiscriminately and without assurances the granting of citizenship required loyalty, good character, and that a productive person was being granted citizenship, in addition to other beneficial qualities necessary to promote the State's general welfare, an undesirable person could be granted citizenship in one State and then move to another State and be entitled to that State's privileges and immunities without the State’s consent!
And this is why the limited power to set rules by which a foreigner living in a particular State could obtain citizenship was delegated to Congress. It was to prevent one State from granting citizenship to undesirable foreigners allowed into their State, and then forcing these "citizens" upon other States who would then be entitled to that States privileges and immunities.
Chief Justice Taney summarized the very object of allowing the federal government to set the rules for naturalization 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 (1849). And Justice Taney's statement is in full harmony with the intentions of our forefathers expressed during 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 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 â€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 State,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
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 Judge Napolitano is flat wrong in his assertion regarding Obama’s power. In addition, the kind of immigrants Obama is attempting to force upon the states from Mexico, Central America and now Syria ___ the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, and/or destitute populations of other countries ____ ought to be viewed as a “high misdemeanor†which happens to be an impeachable offense!
Perhaps someday we will at least find one big media source which supports and defends our written Constitution and its documented legislative intent.
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.
Your conclusion says it all.
This is some dumb sh*t. So if you consider it “humanitarian” to allow some sexual deviant who is not allowed to wear a dress in his own country into America, the deviant should become the problem of the American people? What the hell kind of country allows other people’s garbage to be dumped on them.
Napolitano isn’t wrong on many things, but this time....
What specific authority does Judge Hair Club for Men cite?
This?
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf
How is this an “emergency for the US” so that Obama can bootstrap (purported) authority given to Bush II to address the problem he created just as Obama gave us the wonder known as `Arab Spring’?
It would seem to me that bringing in these desperate ingrates would create countless emergencies down the road for us, or for or children ... who I imagine should be cursing us daily for our fecklessness in allowing our government to run roughshod while ignoring its salient duty to protect the several states from invasion, in fact, facilitating that invasion.
A great many of Americas ‘judges’ are ignoring the law as written these days in order to promote their own personal prejudices.
But, then, Obama has taken the lead in ignoring the constitution, so they are only following suit.
political asylum and humanitarian purposes....
SO..... WHY NO/FEW CHRISTIANS WHO ARE LEGIT SEEKERS...???
AS OPPOSED TO THE ISIS / SUNI MOSLEMS... WHAT ARE THEY FLEEING? THEMSELVES...???
no, they are following imam’s instructions to migrate and conquer
WE ARE FOOLS TO LET THEM IN....98% DONT WANT THEM
but the muzzle in chief does....
No sane country would give unlimited power to any branch of government especially to the executive branch. The Executive branch with unlimited power to decide who immigrates to this country, how many and from where is dictatorial and tyrannical.
That being said from a practical matter we are a debtor nation thanks in large part to Obama over the past seven years and this country cannot afford to borrow the necessary billions to pay for these refugees. More importantly no one knows for sure who these refugees are and many may be terrorists. Americans do not have to be put at risk. These refugees have no government records and no databases with their backgrounds. They cannot be vetted.
We the people have no obligation to allow anyone into this country. It is up to the people through their duly elected representatives as to whether they approve of any immigration policy.
The best solution has been mentioned by candidates during the Presidential campaign. Safe zones should be set up in Iraq and Syria to protect the refugees. We can provide military, housing, medical and food assistance along with our coalition partners. A no fly zone can be established over the safe zone. After the conflict subsides the refugees can then go back home to a safe environment.
This solution makes sense and is a humanitarian.
No legal mind
Interesting history.
[[who I imagine should be cursing us daily for our fecklessness in allowing our government to run roughshod while ignoring its salient duty to protect the several states from invasion, in fact, facilitating that invasion.]]
Those same children also will not mount an armed rebellion against it either- so yeah- we’re where we’re at and that is that
[[No sane country would give unlimited power to any branch of government especially to the executive branch.]]
Which is why the current executive power simply took it, knowing full well there was no one with spine enough to stop him
[[Americans do not have to be put at risk.]]
Nope, we don’t have to, but who’s going to organize the proper ‘protest’ to stop it?
[[The best solution has been mentioned by candidates during the Presidential campaign. Safe zones should be set up in Iraq and Syria to protect the refugees. We can provide military, housing, medical and food assistance along with our coalition partners.]]
Exactly- this IS the solution- but this isn’t good enough for our president who seems hell bent on importing a group of people KNOWN to turn rogue into a country they despise (US) to give them shelter, food, free education, welfare, etc etc etc
This is NOT about humanitarianism- never was, this is strictly about importing potential terrorists into this country to fight us on our home front and in our cities-
There is an obvious and SAFE solution, but our dear leader has such contempt for this country that he will not even conceder it
It no longer matters what the Constitution or the law prescribes. Obama is going to push this and import as many invaders as possible until or unless he is stopped by Congressional action or force.
With the people in D.C. now we have no constitutional law we have deals.
Replacement time nears and not to soon.
He is more interested in promoting his warped social(istic) agenda on many fronts than in protecting the homeland and enforcing the laws of this country. He has sworn to do so now two times and is woefully derelict in these duties. Hillary Clinton would be no different.
With all due respect to Judge Napolitano, he cannot point to any constitutional clause that clearily indicates that the Founding States delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration or decide policy for refugees. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution.
Both Jefferson and Madison had indicated, reflecting on 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty nonetheless, that the Founders had not constitutionally delegated such power to the feds.
Here is the relevant excerpt from Jeffersons writings.
” 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.
Here is the related excerpt from Madison's writings from the 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.
He should stick to doing celebrity impersonations of Eddie Munster.
Proof that paychecks matter.
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.
I wonder why Judge Napolitano was not asked by a Foxnews personality to point to the wording in our Constitution under which the federal government was granted a power to allow tens of thousands or millions of foreigners to enter upon American soil, and then allows the federal government to force a State to accept any of them.
Where is the fair and balanced reporting on Foxnews with regard to this issue? It appears that Foxnews repeatedly asserts our federal government has exclusive power over "immigration", but constantly fails to establish the wording in our Constitution granting this power to our federal government. WHY?
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.
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.