Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Here's What All the Republican Presidential Contenders Think About Immigration
National Journal ^ | Feb 23, 2015 | Emma Roller and Andrew McGill

Posted on 02/25/2015 6:58:29 AM PST by SharpRightTurn

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
To: SharpRightTurn

If they’re “unclear” that means they’re being wishy-washy, unwilling to admit they’re for amnesty.


21 posted on 02/25/2015 8:33:28 AM PST by Nea Wood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn

Bkmk


22 posted on 02/25/2015 8:51:45 AM PST by AllAmericanGirl44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nea Wood

“If they’re “unclear” that means they’re being wishy-washy, unwilling to admit they’re for amnesty.”

That’s got to be it. Possibly trying to triangulate: they want the Chamber of Corruption money but don’t want to admit to the primary voters they are on board with amnesty/massive immigration numbers.


23 posted on 02/25/2015 8:56:21 AM PST by SharpRightTurn (White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn

Betcha Jeb thought that event was dead and buried-—

...W/ A PIC TO BOOT.....


24 posted on 02/25/2015 8:57:02 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn; All
Thank you for referencing that article SharpRightTurn. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

Immigration is not a matter of the opinion of those seeking to be POTUS in our constitutional republic. More specifically, even if all candidates supported lawless Obama’s amnesty for illegals, it remains that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration.

In fact, and as mentioned in related threads, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison regarded as the father of the Constitution, had claimed that the feds have no constitutional authority to regulate immigration.

“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 note that regardless that federal Democrats and RINOs will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that they cannot do something then they can do it, note that the Supreme Court has condemned that foolish idea. More specifically, the Supreme Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not expressly delegated to the feds 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.

So as long as patriots keep on playing “the Oval Office is the most powerful office in the land” game with corrupt federal politicians and candidates for Oval Office, it’s just a matter of time before we have another person as lawless as Obama in the Oval Office. Patriots actually need to work on exercising their voting muscle to peacefully force the corrupt federal government to surrender state powers that it has stolen from the states back to the states.

25 posted on 02/25/2015 9:44:31 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson