From your link.....
In September, the U.S. State Department announced it would accept 10,000 Syrian refugees next year. Thousands have fled war-stricken Syria, mostly to Europe, Turkey and Jordan, as the terrorist group ISIS has taken over much of the nation’s territory.
It is unclear how many of those refugees would have ended up in Texas, but in recent years, the Lone Star State has accepted about 10 percent of the 70,000 refugees admitted into the country annually.
Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a classic case of the left trying to have it both ways. They say that local areas can choose NOT to enforce immigration laws, like through sanctuary cities, but they also say that local areas CANNOT chose TO enforce immigration laws.
You can’t have your falafel and eat it too.
ALL states need to reject these terrorists. If the Obama regime wants to kick us out of their “union”, so be it. We wont have to go through all of that secession legal bull****. Yeah, the Kenyan will cut of all tax dollars to the states but he wont have them to give away anyway. Obama’s socialist state wont last long without his government stealing money from thirty seven states through “taxation”.
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject.
This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
George Tucker
----
Until a foreign national begins the process to become a citizen they are not an 'immigrant', they're a denizen .
So, they can get in for $10?.....................
What’s to keep them from hopping on a Greyhound bus and entering Texas?
Meaningless unless every state does it. Once they are settled, they can move wherever they please. There’s no way to stop that.
Its been quite awhile since anyone in Washington paid any attention to what the American Constitution says.
PREEXISTING BASIS OF STATES` RIGHTS TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION
...”power to regulate immigration is a power exercised by the original 13 States and preexisted our existing Constitution”
GOVERNOR OF THE COLONY OF NEW YORK REGULATES ITS BORDERS AND IMMIGRATION FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
VIZ.
1678-1682 “French intrigues among New York Indians finally led [Gov.] Andros to issue an order that Frenchmen coming from Canada without passes would be sent to the West Indies
...This situation continued until 1682, when Frontenac was recalled by King Louis. His successor governed so harshly that more than sixty [French] colonists moved into New York [colony, not NY City], and were permitted to settle, a large number of them at Saratoga [Schuylerville] where they had good access to both the Albany and Montreal fur markets. The trade [fur] thereafter was sharply distracted from Montreal to Albany. The Sieur de Salvaye asked Anthony Brockholes, acting governor in Andros’ absence, to help stop the flight of [French] settlers. Brockholes replied that Andros had done all he could to [stop] French runaways and recommended to Salvaye that he contact Andros’ successor when one arrived.”
Rogers, Robert J., “Rising Above Circumstances”, Sheltus & Picard, 1998, p.123
Excellent post, John. Thank you very much.