Biden Administration lies in complaint against Texas border security law.

[johnwk]

.

See: COMPLAINT AGAINST TEXAS BORDER SECURITY LAW

Lie number 1:

“The United States brings this action to preserve its exclusive authority under federal law to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens.”

In fact, our Constitution is the supreme federal law, and nowhere in its wording has the federal government been delegated an "exclusive" authority to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens from a State.

The truth is, our federal government is granted exclusive authority to “. . . establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . “ Naturalization involves the process by which a foreign national, who is already in the United States, is granted citizenship. Immigration, other hand, involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States. The two terms are distinct and very different activities!

Lie number 2

“Texas’s SB 4 is preempted by federal law and thus violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

The relative parts of the “Supremacy Clause” mentioned reads as follows:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

As it turns out, only those laws made in pursuance of our Constitution - a constitution which is designed to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States – “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

The State of Texas has not “preempted” any federal law designed to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. To the contrary, Texas’s SB 4 in reality, is protecting the common defense and general welfare of the United States by working to prevent millions upon millions of unwanted foreign nations from crossing it border and trespassing into Texas where they then travel to the interior of the United States and cause severe and devastating social and economic disruptions, which do not occur when orderly immigration policies are adhered to which do promote the general welfare of the United States.

While the Biden Administration’s complaint dwells on a number of court cases, mostly taken out of context to distract from the actual ongoing events taking place, and likewise is intended to distract from the specific wording in our Constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which its provisions were adopted, which gives context to its text, the bottom line is, the very wording used in the Biden Administration complaint exhibits lies and distortions of our Constitution, which are put forth for no other reason than to disrupt Texas from exercising an authority expressly stated in our Constitution, and its working to prevent an ongoing invasion of the United States which is destructive to the general welfare of the United States and her citizens. The expressed power authorizing the actions of Texas cannot be denied and are stated as follows:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." [emphasis added]

Additionally, let us not forget that our Constitution also declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . . "



JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[MarathonMike]

Facilitating a foreign invasion on your own country seems an odd strategy by the Democrats. Unless you realize that the Democratic Party is aligning itself with China then everything they do makes perfect sense.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Texas has every right to do what Bidum and democrats refuse to do

 

[TNHarley]

I dont see how either of those are lies. They seem correct.
The Constitution gives the fed gov exclusive authority over Naturalization. Which would include border policy.
I will also state that I dont blame Texas for what they are doing. Someone has to do something. Congress nor Biden is doing anything about it. I think its shitty that POS blocks states for trying to help.

 

[johnwk]

Facilitating a foreign invasion on your own country seems an odd strategy by the Democrats. Unless you realize that the Democratic Party is aligning itself with China then everything they do makes perfect sense.

There is no surer way to weaken, subdue and bring to its knees a prosperous and freedom loving country than by flooding it with deadly drugs, an inflated currency and the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal and terrorists, of other countries.

JWK

Former President Trump was absolutely correct when he referred to the Democrat Party Leadership’s unregulated and massive immigration as a Trojan horse.

 

[TNHarley]

There is no surer way to weaken, subdue and bring to its knees a prosperous and freedom loving country than by flooding it with deadly drugs, an inflated currency and the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal and terrorists, of other countries.

JWK

Former President Trump was absolutely correct when he referred to the Democrat Party Leadership’s unregulated and massive immigration as a Trojan horse.

Did you hear about that massive "caravan" headed for us? Thousands of people from over 20 different countries! 20!
We should only be accepting "asylum" seekers from Mexico, Canada and Cuba.

 

[TNHarley]

Trump had one very good policy about asylum seekers. They had to try to get asylum in another country first, unless they bordered us. That was a great policy!
Of course, the senile pedo got rid of that real quick.

 

[johnwk]

I dont see how either of those are lies. They seem correct.
The Constitution gives the fed gov exclusive authority over Naturalization. Which would include border policy.

According to you it "would include border policy", whatever that may mean.

There is nothing to even remotely suggest from historical documentation that our federal government has been delegated an exclusive power to regulate immigration.

So, just what was the specific intention for our framers and those who ratified our constitution to delegate a power to Congress to establish a “. . . uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . ”[Article 1, Section 8, Clause, 4]? And, exactly what does the power encompass?

According to our very own Supreme Court, “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, 48 U. S. 283 (1849). And, the Court’s statement is confirmed by the following documentation!


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

”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 with regard to our nation’s initial immigration law, 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.



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


CONCLUSION:


Naturalization involves the process by which a foreign national, who is already in our country, is granted citizenship. Immigration, on the other hand involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States . . . two very distinct activities!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

 

[Oddball]

Trump had one very good policy about asylum seekers. They had to try to get asylum in another country first, unless they bordered us. That was a great policy!
Of course, the senile pedo got rid of that real quick.

He didn't get rid of it, he actively ignored the actual legal policy of decades....The lawless in charge of the laws.

 

[TNHarley]

According to you it "would include border policy", whatever that may mean.

There is nothing to even remotely suggest from historical documentation that our federal government has been delegated an exclusive power to regulate immigration.

So, just what was the specific intention for our framers and those who ratified our constitution to delegate a power to Congress to establish a “. . . uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . ”[Article 1, Section 8, Clause, 4]? And, exactly what does the power encompass?

According to our very own Supreme Court, “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, 48 U. S. 283 (1849). And, the Court’s statement is confirmed by the following documentation!


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

”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 with regard to our nation’s initial immigration law, 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.



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


CONCLUSION:


Naturalization involves the process by which a foreign national, who is already in our country, is granted citizenship. Immigration, on the other hand involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States . . . two very distinct activities!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

Ok, so... it means they gave the fed gov full authority. Thanks.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I dont see how either of those are lies. They seem correct.
The Constitution gives the fed gov exclusive authority over Naturalization. Which would include border policy.
I will also state that I dont blame Texas for what they are doing. Someone has to do something. Congress nor Biden is doing anything about it. I think its shitty that POS blocks states for trying to help.

I don't blame Texas at all.

That said I totally agree with Texas sending illegals to blue states.


I had to laugh, Texas sent a plane load to Rockford Illinois, the county immediately took them to the next county and said not here.

 

[TNHarley]

I don't blame Texas at all.

That said I totally agree with Texas sending illegals to blue states.


I had to laugh, Texas sent a plane load to Rockford Illinois, the county immediately took them to the next county and said not here.

Their hypocrisy on all this has been fascinating. And extremely entertaining

 

[johnwk]

Ok, so... it means they gave the fed gov full authority. Thanks.

"Full authority" for what?

 

[Zincwarrior]

.

See: COMPLAINT AGAINST TEXAS BORDER SECURITY LAW

Lie number 1:

“The United States brings this action to preserve its exclusive authority under federal law to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens.”

In fact, our Constitution is the supreme federal law, and nowhere in its wording has the federal government been delegated an "exclusive" authority to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens from a State.

The truth is, our federal government is granted exclusive authority to “. . . establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . “ Naturalization involves the process by which a foreign national, who is already in the United States, is granted citizenship. Immigration, other hand, involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States. The two terms are distinct and very different activities!

Lie number 2

“Texas’s SB 4 is preempted by federal law and thus violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

The relative parts of the “Supremacy Clause” mentioned reads as follows:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

As it turns out, only those laws made in pursuance of our Constitution - a constitution which is designed to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States – “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

The State of Texas has not “preempted” any federal law designed to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. To the contrary, Texas’s SB 4 in reality, is protecting the common defense and general welfare of the United States by working to prevent millions upon millions of unwanted foreign nations from crossing it border and trespassing into Texas where they then travel to the interior of the United States and cause severe and devastating social and economic disruptions, which do not occur when orderly immigration policies are adhered to which do promote the general welfare of the United States.

While the Biden Administration’s complaint dwells on a number of court cases, mostly taken out of context to distract from the actual ongoing events taking place, and likewise is intended to distract from the specific wording in our Constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which its provisions were adopted, which gives context to its text, the bottom line is, the very wording used in the Biden Administration complaint exhibits lies and distortions of our Constitution, which are put forth for no other reason than to disrupt Texas from exercising an authority expressly stated in our Constitution, and its working to prevent an ongoing invasion of the United States which is destructive to the general welfare of the United States and her citizens. The expressed power authorizing the actions of Texas cannot be denied and are stated as follows:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." [emphasis added]

Additionally, let us not forget that our Constitution also declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . . "



JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

You should file an Amicus brief. I am sure it will be persuasive.

 

[0311]

.

See: COMPLAINT AGAINST TEXAS BORDER SECURITY LAW

Lie number 1:

“The United States brings this action to preserve its exclusive authority under federal law to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens.”

In fact, our Constitution is the supreme federal law, and nowhere in its wording has the federal government been delegated an "exclusive" authority to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens from a State.

The truth is, our federal government is granted exclusive authority to “. . . establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . “ Naturalization involves the process by which a foreign national, who is already in the United States, is granted citizenship. Immigration, other hand, involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States. The two terms are distinct and very different activities!

Lie number 2

“Texas’s SB 4 is preempted by federal law and thus violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

The relative parts of the “Supremacy Clause” mentioned reads as follows:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

As it turns out, only those laws made in pursuance of our Constitution - a constitution which is designed to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States – “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

The State of Texas has not “preempted” any federal law designed to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. To the contrary, Texas’s SB 4 in reality, is protecting the common defense and general welfare of the United States by working to prevent millions upon millions of unwanted foreign nations from crossing it border and trespassing into Texas where they then travel to the interior of the United States and cause severe and devastating social and economic disruptions, which do not occur when orderly immigration policies are adhered to which do promote the general welfare of the United States.

While the Biden Administration’s complaint dwells on a number of court cases, mostly taken out of context to distract from the actual ongoing events taking place, and likewise is intended to distract from the specific wording in our Constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which its provisions were adopted, which gives context to its text, the bottom line is, the very wording used in the Biden Administration complaint exhibits lies and distortions of our Constitution, which are put forth for no other reason than to disrupt Texas from exercising an authority expressly stated in our Constitution, and its working to prevent an ongoing invasion of the United States which is destructive to the general welfare of the United States and her citizens. The expressed power authorizing the actions of Texas cannot be denied and are stated as follows:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." [emphasis added]

Additionally, let us not forget that our Constitution also declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . . "



JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

This whole post is a lie.

 

[0311]

Facilitating a foreign invasion on your own country seems an odd strategy by the Democrats. Unless you realize that the Democratic Party is aligning itself with China then everything they do makes perfect sense.

As opposed to P01135809 taking $8,000,000.00 from foreign government including Communist China.

 

[airplanemechanic]

And now they're suing Texas for sending illegals to sanctuary cities!

So much for a liberal sanctuary!! Sanctuary in name only, huh?

NYC Mayor Adams sues Texas bus companies for transporting migrants to sanctuary city, seeks $700 million

New York City Mayor Eric Adams on Thursday announced a lawsuit against 17 Texas bus companies who are transporting migrants to the city, suing for over $700 million.

www.foxnews.com

 

[johnwk]

This whole post is a lie.

According to you, who has failed to offer any rebuttal.

 

[0311]

According to you, who has failed to offer any rebuttal.

You believe the lies told you, I know better.

 

[johnwk]

You believe the lies told you, I know better.

Our federal Constitution is a material fact, which you and others seem to lie about.