More Top Stories:

Yes! Texas can refuse to allow Syrian Refugees into their state!

Yes! Texas can refuse to allow Syrian Refugees into their state!

Skip to comments.

Yes! Texas can refuse to allow Syrian Refugees into their state!
11-21-15 | johnwk

Posted on 11/21/2015 8:23:34 AM PST by JOHN W K

See Abbott: Texas to Block Syrian Refugee Resettlement

“Gov. Greg Abbott said Monday that Texas would refuse Syrian refugees after a terrorist attack in Paris killed more than 120 people.

“Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees,any one of whom could be connected to terrorism, being resettled in Texas,” Abbott wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama.”

I contend that the power to regulate immigration is a power exercised by the original 13 States and preexisted our existing Constitution. I further contend that if this power has not been expressly delegated to Congress, then it is a power reserved by the States under our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.

Our federal government’s delegated power starts and stops with the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, not immigration.
There is a big difference between the words “immigration” and “naturalization”.

The ordinary meaning of the word “immigration” is the entrance into a country of foreigners for the purpose of permanent residence. This word does not appear in our Constitution.

“Naturalization” does appear in our Constitution in the following context:

Congress shall have power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

We also find the words “Migration” in our Constitution in the following context:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. see: Article 1, Section 9

As to the ordinary meaning of “naturalization”, its meaning is nothing more than the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. Congress, under our Constitution, is granted an exclusive, but limited power to establish a uniform rule by which an alien may become a citizen, regardless of what State the alien migrates to. But the power over “naturalization” does not, nor was it intended to, interfere with a particular state’s original policing power over foreigners wishing to immigrate into their State. This is verified by the following documentation taken from the debates dealing with 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 to prevent 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.…

 if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.


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