Posted on 02/29/2024 9:38:28 AM PST by CFW
A temporary halt while the legal wrangly (appeals) plays out in the courts.
The Constitution gives Congress the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," but this applies to people, not borders.
Do we have a national border or do we have 50 separate state borders?
I'm coming to the thinking that it is the latter, that the several states are sovereign and own their borders, and the Constitution only gives Congress the power to establish "uniform Rule[s] of Naturalization" for the people who enter the United States.
Article I Section 8 also gives Congress the "Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings..."
Congress can erect Border Control facilities at designated entry points into the United States (on land purchased for that purpose from the states) for the purpose of regulating immigration and naturalization, but they cannot claim dominion over the entire border unless they actually purchase that land from the several states for "needful buildings." Note that the state legislature have to approve these federal purchases, the federal government cannot simply seize state land for federal purposes.
Equally to the point, they cannot use 5th amendment eminent domain to take state land (it is limited to private property), nor private land for border control as that is not "public use" (it is public non-use, though SCOTUS ruled in Keto v. New London that "public use" equals "public good" when it came to tax revenue).
We need to change the language of the border debate from federal control of the border to sovereign states owning their borders. Article I Section 10 and Article IV Section 4 give the states authority over their borders, and we need to make this the real issue.
Leave the rules of naturalization to the federal government, but let the states police their own borders.
That means that the several states can arrest people who trespass across their state borders, and then refer them to the federal government for violations of the uniform rules of Naturalization.
-PJ
” it could inspire other states to pass their own immigration laws, creating an inconsistent patchwork of rules about immigration,”
Sorry, judge. The sanctuary states and cities already created an inconsistent patchwork of rules about immigration. This is no different.
EC
Guess he didn't read this:
U.S. Constitution Art I Section IX; Clause 2:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Article IV; Section IV:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Now, allow me to translate: Since the Good Governor (read: The Executive) has already declared an invasion, He can arrest, suspend Habeas Corpus; i.e., hold illegals invaders as long as he sees fit - or immediately deport. He can even arrest the Judge for aiding and abetting domestic violence...
... which is exactly what he should start doing - starting with this judge. Arrest him, strip him of all his papers, effects and shoes, and parachute him in to Panama's Darien Gap.
just my $0.02
jimjohn - OUT
The Feds can arrest and detain those suspected of illegal on a whim.
So we know the action is legal.
Their argument is they, the Feds, are the the only entity that can undertake enforcement action against illegal aliens and those reasonably suspected of such.
The USSC has ruled conclusively that BORDER policing and enforcement is their exclusive domain.
I don’t think those rulings addressed arrest and detention.
I doubt this decision will stand in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is probably the most Constitutional circuit in the country. This isn't how Federalism is supposed to work. It's fairly explicit that the states are the fallback in cases where the Federal government is out of control.
” it could inspire other states to pass their own immigration laws, creating an inconsistent patchwork of rules about immigration,”
Sorry, judge. The sanctuary states and cities already created an inconsistent patchwork of rules about immigration. This is no different.”
I noticed that as well. The entire ‘disobeying laws and the courts’ and ‘no one is above the law’ narrative is a one-way thing. Because, sometimes it’s (D)ifferent.
Tell the Judge to Go Pound Sand and ignore him. Only the Supreme Court can make decisions when a State is the Party to an action and they have to take the case in Original Jurisdiction. Quite frankly, it’s high time States start asserting their Rights clearly spelled out in the US Constitution
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.