Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy?

a reply to: howtonhawky

Well that's one way of looking at it. California can make all the immigration decisions they want, however the Constitution and the Supreme Court make it clear:

Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization."

hrlibrary.umn.edu...

If anyone wants to become a Citizen of the US and subsequently California, then they must do so according to the directions provided by Congress and the President. The Court is very clear on this question and precedents prevail in law

a reply to: DJMSN

yes that is all in the op

Naturalization Naturalization is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. Wikipedia

Immigration policy An immigration policy is any policy of a state that deals with the transit of people across its borders ...

The federal government was givin no power from the constitution concerning immigration.

a reply to: DJMSN

Libs are hilarious their guy passes a law then when it's enforced. Cry about the kids while supporting the abortion of a million babies a year.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: howtonhawky
It has gone unchallenged for so long cause we have never abused the system as we currently are.

WE have abused or THEY have abused our the system. This is not one sided with us as we are only a reactionary force on the border.

We have abused the system that was designed in a manner which we choose to ignore...

All in the name of outing the chineses and their opium.

originally posted by: Saiker
a reply to: DJMSN

Libs are hilarious their guy passes a law then when it's enforced. Cry about the kids while supporting the abortion of a million babies a year.

Since i am speaking of constitutionality here i will say that also abortion is unconstitutional.

Life liberty and pursuit if happiness means live and let live.

Murder is illegal.

a reply to: howtonhawky

The federal government was givin no power from the constitution concerning immigration.

Niether are the states. It was extremely vague, all it said was congress got to govern naturalization... That's it. Literally one sentence regarding naturalization and it said nothing about immigration because it was the 1700's and we have different terms.

Again, so since the constitution doesn't spell everything out it is up to the SCOTUS to interpret the law, which they have done.

You're clutching straws at this point. Your argument is "it doesn't say anything about federal government and immigration, therefore it's stage power".... Which I could inverse with "it doesn't say anything about state and immigration, therfore it's federal".

But neither matter, because if it doesn't say something, SCOTUS decides and they have.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Niether are the states. It was extremely vague, all it said was congress got to govern naturalization... That's it.

that is how the constitution works...

any powers not enumerated by the constitution are givin to the states.

originally posted by: howtonhawky


All in the name of outing the chineses and their opium.

I'm not sure what you mean by abuse, I'm not being snarky here, I truly want to know.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Okay...thats fine. You can have all the control over immigration you want. Even though the Supreme Court both liberal and as it is considered today, more conservative have always ruled that the idea of State's controlling immigration is wrong.

However California can go ahead and control immigration. The Naturalization process will be controlled by the Federal government as duly authorized by the Constitution. The California immigrants will remain immigrants since Naturalization is controlled by the Federal government. No citizenship, no vote and no access to the Federal system of aid.

I am all for legal immigration, it's how we built this place, I would love to see an effort made to make the other places more attractive. If people are running for asylum, then they should find it in the first border they cross and not keep crossing borders until they find one they like, that's not asylum it's just illegal immigration.

And I thought America was a dangerous place with all the guns, yet they choose to run here ? Certainly safer places as we have several cities in the top 50 murder capitals of the world, so it's not really a safety asylum but more of an economic asylum. Not for long if we open the door without at least attempting to control the numbers

a reply to: Xtrozero

federal power grab to be specific

the constitution laid out the power of the gov. and then we eroded our states rights away in favor of security

immigration(who can come) is a states issue naturalization(how much english they speak) is a federal issue

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Niether are the states. It was extremely vague, all it said was congress got to govern naturalization... That's it.

that is how the constitution works...

any powers not enumerated by the constitution are givin to the states.

Except when it's vague and SCOTUS elaborates.

I have venmo if you want to bet that it gets reversed.

a reply to: DJMSN

i feel as if the founders gave us a gift and if we adhere to it we will be stronger.

states rights is seeming like a real good capitalist option that the founders set us up for a win and we did not recognize it then

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Niether are the states. It was extremely vague, all it said was congress got to govern naturalization... That's it.

that is how the constitution works...

any powers not enumerated by the constitution are givin to the states.

Except when it's vague and SCOTUS elaborates.

I have venmo if you want to bet that it gets reversed.

I have stated correctly that it would take the states to nut up in order to get back to the basics of the constitution.

I do believe that an issue like we have now could push states in that direction with a bit of a nudge.

Imagine a usa where you are actually free

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Xtrozero

federal power grab to be specific

the constitution laid out the power of the gov. and then we eroded our states rights away in favor of security

immigration(who can come) is a states issue naturalization(how much english they speak) is a federal issue

I'm all for big state foot print and small federal foot print, but border protection is federal and we are talking back into the 1800s when we had federal control of that.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Can be...but can also destroy us. Immigration does not just affect California but the whole of our Country both better, of which there is a lot, but also the bad which there seems to be just amounts as well.

I see no reason to leave our door open, as I would never do so in my home, so why do with the border. Vetting individuals and ensuring that sponsors are available to immigrants saves everyone trouble in the end.

We keep out gangs and other undesirables and provide help for the rest but you cannot just leave the door open because as California Nancy says..."their not so bad". Common sense dictates that you welcome but investigate and have basic rules to govern it all

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: howtonhawky

Can be...but can also destroy us. Immigration does not just affect California but the whole of our Country both better, of which there is a lot, but also the bad which there seems to be just amounts as well.

I see no reason to leave our door open, as I would never do so in my home, so why do with the border. Vetting individuals and ensuring that sponsors are available to immigrants saves everyone trouble in the end.

We keep out gangs and other undesirables and provide help for the rest but you cannot just leave the door open because as California Nancy says..."their not so bad". Common sense dictates that you welcome but investigate and have basic rules to govern it all

i see it no different that we as citizens have the right to let in who we want into our homes and property without so much conflict as to disintegrate ourselves

this can be done on a state level also as it is on a personal level

on a side note the difference in a slave and a citizen? the amount of pay the feds let us keep

a reply to: howtonhawky

If those states made sure they remained in their borders and didn't accept federal money for this issue you may have a point, however that is simply not the case.

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: howtonhawky

If those states made sure they remained in their borders and didn't accept federal money for this issue you may have a point, however that is simply not the case.

oh i have a point and so do you

taking the monies from the federal has to stop also

it is like keeping them hooked on the next fix

a reply to: howtonhawky

So let's say that property you are referring to has multiple owners with equal investments, does one of those owners still have the right to allow as many settlers as they want or no?

originally posted by: projectvxn
Still can't go to jail with your parents.

How many of these threads are you gonna shotgun?

He always makes another one when his last one devolves to the point he starts name calling and its shown he has no idea what hes talking about.