Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy?

First , your link is to an opinion piece by someone named Jennifer Chacon , Whoever the HADES that is.
Second , apparently this person feels their knowledge is above the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court.
Third , if you are a professor of Law , you don't get to make rulings above the Supreme Court . Your opinion matters less than an ant fart in a 4 car garage.
Fourth , folks should not get their opinions from other folks . Ignorance spreads more ignorance.

immigration policy historically followed the Laws already enacted

except for pOTUS #44 who elected to 'observe' whatever existing Immigration Laws which suited his agenda(s)

including open borders and Sanctuary Cities which essentially SET ASIDE...
ALL the previous 120 years of Immigration Laws on -the-books-Already



your question is structured to be non-answerable & wrought with evasive replies by silver-tongued wolves-in-sheep-clothing

a reply to: Christosterone

Um... actually, you should also be aware that there are many people living on property directly on the border, who refused to give up their lands to permit the building of any structure, simply because the plans always involved a number of problems for a person living on the land associated with that potential barrier.

First, all the plans put forward reduced the amount of land the property could boast, which damaged the price they would be offered in the event of a sale of the property, and taking away private possessions is not a very Republican thing to do, so I am told. Its not just me saying it either, you have to ask those who have already refused to sell or give up their land in order to have barriers and fences erected already. They will tell you themselves, and some of them will do so with a .357 pointed at your face, should you try to come and convince them to give up their land for any reason.

Second, many of the properties bordering Mexico are ranches, where livestock roam over huge tracts of land, in a relatively free state of affairs, where they are only restricted from going onto another PERSONS property, not onto the other side of the imaginary line in the dirt where Mexico begins. People living there do not want to have less potential space for their livestock to wander in.

Third, those living a purely residential, non agricultural existence down that way, have voiced concerns over the appearance of any barrier that might be erected, and frankly do not want their view of the Rio Grande or the land border ruined by some big, ugly obstruction, both because unsightly invasion of human architecture into a natural space is always jarring, and also because again, an ugly view is bad news for property prices.

So, there is a damned sight more involved than mere permission from federal government involved here, and in fact peoples rights would have to take a trampling in order to make a hard border possible. Taking rights away from Texans is about as smart a move as injecting yourself with anthrax, botulism and Y. Pestis, while sticking rusty electrodes into your brain, and whacking the variac they are connected to, all the way to the broil setting.

originally posted by: St Udio
immigration policy historically followed the Laws already enacted

except for pOTUS #44 who elected to 'observe' whatever existing Immigration Laws which suited his agenda(s)

including open borders and Sanctuary Cities which essentially SET ASIDE...
ALL the previous 120 years of Immigration Laws on -the-books-Already



your question is structured to be non-answerable & wrought with evasive replies by silver-tongued wolves-in-sheep-clothing

not when you find the truth here.

the law that says it is illegal to cross border in usa also has exceptions written in it. The new admin has denied the exceptions to the rule and thereby creating a policy that detains and separates all. They do this while claiming the dems are responsible for the law.

It is very simple that the constitution gives the federal government to capture detain and remove violent offenders because they do not naturalize.

Just go get the worst of them and do not let any state stop you cause the law is on your side in that regard.

It is the states right to let in who they want to have in as long as they are able to be american.

If we follow the constitution then we solve several problems at one time by allowing for states rights.

Borders language and culture can only be kept long term by using the constitution and if not we will continue to squander our greatness with never ending court battles.


This is exactly why the founders used such short concise language.

However it would be hard to argue that an immigrant out drinking and driving and shootin stuff up is not been naturalized.

jk