Thursday, July 22, 2010

Arizona is not usurping federal power with SB-1070, but the big lie continues. Why?

SEE: SB 1070 Hearing in Phoenix today

Salgado's attorneys argue the judge should block the law before it takes effect because it would require the officer to use race as a primary factor in enforcing the law and because the state law is trumped by federal immigration law“.

We are continually told by our big media that Arizona’s SB-1070 law is usurping the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration. But our big media, including FOXNEWS, never points to that part of our Constitution which grants an exclusive power to Congress over immigration. And, it never does so because the word “immigration”, surprising as it may seem, does not appear in our Constitution! In fact, the exclusive power granted to Congress which is alleged to be usurped under Arizona’s SB-1070 law is Congress’ power to set the requirements under which an alien may become a naturalized citizen of the United States. The specific wording in our Constitution being a power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization“!

The power granted to the federal government over “naturalization” does not override the various State’s policing powers which may be adopted by a State for the protection and general welfare of its citizens, nor does the State of Arizona exercising its policing power as outlined in SB-1070 interfere in any manner whatsoever with Congress’ existing requirements (existing law) by which an alien may become a citizen of the United States.

As a matter of fact, one may argue that Arizona, and every State in the Union, actually has an obligation to determine who is and who is not a “citizen of the united States” as outlined in SB-1070, because citizens of the united States, under our Constitution’s 14th Amendment, are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” the state in which they are located has to offer. But those who are not “citizens of the united States”, and especially those who have entered a State, or the United States illegally, are not entitled to those “privileges or immunities“. And so, each State has an obligation and constitutionally grounded purpose to determine who is and who is not a “citizen of the United States”. The 14th Amendment only requires that those who have entered Arizona illegally may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all others persons.

BTW, those who are interested in the limited power granted to Congress concerning its power over “naturalization” as articulated by our founding fathers ought to study our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization. For example, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [a 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 REPRESENTATIVE STONEconcluded 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

In addition, REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution expreses the very intentions for which the power [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. 3rd, 1790, page 1148

The irrefutable fact is, the various states never delegated to Congress their original policing powers within their borders as may apply to aliens who have entered their borders illegally, and exercising this power does not interfere with Congress’ existing rule of naturalization, PERIOD!


"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)