See other Resistance Articles
Title: Judge Nap: 'Rare Ruling Against Obama Could Delay Amnesty Forever'
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/02/ ... as-immigration-amnesty-forever
Published: Feb 18, 2015
Author: .
Post Date: 2015-02-18 01:35:36 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 1138
Comments: 90
Judge Andrew Napolitano said today that a new federal court ruling could actually delay President Obama's immigration amnesty "forever." On FBN's "Varney & Co.," the judge explained the meaning behind the new ruling that temporarily blocks the implementation of Obama's executive actions on immigration. The ruling came late Monday after 26 states asked the court to delay the implementation until after the conclusion of a lawsuit challenging the legality of Obama's orders. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen granted the preliminary injunction Monday after hearing arguments in Brownsville, Texas, last month. He wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states will "suffer irreparable harm in this case." "The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle," he wrote, adding that he agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a "virtually irreversible" action. The first of Obama's orders -- to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children -- was set to start taking effect Wednesday. The other major part of Obama's order, which extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, was not expected to begin until May 19. Napolitano called Hanen's ruling "rare," saying one federal judge usually does not decide to stop the president from doing something. He said it's more common for a federal judge to let an appeals court decide. "You could count on one hand the number of times a single federal judge has done this to a President of the United States since World War II and you would not use all your fingers," he said. The case now moves to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that covers New Orleans and Houston. Napolitano said the amnesty program is on hold "probably forever" unless the appeals court decides to overturn Hanen's injunction. He said it will probably take longer than two years - Obama's remaining time in office - for the overall case to wind its way through the courts. "The judge said the feds will probably lose and there is probably irreparable harm to the states, therefore I am going to stop this from happening and I'm going to stop it right now," he explained.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
Sure sounds good, doesn't it. Gotta have those little barbs of hope in the "news" so that viewership stays up and the people divided.
Yeah, it sounds good to me. I know that as crooked as the government is that Judge Nap might be a bit more optimistic than I am but I still hope he is right.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends. Paul Craig Roberts "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat
Rarer still is a judge granting States standing to bring suit over a clearly delineated reserved power...even more puzzling is that he based his ruling on an unrelated law, i.e. The Administrative Procedures Act, rather than an issue of either constitutional authority, i.e. issuing an Executive Order, which is what was actually challenged, or the actual law itself, i.e. Title 8 Section 212.5...those facts underscore the activist nature of the decision... --I Brake For The Invisible
Good luck : ?
Lol, you are funny! So, the president is the one who makes law? Not congress? Is that your clearly delineated power? Friggen unbelievable. "The Best Way to Control the Opposition is to Lead it." Vladimir Lenin "I am not a Marxist." Karl Marx
The President is the one who executes the law. In this particular case, the law (Title 8 Section 212.5) allows an agent of the executive branch (which is headed by the POTUS) to parole any alien in to the US and having been granted parole, apply for a work permit. Again, this decision was not based upon any Constitutional issue; it was based upon a wholly contrived violation of The Administrative Procedures Act...an act that grants the POTUS power to implement law in stages...making it applicable to an existing law that has seen similar acts of parole done prior is extremely puzzling... --Are you a *Jew*?
When one treats an individual this way, it is NOT defacto making law. You know, and I know, that is EXACTLY what he is doing. "The Best Way to Control the Opposition is to Lead it." Vladimir Lenin "I am not a Marxist." Karl Marx
I'm unclear as to what you are stating here... --Are you a *Jew*?
What I said, although I admit a but murkily, is that 0Zero can grant pardons legally, of course, on an INDIVIDUAL basis. When he does so for GROUPS, he is in fact, making law. Something not exactly in his job description. "The Best Way to Control the Opposition is to Lead it." Vladimir Lenin "I am not a Marxist." Karl Marx
I've read the law...it puts no such restriction on DHS regarding parole...and, in fact, DHS lists keeping families, a group, together as a means of obtaining humanitarian parole... --Are you a *Jew*?
Well hell, If the DHS says so, it must be! Common sense and the rule of law mean nothing today, no wonder our Country resembles a third world bananna republic a little more, every year. So, if the president decided to pardon all murderers in prison and those in jail still awaiting trial, if he signed an executive order making this happen for all time, would you not think he was making a law? Not just refusing to follow his oath of office? I can just imagine your screaming if a Republican did these things. Also, DHS does not get to write law either. You have funny notions about the role of government and the powers that are given to it. "The Best Way to Control the Opposition is to Lead it." Vladimir Lenin "I am not a Marxist." Karl Marx
I've read the law...it puts no such restriction on DHS regarding parole...and, in fact, DHS lists keeping families, a group, together as a means of obtaining humanitarian parole... This Presidential "pardon/reprieve" issue [Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1] has already been discussed thoroughly before. You seem to be confusing that with some kind of imaginary, perpetual immunity for illegal aliens from immediately reverting back to criminal status within a split second of such an Executive overreach to supposedly grant them "absolution" for their prior offenses here. Obama couldn't even sign "re-orders" fast enough to keep up with that glitch in his "Amnesty" schemes, which he seemingly intends to do for illegal migrants what the 14th Amendment did after the "Civil War" by blanketly bestowing U.S. citizenship in-general for every State citizen here uniformly so as to ensure the Constitutional rights of any freed Slaves that didn't have State citizenship yet. In the first place, the only Constitutionally delegated authority that the Federal government actually has over immigration is to protect the States from invasion [Article IV, Section 4: Guarantee Clause] and to establish, then equitably maintain, a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" [Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: Naturalization], not special rules for illegals -- both of which Obama has been violating and coercively so. The States have the reserved right to determine their immigration policy in accordance with their intake ability. Edited sentence 3 and next to last sentence. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
It's all part of Title 8 Section 212.5 US Code... So, if the president decided to pardon all murderers in prison and those in jail still awaiting trial, if he signed an executive order making this happen for all time, would you not think he was making a law? Presidential Pardon power in cases in which impeachment (legislative indictment of public officials) is not at issue, is absolute. So he would not be making law but executing one. Article II Section IIa (in part): ...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Now...if those *murderers* etc were in state prisons having been found guilty of state offenses, then he would have no such power to pardon. --Are you a *Jew*?
Bravo, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen!
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Granting parole is not the same as granting a pardon or a reprieve. Pardons and reprieves are terminal. Parole is temporary and the power to do so has been extended by enacted law...in this case Title 8 Section 212.5 . You seem to be confusing that with some kind of imaginary, perpetual immunity for illegal aliens from immediately reverting back to criminal status within a split second of such an Executive overreach to supposedly grant them "absolution" for their prior offenses here. I'm not confused at all. On the other hand, anyone confusing the temporary state of parole with *amnesty*, which is a permanent state, is the one who is confused. In the first place, the only Constitutionally delegated authority that the Federal government actually has over immigration is to protect the States from invasion That's pure bullshit. The Federalist, Madison's notes and the Farrand Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 all make it very clear that this clause refers to a violent invasion by a foreign army (which included the neighboring Indian nations). "Then, on July 18, Gouverneur Morris objected to this language on the ground that ''[h]e should be very unwilling that such laws as exist in R. Island ought to be guaranteed to each State of the Union.'' 2 id., 47. Madison then suggested language ''that the Constitutional authority of the States shall be guaranteed to them respectively against domestic as well as foreign violence,'' " Again, on July 18, when Wilson and Mason indicated their understanding that the object of the proposal was ''merely'' to protect States against violence, Randolph asserted: ''The Resoln. has 2 Objects. 1. to secure Republican government. 2. to suppress domestic commotions. He urged the necessity of both these provisions.'' 2 id., 47. Following speakers alluded to the dangers of monarchy being created peacefully as necessitating the provision. Id., 48. See W. Wiecek, The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/...e4/annotation18.html#t322 Then you have Joseph Story: § 1812. "A protection against invasion is due from every society, to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used, seems to secure each state not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbours. -Joseph Story, Commentaries On The Constitution http://www.constitution.org/js/js_341.htm The States have the reserved right to determine their immigration policy in accordance with their intake ability. You couldn't be more wrong...states have no power to regulate persons as they ingress or egress through their states... --Are you a *Jew*?
There is a uniform rule of naturalization... Naturalization is the act of becoming a citizen... --Are you a *Jew*?
Parole involves a conviction. People aren't "paroled" from criminal status prior to being convicted, nor are illegal aliens "paroled" to "immunity", temporarily or otherwise, from being reinstated to criminal status. Don't go trying to sneak that word into Article 2. It ain't there and isn't supposed to be. Edited sentence 2. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Wrong. In immigration law there are three possible ways to be paroled. definitions.uslegal.com/p/parole-immigration/ Stop trying to play Perry Mason. --Are you a *Jew*?
Naturalization is the act of becoming a citizen... A uniform rule of Naturalization means no special rules and perks for illegal aliens over others who apply the right way. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Naturalization has nothing to do with immigration. It has to do with becoming a citizen. --Are you a *Jew*?
In immigration law there are three possible ways to be paroled. definitions.uslegal.com/p/parole-immigration/ Stop trying to play Perry Mason. They haven't sought asylum or refugee status. They are sneakers. Nor have they all been released from detention facilities. Not that I really care much what lawsmithies concocted about it to try and get around the Constitution. There is no Presidential "parole" power in Article II, period. I don't have long to debate this with you this today, so you stop trying to play Perry Mason and then maybe I'll stop objecting. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Naturalization has to do with who becoming a citizen? Immigrants! But this isn't even really an immigration issue. It's an illegal migrant issue being passed off on Americans as if it's not. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Re: your assertions about the Guarantee Clause and the States not being protected Federally from invasion. I'm just going to note quickly here for now that the States are fully empowered to protect themselves from invasion, by force of their Militia arms and even by going to war themselves or in conjunction with other States, if need be, before resorting to a request of any assistance at the Federal level. At that point, violence would already be an issue. However, the Federal branch has been obstructing their abilities to protect themselves so and also to simply enforce their own protective laws. Edited line 1 and added next to last sentence. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Nor have they all been released from detention facilities. So? There is no Presidential "parole" power in Article II, period. Irrelevant...the POTUS is the chief executive of laws...Congress, in its exercise of its Article I powers, enacted immigration law that grants immigrants a limited right to be paroled into the US. --Are you a *Jew*?
A governor cannot mobilize National Guard troops to enforce federal law. A governor or group of governors cannot declare war or mobilize any guard troops under his command to go to war. For more information see: The Total Force Policy, 1973 --Are you a *Jew*?
Yea so? Naturalization has a process...immigration has a process...despite the fact that there may be some sense of *congruency* between the two, one is not dependent upon the other... --Are you a *Jew*?
I agree. Finally a judge makes a decision that is actually in America's best interest. Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends. Paul Craig Roberts "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat
For more information see: The Total Force Policy, 1973 Yes they can and the National Guard isn't the entirety of a State's Militia. I wasn't talking about the States enforcing Federal law but their own protective laws, by force of arms if need be. I was also talking about Constitutionality but you're talking about things that violate it as if that's ok and anything goes there that politicos do legislatively. However, that's not even a Republican form of government, such as our Constitution guarantees for us. It's mob rule. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Sorry...no... Only the US Congress can declare war... --Are you a *Jew*?
What WE are talking about is immigration, i.e. federal law...not an invading force or state laws... --Are you a *Jew*?
Yea so? Naturalization has a process...immigration has a process...despite the fact that there may be some sense of *congruency* between the two, one is not dependent upon the other... I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here but I'm going to have to move to skip it until another day. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I'll get back to your postings when I can. Please try to put any new ones in reply to me on hold until then so I'm not overly swamped when I return, tia.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Congress can naturalize someone who is not an immigrant... --Are you a *Jew*?
Yep...enjoy...hope it all goes smoothly...
--Are you a *Jew*?
Friggen unbelievable. No, it's believable. War is like all liberals. Delusional or on a crusade to fundamentally change America..."by any means necessary." Congress?? Their job is to nod like obedient poodles, right? We apparently don't need no stinkin' Congress... Yeah -- didn't you know 0bongo is the Dems'/libs' KING??! They are perfectly content to allow this tyrant use a stroke of the pen and phone to crater the USA with unconstitutional EOs. You mean the President is the one who decides which laws to subvert, which laws to ignore, and which laws he can create -- with a stroke of the pen of course. Pretty cool, eh? "Parole" assumes a law has already been committed, doesn't it? So how many millions of "paroles" is he handing out like M&Ms? And now by BS technicality (Title 8 Section 212.5) 0bungler is going to circumvent U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4?: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION." When he does so for GROUPS, he is in fact, making law. Something not exactly in his job description. GAME OVER. Yes, but Reagan and Bush weren't elected King....:-) Also, DHS does not get to write law either. You have funny notions about the role of government and the powers that are given to it. ((( scoring like pinball machine ))) Irrelevant...the POTUS is the chief executive of laws...Congress, in its exercise of its Article I powers, enacted immigration law that grants immigrants a limited right to be paroled into the US. Congress isn't really authorized to reword or otherwise alter the Article II restricted powers of the Executive branch by passing immigration law. It would take an Amendment, and one in keeping with all of the Constitution, to write the word "parole" into that section. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Congress can naturalize someone who is not an immigrant... I think that you have been putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, in your sentence structure about that -- the naturalization process before an immigration process to apply for such, all the steps of which must be Constitutionally lawful. Can you give me an example of Congressional naturalization without immigration other than the Post "Civil War" 14th Amendment to collectively Naturalize freed slaves as U.S. citizens in-general who didn't have State citizenship yet?; which included the same status for all Americans who were citizens of the States. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
...for America as a whole. Preventing the States from defending themselves so from invasions isn't one of their enumerated powers. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
What WE are talking about is immigration, i.e. federal law...not an invading force or state laws... This isn't an immigration issue. It's an illegal migrant issue. What's called federal law as to dictating "immigration policies" for the States has overstepped its boundaries. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Had you bothered to read on you'd have *learned* something... A real *first*... Congress?? Their job is to nod like obedient poodles, right? We apparently don't need no stinkin' Congress... Given that both DAKA and DAPA cite the Executive Branch authority created in a LAW that was PASSED by Congress during the Bush Administration, your argument is kind of *dumb*... *corrected typo --Are you a *Jew*?
Nope. "Parole" assumes a law has already been committed, doesn't it? Huh? --Are you a *Jew*?
Article II powers explicitly grant the POTUS executive authority. He "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"...by that line, any law that Congress passes that requires an executive agency to administer is, in fact, a legitimate grant of Executive branch power. This is where the dynamic tension between the Constitution and legislated law is grossly overstated by those on the *right*. A POTUS has INHERENT power to issue orders to his executive agencies. Article II Section II makes that VERY clear. Congress' only real recourse when they disagree with how a law is being executed is in the Courts. It would take an Amendment, and one in keeping with all of the Constitution, to write the word "parole" into that section. Article I grants Congress the general power over immigration and naturalization and leaves the manner in which Congress chooses to do this to their own wisdom. No such amendment is necessary. --Are you a *Jew*?
Jones-Shafroth Act made residents of PR US citizens so that they could be drafted in to WWI. Various acts since the late 18th century have made those born outside of the borders of the US, natural born citizens. --Are you a *Jew*?
Read Article I: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions..." --Are you a *Jew*?
potayto/potahto... --Are you a *Jew*?
If I understand what you are trying to *state* here, a State has NO power to regulate ingress and egress of people through and across its territory and borders... Drive to Canada or Mexico...those aren't state authorities monitoring the border. --Are you a *Jew*?
Huh? Ok. Replace "committed" with "broken." My bad. {{{snicker}}} (urp)
A real *first*... Oh Great Sage of Wall Street. I read on. And on. And was reminded that when you're in doubt, it's far more convenient merely to cite some obscure, ambiguous, irrelevant acronym. OR, use stretch an interpretation to its most absolute broadest sense (as in Title 8 Section 212.5 US Code)...to support Amnesty. Given that both DAKA and DAPA cite the Executive Branch authority created in a LAW that was PASSED by Congress during the Bush Administration... I rest my case. Btw, nice touch in blaming BUSH instead of your Emperor. Careful -- that's War's trademark. He'll charge you a user fee. Good observation. AND valid, had we still had a Constitution. The USCON is now what the Emperor sez it is these days. Congress are nothing but 435 bobblehead poodles. Nope. Still making 0 sense. Here...get your boyslave to read this to you in between your oral bon-bons... --Are you a *Jew*?
So your compulsion to come off as under-informed was too much for you to overcome... Got it... I rest my case. Btw, nice touch in blaming BUSH instead of your Emperor. That was the intent of Title 8 Section 212.5, doofus... For more information...refer back to my observation of your compulsion... --Are you a *Jew*?
No it wasn't. --Are you a *Jew*?
That's the FREE MARKET afterall... But I'm a good guy...if Tull changes his tagline to "ALL HAIL WAR" we won't need to get the lawyers involved... --Are you a *Jew*?
Read Article I: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions..." It doesn't say that Governors can't call forth their own State Militia's to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions there and States can call upon other States for help with that. The Federal government can call forth State Militias as those situations pertain to law at the Federal level because America's U.S. Armed Forces aren't supposed to be its law enforcers -- except in disaster or combat zone areas, for instatnce, where the civilian authorities and structures are unable to function properly to uphold the Constutution. Also, to assist our U.S. Armed Forces as needed with repelling invasions for national security purposes. Example: a rogue Governor facilitating invasion through their State borders by not moving to calling upon the State's Militia to stop it. The Federal government is not empowered to remove the ability of States to protect and defend themselves in those situations. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
If I understand what you are trying to *state* here, a State has NO power to regulate ingress and egress of people through and across its territory and borders... Drive to Canada or Mexico...those aren't state authorities monitoring the border. No, that's not what I stated. The Federal branch has failed to adequately guard the borders of our States that comprise our national borders but States certainly can regulate the travels of foreigners through their regions to only lawful Visa holders and such. The Federal government simply has Uniform Rules of Naturalization authority, which Obama's so-called "parole"/"deferred action" maneuverings, etc., have attempted to subvert and non-uniformly "fast-track" for criminals. It does not even have "immigration policy" authority to dictate that States must yield to however many lawful immigrants might choose to take up residence there beyond its set capacity levels, let alone that the States must submissively be burdened with illegal aliens, too, as a "Federally protected" group. Edited sentence 3. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Various acts since the late 18th century have made those born outside of the borders of the US, natural born citizens. Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory. Cite the various acts you're alleging and please stop confusing citizenship generally with natural born citizenship status, which requires birth in America and both parents already being American citizens. Grammar edit. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Good observation. AND valid, had we still had a Constitution. So far, I've been able to trace this supposed "parole" issue back to last year and the Military was being used then as an excuse to preferentially "legalize" any illegal alien family members of serving U.S. citizens, as well as to fast-track them non-uniformly for citizenship: Immigration change gives legal status to undocumented relatives of US military Excerpts: By William La Jeunesse, Dan GalloPublished March 11, 2014 FoxNews.com But critics say the policy is tantamount to backdoor amnesty. "A whole class of aliens with no right to be in the United States are suddenly going to be allowed to live and work here on the basis of their relationship with military and veterans," said Dan Cadman, with the Center for Immigration Studies. The exemption, called parole in place, came in the form of a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services "policy memorandum." It was not submitted to or approved by Congress, and the regulations were not published in the Federal Register, which allows for public comment prior to a rule taking effect. "I don't want to overstate it, but it sounds very similar to imperial decree if you ask me," Cadman said. "The public had no chance to comment on this new policy. I believe the way this was done was illegal." Obama administration officials say the new rules do not require congressional action because they're based on existing statutes. Based on what existing statues? Doesn't say, nor whether the statutes in question are themselves Unconstitutional. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
US Senator for Utah, Mike Lee: How Illegal Aliens Will Receive Fast Track to Citizenship Under the President’s Executive Amnesty - Dec 11 2014 As we all know, the President has recently announced executive action on immigration — what he calls “deferred action” for millions of aliens who are here illegally, but who have children who were born here and are therefore U.S. citizens. The President has repeatedly assured the American people that he is not creating a path to citizenship for those people. But the President is not telling the truth. He and his Administration have cleared the pathway to citizenship for millions of people who crossed our border illegally; they know that’s what they’ve done; and it is illegal. Immigration law is very complicated, but here’s the bottom line: If you are a foreign national and a parent of a U.S. citizen, when that child reaches age 21, assuming you haven’t committed certain crimes or done certain other things, you can get a green card and, eventually, citizenship. However, if you crossed the U.S. border illegally — “entered without inspection” as the law says — you first have to leave the country, wait a period of either 3 or 10 years before returning (depending on how long you had resided in the U.S.) and then come back into the United States lawfully in order to get back on the path to citizenship. That’s how the system is designed to work. That’s what the law says. But the President is now opening a huge loophole, using a program called “advance parole,” that will allow millions of illegal aliens, who are not currently eligible for citizenship, to bypass the rules and become eligible for green cards and eventually citizenship. Here’s how it works: Under the law, parole is essentially permission for an undocumented alien to travel to the United States. Parole is a kind of temporary, emergency pass to let someone into the country for an extremely urgent reason. In fact, a federal statute restricts the President’s power to use parole to a very narrow set of circumstances. That law, INA § 212(d)(5)(A) says that the executive branch may parole people into the United States “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” “Urgent humanitarian reasons” means things like: to get medical treatment, or perhaps to attend a close relative’s funeral. “Significant public benefit” usually means things like: you’re a witness to a crime, and you need to attend the trial even though you can’t get a visa. But for deferred action recipients filing for “advanced parole,” which allows them to obtain a parole waiver without first having to leave, the President is using a much more relaxed standard: they simply need to file Form I-131 with USCIS which allows deferred action recipients to get parole for “educational purposes, employment purposes, or humanitarian purposes.” Employment purposes include, but are not limited to, overseas assignments, interviews, conferences, training, or meetings with clients; These more relaxed standards are in clear violation of existing law. In no universe is a “meeting with a client” or a “conference” an urgent humanitarian reason or a significant benefit to the American public. Once they have secured advance parole, they can leave and return lawfully. And when they have reentered the country legally, using their advanced parole documents, the government will now ignore the fact that the individual had ever crossed over illegally – which now makes this person eligible to obtain a green card and eventually become a citizen. For example, imagine a foreign national walks up to the border, whereupon border officials ask him for his visa. He says, “I don’t have a visa. But I do have a business meeting in Denver. Can’t you just let me in?” No doubt he would be turned away. But for the new deferred-action recipients who have been granted advanced parole, they will be allowed to leave and come back so long as they can claim they have a business meeting or an interview (or anything else that falls under the new relaxed standards). Once back in the country they will be allowed to stay, and once they meet the criteria for a green card application, they will be on their way to citizenship. How do I know this? In 2010, the American Spectator published a leaked DHS memo, a version of which reached the DHS Secretary, exploring the Administration’s options on immigration. That memo explicitly contemplated using parole as a way to sidestep Congress and give citizenship to illegal aliens who are relatives of U.S. citizens. It says, “[I]ndividuals could…be paroled into the U.S. for purposes of applying for adjustment of status…To render immediate relatives of U.S. citizens eligible for parole, DHS could issue guidance establishing that family reunification constitutes a ‘significant public benefit.’” So to be clear: Advance parole leads to citizenship for parents of U.S. citizens; the Administration knows that; and they are giving advance parole for reasons — like client meetings — that clearly violate federal law. This is the danger of unilateral executive action, drafted in secret and announced to the American people as a fait accompli. In our system, policies are debated in the legislature and their consequences explored through that debate. Here, the President’s action has avoided that constitutional lawmaking process. But it has also broken existing laws. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
After Obama’s Amnesty, Illegal Aliens Could Decide U.S. Elections by PETER KIRSANOW - nationalreview.com - February 16, 2015 Furthermore, testimony last week before the House Judiciary Committee revealed that under Obama’s amnesty some illegal aliens will receive advance-parole status — a glide path to citizenship and full voting rights, ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You believe several *things* that just aren't so. A) States have no power over their borders. B) The governor of one state cannot ask the governor of another state to send his Guard troops over. C) Immigration is a Federal power not a state power. States' enforcement powers extend no further than what the Federal government may grant them. --Are you a *Jew*?
So what? Cite the various..... Again, I'm not here to educate anyone to the merits of their own ability to argue. Start with the Naturalization act of 1790 and then 1795 and 1798 and 1802 and 1870 and 1952... There is no law statutory, case or administrative that supports your notion that "natural born citizen" has the narrow construction that you ascribe to it. --Are you a *Jew*?
Lee makes several misstatements of fact. Simply filling out form I-131 will not suffice. The person must also provide form I-134 as well as a detailed explanation of why deferred action for humanitarian parole is being requested.
--Are you a *Jew*?
www.cubanet.org/htdocs/CNews/y00/mar00/28e7.htm Note the use of the word *parole*... --Are you a *Jew*?
TITLE 8 SECTION 212.5 That section is aptly titled "PAROLE OF ALIENS INTO THE UNITED STATES" --Are you a *Jew*?
Nope. They most certain cannot do that. What they can do is question a person on their immigrant status if the person or persons are stopped for a traffic stop or other reason unrelated to their appearance and if they have a *reasonable* suspicion that the person may be in the country illegally. As much as you lovers of *small* government seem to enjoy enabling broad and expansive policing powers that have devolved *probable cause* in to *reasonable suspicion*, we are not a *papers please* or *stop and frisk* nation. --Are you a *Jew*?
Wha...huh? --Are you a *Jew*?
Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 [Compact Clause]: Edited formatting. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
So what? There were a lot of opinions expressed prior to the forming of the republic. Under the Confederation, there was no supremacy clause and states and commonwealths were as free to ignore the dictates of Congress as they were to agree to them. Under the Confederation, no state or commonwealth was obliged to send its militia to a neighboring state. Under the Confederation, states were free to nullify acts of the Congress. The Union formed under the US Constitution bound state militias to the rules established by Congress which was also empowered with calling forth the militia and, prior to the 2nd amendment, was charged with arming them as well. --Are you a *Jew*?
That's Casus belli so, of course, they could defend themselves... --Are you a *Jew*?
Excerpt from my post at #28: Yes they can and the National Guard isn't the entirety of a State's Militia. Not sure what you meant to convey about the Total Force Policy then or now -- which appears to be coordinating policy-directives with reference to National Guard units reserved for Federal service, as well as the Military's forces still in Reserve after completing their contracted years of Regular Army service, etc. ... not a subverting rewrite of the Constitution to totally transfer all command and control over State Militias from Governors to the Federal branch, nor even an attempted Compact Clause erasure of States' Rights at Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 to "demilitarize" their individual Powers of War and Protective Defenses pursuantly (as noted at Post #72), if that's what you were thinking. In addition to all of that at paragraph 1 for these comments and the quoted comment from Post #28 in regard to those of our National Guards who are in federalized service, although not comprising the entirety of a State's Militia, see the following for further gubernatorial Militia-mobilization clarifications and such: Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor Template talk:United States Armed Forces - Wikipedia Footnote #34 at State Defense Forces and Homeland Security - strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil Also: State defense force - Wikipedia State defense forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities. In 1950, with the outbreak of the Korean War and at the urging of the National Guard, Congress reauthorized the separate state military forces for a time period of two years. These state military forces were authorized military training at federal expense, as well as "arms, ammunition, clothing, and equipment," as deemed necessary by the Secretary of the Army.[10] At the end of the two years, however, they were not reauthorized under federal law. In 1956, Congress finally revised the law and authorized "State defense forces" permanently under Title 32, Section 109, of the United States Code.[11] Two years later, Congress amended the law and changed the name from "State defense forces" to "defense forces."[12] Still, it was not until the early Ronald Reagan administration that many states developed their defense forces into elements that existed beyond paper, when the U.S. Department of Defense actively encouraged states to create and maintain SDF units.[13] Militia (United States) - Wikipedia Not to be confused with Title 8 Section 212.5, which you've been referencing. More, continued: The 21st-Century [Modern] Militia: State Defense Forces and Homeland Security Not that the States needed any Federal permission-authorization to train and equip their Militias themselves to the best of their abilities Militarily and Financially but those are some archival "bulleted points", so to speak concisely, from documentations on those issues. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Nope. They most certain cannot do that. Says you but let's check pg. 209 of your frequently cited source about that, TITLE 8 SECTION 212.5: "PAROLE OF ALIENS INTO THE UNITED STATES" - Government Publishing Office, scroll down to last page here (next to last paragraph, column 1) Sounds like something of a regulatory example to me. As much as you lovers of *small* government seem to enjoy enabling broad and expansive policing powers that have devolved *probable cause* in to *reasonable suspicion*, we are not a *papers please* or *stop and frisk* nation. That's nearly hilarious, considering how likeminded Orwellians manifestly oppose alien checkpoints, even at our voting stations, but have arranged it so that American truckers are stopped at checkpoints beaucoup times for "stacks of papers, please." Edited formatting + to add link. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Look up the term *false equivalency*...you'll see the above as an example. Or is your point that trucks should have more rights than people? (iii) Any alien granted parole into the United States so that he or she may transit through the United States in the course of removal from Canada shall have his or her parole status terminated upon notice, as specified in 8 CFR 212.5(e)(2)(i), I have no idea what your point is in citing this section. What does someone being kicked out of Canada have to do with anything? --Are you a *Jew*?
Truckers -- American workers and they're sure not the only ones who are so much more inspected for legality statuses than aliens. Travelling through the States, regulatorily. Compare to Americans stopped at checkpoints for no probable cause/reasonable suspicion other than to see if they're motoring legally. Edited last comment section. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
A State Defense force is not a force that can be federalized and is separate and distinct from the militia/national guard which can be summoned by the Congress and Commander in chief to aid another state... Your point is specious... --Are you a *Jew*?
Truckers are regulated via the Commerce clause and the discretion that clause gives to the US Congress to so regulate. That power is a separate and distinct Article I power from their power to regulate immigration. Travelling (sic) through the States, regulatorily (sic). Compare to Americans stopped at checkpoints for no probable other than to see if they're motoring legally. Why would I so compare? --Are you a *Jew*?
That's incorrect. The anti-federalists made the opposite argument in advocating against the national constitution. http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-29 OBJECTIONS TO NATIONAL CONTROL OF THE MILITIA The absolute unqualified command that Congress have over the militia may be made instrumental to the destruction of all liberty both public and private; whether of a personal, civil or religious nature. -Anti-Federalist #29 The Use of Coercion By the New Government (Part 3) They have left the appointment of officers in the breasts of the several States; but this appears to me an insult rather than a privilege, for what avails this right if they at their pleasure may arm or disarm all or any part of the freemen of the United States, so that when their army is sufficiently numerous, they may put it out of the power of the freemen militia of America to assert and defend their liberties, however they might be encroached upon by Congress. -Anti-Federalist #28 http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/28.html The Congress shall have power: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress... The fact that arming the militia was left to the Congress was a motivating factor in the second amendment. --Are you a *Jew*?
Next, I suppose you'll be telling me that discretionary Police checkpoints to regulate the travels of Americans who may or may not be in the process of working is part of their Commerce Clause enforcement duties. Why would I so compare? Because you objected to my truckers example of American worker verifications; which also happens, btw, even when they're are parked and not on active duty. Edited formatting, punctuation and to insert prior edits at 2nd quote section. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I have absolutely no idea what analogous point, if any, that you're trying to make between Commerce powers, immigration powers and policing powers. So, would you please get to it? --Are you a *Jew*?
You'd probably know much more about all of that than me but I'll check this statement by Senator Lee at Post #63: Your frequently cited source again, TITLE 8 SECTION 212.5: "PAROLE OF ALIENS INTO THE UNITED STATES" - Government Publishing Office, CFR-2012-title8-vol1-sec212-5. Scroll to pg. 208, 2nd down here: (e) Termination of parole—(1) Automatic. Parole shall be automatically terminated without written notice (i) upon the departure from the United States of the alien, or, (ii) if not departed, at the expiration of the time for which parole was authorized, and in the latter case the alien shall be processed in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section except that no written notice shall be required. (2)(i) On notice. In cases not covered by paragraph (e)(1) of this section, upon accomplishment of the purpose for which parole was authorized or when in the opinion of one of the officials listed in paragraph (a) of this section, neither humanitarian reasons nor [Contined on pg. 209, last one there and at top of left column] public benefit warrants the continued presence of the alien in the United States, parole shall be terminated upon written notice to the alien and he or she shall be restored to the status that he or she had at the time of parole. When a charging document is served on the alien, the charging document will constitute written notice of termination of parole, unless otherwise specified. Any further inspection or hearing shall be conducted under section 235 or 240 of the Act and this chapter, or any order of exclusion, deportation, or removal previously entered shall be executed. Note the use of the word *parole*... Ah, yes, Elian Gonzalez...iirc, that child was either deported during Dem. Clinton's admin or it was decided compellingly otherwise, then, that he be sent back to his family and home in Cuba. Edited formatting + paragraph referencing for the 2nd link. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I have absolutely no idea what analogous point, if any, that you're trying to make between Commerce powers, immigration powers and policing powers. So, would you please get to it? I should have added the sarcasm symbolization there, sorry. I'll do it now: /s Would rather get to the backlogs of other issues here, if you don't have something else at this point to say about that. Edited to expand the quote section. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You'd probably know much more about all of that than me but I'll check this statement by Senator Lee at Post #63: Your frequently cited source again, TITLE 8 SECTION 212.5: "PAROLE OF ALIENS INTO THE UNITED STATES" - Government Publishing Office, CFR-2012-title8-vol1-sec212-5. Scroll to pg. 208, 2nd down here: (e) Termination of parole—(1) Automatic. Parole shall be automatically terminated without written notice (i) upon the departure from the United States of the alien, Checked this Canadian source for a second opinion on all of the above there: If you go back to Canada you run the risk of not being allowed back into the US for quite a bit of time. I know there are many people who will tell you to return to Canada and complete the process in the lengthy correct way and in most cases I would agree with them. However, remember that you would be facing significant time away If you haven't spent any time in the US illegally you could return to Canada to apply but again it would take 6 to 12 months to receive. applied for and received advance parol which would allow me to leave the US while my adjustment of status is pending and technically give me permission to re-enter. However, because of the amount of time I was here before applying for the adjustment of status my lawyer recommends not leaving because you can never know what will happen at the border when you come back (they still have the final decision even with the advance parol). Remember, all of this hinges on the fact that you entered the country legally. From your wording it looks like you were inspected a port of entry so you should have no problem there. They probably did not stamp your passport when you entered so be sure to keep proof of your date of entry (plane tickets, bording passes, etc). You will need this information in your application. I believe the fees for filing were about $1500. This includes the adjustment of status, petition for alien relative, advance parole, and employment authorization status which can all be filed at the same time. It also includes the biometrics fee for your finger printing. Shortly after they receive your application you will receive an appointment letter for your fingerprinting and picture. You will also need to submit a medical exam by an approved doctor with your application. You can submit it without the medical exam but it will only delay the application because they will send you a request for information requesting the medical exam (in a sealed envelope) and until they receive it your application will be put on hold. You can find a list of approve doctors on the USCIS website. Insurance normally does not cover this fee and the doctor I saw charged $150.00 for the exam. You will also need to have blood taken but if you have insurance that would be covered. Believe me, I know that the process I followed was not the most correct and most people on here would say just that I guess there is always a chance things won't work out but [...] the last hurdle we have to jump is the interview Most people will tell you to leave immediately and follow the correct procedures. Even I sometimes think that is what I should have done. Edited formatting + paragraph referencing for the 2nd link. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I don't. And thanks for clearing that up... --Are you a *Jew*?
A State Defense force is not a force that can be federalized and is separate and distinct from the Your point is specious... You don't have to tell me that a State Defense force is not a force that can be federalized, thx, because I already posted that technicality at #75: From the same Wikipedia source there; which is but one reason I could confidently overwrite your militia misdistinction above, since both SDFs and NGs are Militia: State defense forces (SDF; also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; All State Defense Forces are State Militias and all National Guard volunteers (who are extra on-call federally as needed there, per the Constitution) are from those State Militias too -- some of whom are well-trained and equipped SDF NG Militia, when stationed "stateside" (we might say) for regional security purposes, and others of whom are well-trained and equipped US HQ NG Militia for national security purposes as well. Those whose service is federalized don't cease to be Militia when they become NGs and are still jointly commanded by their Governors to some extent. They're just transferred, for the most part, into the federal sector as being contractually summonable thereby in mutual agreement. Comments and excerpts from: Who is the Militia? State Defense Forces -- prisonplanet.com with similarly sourced and additional info "The State Defense Force". That [terminology] is a fabrication of the federal government. It's not found in the Constitution. It's called the state militia. And the federal government in fact refers to the National Guard as the militia. The primary reason for the militia is to protect life, liberty and property of individuals, the people's communities, their county and state, and finally to protect the nation of States...in our form of government power flows from the individuals to the state, not the other way around. The federal government recognizes state defense forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that state defense forces as a whole (My note: for the safety of the States) may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard. However, under the same law, individual members serving in the state defense force are not exempt from service in the armed forces. (My note: Voluntarily, as it is. Double-check needed as to Draft exempt.) But, under 32 USC § 109(e) "A person may not become a member of a defense force . . . if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces." (My note: possibly arguable on the grounds of inactive down-time that's purposely meant to be not in the best interest of State Militia Defenses; would have to review the whys and wherefors about it further than "just because D.C. says so".) until the early 1900s, the United States maintained only a minimal army and relied on state militias to supply the majority of its troops.[5] In 1903, the predecessor to the modern-day National Guard was formed to augment the militia and Regular Army with a federally controlled reserve force. In 1933, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the state defense forces by mandating that all federally-funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard (Title 32) and the National Guard of the United States (Title 10). This division forced states to maintain both a National Guard and a state defense force if they desired to have non-federal soldiers. During World War II, much of the National Guard was deployed on federal duty. About your "specious point" grading in regard to what you quoted from my post at #75. If it were something I had written myself, I probably would have changed the "invading state" phrase to "invaded state" as more comprehensible; but it wasn't. Other than that, I don't see anything else askance there. Grammar edit, 2nd comment sentence + punctuation and spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You're welcome. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Your original statements which started this line of discussion: I'm just going to note quickly here for now that the States are fully empowered to protect themselves from invasion, by force of their Militia arms and even by going to war themselves or in conjunction with other States... It doesn't say that Governors can't call forth their own State Militia's to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions there and States can call upon other States for help with that. In neither of those instances did you cite anything other than the militia aka Natonial Guard... --Are you a *Jew*?
#2. To: Katniss (#1)
#3. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
(Edited)
Napolitano called Hanen's ruling "rare"...
#4. To: James Deffenbach (#2)
#5. To: war (#3)
Rarer still is a judge granting States standing to bring suit over a clearly delineated reserved power..
#6. To: Dead Culture Watch (#5)
So, the president is the one who makes law?
#7. To: war (#6)
#8. To: Dead Culture Watch (#7)
When one treats an individual this way, it is NOT defacto making law.
#9. To: war (#8)
#10. To: Dead Culture Watch (#9)
When he does so for GROUPS, he is in fact, making law.
#11. To: war (#10)
#12. To: war (#10)
(Edited)
When he does so for GROUPS, he is in fact, making law.
#13. To: Dead Culture Watch (#11)
Well hell, If the DHS says so, it must be!
#14. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
#15. To: GreyLmist (#12)
This Presidential "pardon/reprieve" issue [Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1] has already been discussed thoroughly before.
#16. To: GreyLmist (#12)
"uniform Rule of Naturalization"
#17. To: war (#15)
(Edited)
Granting parole is not the same as granting a pardon or a reprieve. Pardons and reprieves are terminal. Parole is temporary and the power to do so has been extended by enacted law...in this case Title 8 Section 212.5
#18. To: GreyLmist (#17)
Parole involves a conviction.
#19. To: war (#16)
There is a uniform rule of naturalization...
#20. To: GreyLmist (#19)
A uniform rule of Naturalization means no special rules and perks for illegal aliens over others who apply the right way.
#21. To: war (#18)
Wrong.
#22. To: war (#20)
Naturalization has nothing to do with immigration. It has to do with becoming a citizen.
#23. To: war (#15)
(Edited)
#24. To: GreyLmist (#21)
They haven't sought asylum or refugee status.
#25. To: GreyLmist (#23)
(Edited)
I'm just going to note quickly here for now that the States are fully empowered to protect themselves from invasion, by force of their Militia arms and even by going to war themselves or in conjunction with other States, if need be, before resorting to a request of any assistance at the Federal level. At that point, violence would already be an issue. However, the Federal branch has been obstructing their abilities to protect themselves so and also to simply enforce their own protective laws.
#26. To: GreyLmist (#22)
Naturalization has to do with who becoming a citizen? Immigrants!
#27. To: GreyLmist (#14)
Bravo, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen!
#28. To: war (#25)
A governor cannot mobilize National Guard troops to enforce federal law. A governor or group of governors cannot declare war or mobilize any guard troops under his command to go to war.
#29. To: GreyLmist (#28)
Yes they can
#30. To: All (#29)
I wasn't talking about the States enforcing Federal law but their own protective laws, by force of arms if need be.
#31. To: war (#26)
Naturalization has to do with who becoming a citizen? Immigrants!
#32. To: war (#30)
#33. To: GreyLmist (#31)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here...
#34. To: GreyLmist (#32)
#35. To: Dead Culture Watch, war (#5)
So, the president is the one who makes law? Not congress? Is that your clearly delineated power?
#36. To: war, Dead Culture Watch (#6)
The President is the one who executes the law. In this particular case, the law (Title 8 Section 212.5) allows an agent of the executive branch (which is headed by the POTUS) to parole any alien in to the US and having been granted parole, apply for a work permit.
#37. To: Dead Culture Watch, war (#9)
What I said, although I admit a but murkily, is that 0Zero can grant pardons legally, of course, on an INDIVIDUAL basis.
#38. To: Dead Culture Watch, war (#11)
I can just imagine your screaming if a Republican did these things.
#39. To: war (#24)
There is no Presidential "parole" power in Article II, period.
#40. To: war (#33)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here...
#41. To: war (#29)
Only the US Congress can declare war...
#42. To: war (#30)
I wasn't talking about the States enforcing Federal law but their own protective laws, by force of arms if need be.
#43. To: Liberator (#35)
(Edited)
No, it's believable. War is like all liberals. Delusional or on a crusade to fundamentally change America..."by any means necessary."
#44. To: Liberator (#36)
(Edited)
You mean the President is the one who decides which laws to subvert, which laws to ignore, and which laws he can create -- with a stroke of the pen of course. Pretty cool, eh?
#45. To: GreyLmist (#39)
Congress isn't really authorized to reword or otherwise alter the Article II restricted powers of the Executive branch by passing immigration law.
#46. To: GreyLmist (#40)
#47. To: GreyLmist (#41)
Preventing the States from defending themselves so from invasions isn't one of their enumerated powers.
#48. To: GreyLmist (#42)
This isn't an immigration issue. It's an illegal migrant issue.
#49. To: GreyLmist (#42)
What's called federal law as to dictating "immigration policies" for the States has overstepped its boundaries.
#50. To: war (#44)
("Parole" assumes a law has already been committed, doesn't it?)
#51. To: Liberator (#50)
#52. To: war, Dead Culture Watch. (#43)
Had you bothered to read on you'd have *learned* something...
#53. To: Jethro Tull, war (#51)
{{{snicker}}}
#54. To: GreyLmist (#39)
It would take an Amendment, and one in keeping with all of the Constitution, to write the word "parole" into that section.
#55. To: Liberator (#50)
Ok. Replace "committed" with "broken." My bad.
#56. To: Liberator (#52)
Oh Great Sage of Wall Street. I read on.
#57. To: Liberator (#54)
Good observation.
#58. To: Liberator, Jethro Tull (#53)
Careful -- that's War's trademark. He'll charge you a user fee.
#59. To: war (#47)
Preventing the States from defending themselves so from invasions isn't one of their enumerated powers.
#60. To: war (#49)
(Edited)
What's called federal law as to dictating "immigration policies" for the States has overstepped its boundaries.
#61. To: war (#46)
(Edited)
Jones-Shafroth Act made residents of PR US citizens so that they could be drafted in to WWI.
#62. To: Liberator (#54)
It would take an Amendment, and one in keeping with all of the Constitution, to write the word "parole" into that section.
a new Obama administration policy is extending legal status and military benefits to thousands of illegal immigrants who are the spouses, parents and children of American military members.
#63. To: All (#62)
Based on what existing statues? Doesn't say, nor whether the statutes in question are themselves Unconstitutional.
Educational purposes include, but are not limited to, semester abroad programs or academic research;
#64. To: All (#63)
Amnestied illegal aliens are now eligible to receive Social Security numbers and, in many cases, drivers’ licenses. Since the vast majority of states don’t require individuals to present proof of citizenship to either register or vote, and given the Obama administration’s zealous promotion of motor-voter registration and declared refusal to enforce Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (ensuring that only eligible individuals vote), it’s certain that appreciable numbers of amnestied illegal aliens will be able to vote.
#65. To: GreyLmist (#59)
#66. To: GreyLmist (#61)
Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory.
#67. To: GreyLmist (#63)
#68. To: GreyLmist (#62)
So far, I've been able to trace this supposed "parole" issue back to last year
#69. To: GreyLmist (#62)
Based on what existing statues? Doesn't say, nor whether the statutes in question are themselves Unconstitutional.
#70. To: GreyLmist (#60)
(Edited)
...but States certainly can regulate the travels of foreigners through their regions to only lawful Visa holders and such.
#71. To: GreyLmist (#60)
It does not even have "immigration policy" authority to dictate that States must yield to however many lawful immigrants might choose to take up residence there beyond its set capacity levels
#72. To: war (#25)
(Edited)
A governor or group of governors cannot declare war
[A State] does not have the requirement for Declaration of War by the Congress as a part of its limitations. Its perception of “enemy” does not fall within the constraints and limitations imposed upon the federal government.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, [...] engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
#73. To: GreyLmist (#72)
Even though the Constitution was over a decade into the future, the separation/distinction between Connecticut state government and the national government was clearly expressed.
#74. To: GreyLmist (#72)
...unless actually invaded
#75. To: All (#28)
Excerpt from your post at #25: A governor or group of governors cannot [...] mobilize any guard troops under his command to go to war. For more information see: The Total Force Policy, 1973
[Texas Government Code, for example,] forbids a militia unit from another state to enter, absent the permission from the governor or under federal orders.
if a neighboring state is being invaded, the governor can refuse to send State Defense Force unit(s) to aid the invading state if so choose.
34. Stentiford, p. 56, provides examples of SDFs [State Defense Forces/Militias] operating outside their state boundaries and even in Canada during World War I. Dupuy et al., p. B-2, discusses SDFs operating outside state borders either in “hot pursuit” or at the direction of the governor and at the request of the neighboring state.
State defense forces (SDF; also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government;
Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]
in 1983, Congress amended the National Defense Act to authorize all states to maintain permanent State Defense Forces.[20]
#76. To: war (#70)
(Edited)
...but States certainly can regulate the travels of foreigners through their regions to only lawful Visa holders and such.
(iii) Any alien granted parole into the United States so that he or she may transit through the United States in the course of removal from Canada shall have his or her parole status terminated upon notice, as specified in 8 CFR 212.5(e)(2)(i),
What they can do is question a person on their immigrant status if the person or persons are stopped for a traffic stop or other reason unrelated to their appearance and if they have a *reasonable* suspicion that the person may be in the country illegally.
#77. To: GreyLmist (#76)
That's nearly hilarious, considering how likeminded Orwellians manifestly oppose alien checkpoints, even at our voting stations, but have arranged it so that American truckers are stopped at checkpoints beaucoup times for "stacks of papers, please."
#78. To: war (#77)
(Edited)
is your point that trucks should have more rights than people?
What does someone being kicked out of Canada have to do with anything?
#79. To: GreyLmist (#75)
if a neighboring state is being invaded, the governor can refuse to send State Defense Force unit(s) to aid the invading state if so choose.
#80. To: GreyLmist (#78)
Truckers -- American workers and they're sure not the only ones who are so much more inspected for legality statuses than aliens.
#81. To: GreyLmist (#75)
(Edited)
Not that the States needed any Federal permission-authorization to train and equip their Militias...
#82. To: war (#80)
(Edited)
Truckers are regulated via the Commerce clause and the discretion that clause gives to the US Congress to so regulate. That power is a separate and distinct Article I power from their power to regulate immigration.
Travelling (sic) through the States, regulatorily (sic). Compare to Americans stopped at checkpoints for no probable cause/reasonable suspicion other than to see if they're motoring legally.
#83. To: GreyLmist (#82)
Next, I suppose you'll be telling me that discretionary Police checkpoints to regulate the travels of Americans who may or may not be in the process of working is part of their Commerce Clause enforcement duties.
#84. To: war (#67)
(Edited)
Lee makes several misstatements of fact. Simply filling out form I-131 will not suffice. The person must also provide form I-134 as well as a detailed explanation of why deferred action for humanitarian parole is being requested.
"Once they have secured advance parole, they can leave and return lawfully."
blah, blah, blah ... fast-forward to the last 2 paragraphs, column 2 ... "discretionary" glitches:
You at #68: www.cubanet.org/htdocs/CNews/y00/mar00/28e7.htm
#85. To: war (#83)
(Edited)
Next, I suppose you'll be telling me that discretionary Police checkpoints to regulate the travels of Americans who may or may not be in the process of working is part of their Commerce Clause enforcement duties.
#86. To: war (#84)
(Edited)
Lee makes several misstatements of fact. Simply filling out form I-131 will not suffice. The person must also provide form I-134 as well as a detailed explanation of why deferred action for humanitarian parole is being requested.
"Once they have secured advance parole, they can leave and return lawfully."
blah, blah, blah ... fast-forward to the last 2 paragraphs, column 2 ... "discretionary" glitches:
DO NOT GO BACK TO CANADA! I am a Canadian citizen living in Las Vegas. I am married to a US citizen and I am waiting for my final interview for my green card so believe me, I know the hassles.
#87. To: GreyLmist (#85)
Would rather get to the backlogs of other issues here, if you don't have something else at this point to say about that.
#88. To: war (#79)
(Edited)
if a neighboring state is being invaded, the governor can refuse to send State Defense Force unit(s) to aid the invading state if so choose.
militia/national guard which can be summoned by the Congress and Commander in chief to aid another state... State defense forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities.
EVERY state has a militia guaranteed by the Constitution,
#89. To: war (#87)
thanks for clearing that up...
#90. To: GreyLmist (#88)
About your "specious point" grading in regard to what you quoted from my post at #75. If it were something I had written myself, I probably would have changed the "invading state" phrase to "invaded state" as more comprehensible; but it wasn't. Other than that, I don't see anything else askance there.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest