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: 1194
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
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: war (#29)
...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*?
Comments (81 - 90) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOnly 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.
.
.
.