Texas governor Greg Abbott has signed into law statutes “outlawing” sanctuary cities.  Was he right or wrong in doing so?  Once we know the facts, it will be clear that not only did Abbott not do anything wrong, but had an obligation to do what he did.  Legally speaking, Abbott and the Texas legislators did not actually create any “new” laws.  What they did was create a law to require enforcement of the Constitution and the federal laws already on the books.  Abbott and the Texas legislators did not “outlaw” sanctuary cities, the Constitution and federal law already did that.

The Constitution is a contract between the States that created the federal government.  By this contractual agreement, certain powers were delegated to the federal government and the remaining powers were reserved to the States.  The States, in joining the Union, have agreed to abide by and enforce the terms of the Contract.  Also, in doing so, the States of the Union agree that the powers delegated to the federal government will be respected and enforced by the States as long as the federal government is operating by and through the authority of their power delegated by the Constitution.  By the contractual agreement, through the creation of the Constitutional Contract, every State that enters into the Union agrees to the terms of this Contract.

Article 1 section 8 clause 4 vests into the federal government the power to Congress to make “an uniformed Rule of Naturalization.”   It is therefore, and by contract, within the power of the federal government to create the rules for Naturalization.  This power was delegated to the federal government for very specific reasons.   Previous to the Constitution, there was a significant problem with inconsistent standards for foreign people to become and enjoy the benefits of citizenship.  It is not uniform when the terms vary from State to State.  We needed to establish uniformity amongst the States.  There can be different standards of citizenship for people from different foreign countries, but all the different rules must be enforced with uniformity from State to State.

James Madison, designated by history as the Father of the Constitution, explains the problems these inconsistencies create:

“The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other.” Fed #42

Madison is explaining that one State’s laws cannot bind those people of another State, as each State is separate and independent in their internal affairs.  For example, California laws cannot be made enforceable with in the State of Texas.  If the States were left to create the rules of naturalization, then one State’s rules would not transfer to the next State.  Each foreign person would have to seek citizenship in each individual State, fulfilling potentially different terms each time.  If citizenship is left to a State by State establishment, there would be confusion throughout the world on what it would take to become a citizen.

What if each State were required to honor the terms of citizenship of the other State, perhaps through Article 4 section 1, “full faith and credit?”  This brings about a series of problems that Madison also brings to our attention in Federalist 42:

“By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against.”

Madison is reminding us about a problem they were having when some States were creating very lax rules of naturalization; allowing people the benefits of citizenship who were actually hostile to the principles that established the Liberty of these States.  When those people, who were unfriendly to the principles of Liberty, obtained citizenship in one State, they would attempt to force other States to honor their citizenship.  Because these States had higher standards of citizenship, they were refusing to do so.  This created several serious problems.

According to Madison, the danger of States allowing people hostile to the principles of America to obtain the benefits of citizenship would created a cascade of serious of problems dangerous to our foundational principles.  Once these “obnoxious” aliens obtain the “benefits of residency” they will possess the power to vote, occupy office, make laws within that State. Finally, with all these powers asserted, these “obnoxious” aliens will exercise a certain degree of influence and control over the federal government, as well.  Madison describes this as bringing about consequences of “too serious a nature not to be provided against.” Fed #42

The whole purpose of creating the federal government was to create a uniform voice for the States in the matters of foreign affairs.  The federal government also holds the responsibility to exercise their authority with the “general welfare” all the States equally in mind while ensuring that people who will threaten the “common defense” and “domestic tranquility” will not be permitted to exercise the benefits of citizenship.

Madison explains that it was for these reasons that the power of naturalization was delegated to the federal government; to prevent these “serious” consequences from becoming a reality.

“The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.”

The power of uniform rules of naturalization was delegated to the federal government so the States will have the ability to agree, through their representatives in the House and Senate, on the uniformed rules to be respected and enforced throughout the States.  By contract, each State is now bound by those rules established pursuant to the Constitution.  Sanctuary cities are unilaterally and illegally breaking the terms of the Constitutional contract established by each of the 50 States.

Because these sanctuary cities are refusing to abide by the uniform rules of naturalization they are actually asserting that their laws are superior to the laws of every other State in the Union; that a city can now dictate to the entire Union the terms and benefits of citizenship upon any alien, obnoxious or otherwise, as they so choose.  Sanctuary cities are the real-time manifestation of the “too serious consequences” Madison said the designers of our Constitution intended to prevent.  The States that allow their cities to go rogue, are acting in concert to violate the terms of the Constitution and they must ultimately bear the responsibility of enforcing the terms of the contract they agreed to.

Sanctuary cities are not only acting unconstitutionally, they are also acting unlawfully.  In accordance with Article 1 section 8 clause 4, Congress has created legal penalties for those who knowingly or recklessly disregard the rules of naturalization and “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection… transport, or move or attempt to transport or move” or to even “encourage or induce” an illegal alien “to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.” (8 US Code 1324)  It is not only a crime to actually commit these offenses, but it is a crime to even attempt to do so. Anyone found guilty of violating 8 US Code 1324 is subject to fines, prison or both. However, if it can be proven that this person has committed this act for personal gain, the fines go up and the prison sentence can be as much as ten years.

Sanctuary cities also violate 8 US Code 1611 which sets forth specific federal benefits that cannot be given to illegal aliens.

(NOTE: there is an exception for emergency services in this section)

Section 1611 defines a benefit as follows:

“(A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States; and

(B) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.”

Additionally, the entire time these illegal aliens are living in these sanctuary cities they will not only be receiving benefits, these cities will be encouraging other illegal aliens to come into the United States while housing, feeding, transporting, and shielding them from prosecution for violating federal immigration laws.

Now, if these sanctuary cities were a person, what would be the punishment for the above violations? The law states:

“for each alien in respect to whom a violation of this [law] occurs…be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; or…

Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.”

Finally, if granting these benefits to illegal aliens “was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain” then the punishment is fines under title 18, “imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”

These sanctuary cities have made it clear that they are not going to follow the law.  It is now the obligation of their States to enforce the terms of the Constitution and ensure the enforcement of immigration laws.  It is the obligation of the executive branch of the federal government to ensure that these laws are faithfully executed.  It is the obligation of our Congress to ensure that federal money is not spent by these sanctuary cities in their efforts to disregard the law.

As America engages in this discussion over sanctuary cities, I would hope that these matters of Constitution, law, fact, and history would dominate the narrative.

Multi-MSM Headline: Reince Priebus Says WH Wants To Change Libel Laws

Consider the facts:

There are no federal libel laws.  Libel laws are laws created by the States.  Libel is a limit upon speech and is not only not a power delegated to the federal government, but is also a power expressly forbidden by the 1^st  Amendment.

“Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech shall not be abridged, nor the freedom of press, the right to peaceably assemble, nor the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Because this power was not delegated to the federal government, it is expressly reserved to the States.  If the federal government, whether it be the executive branch (the White House) or Congress, codified or interfered with a State libel law, it would be completely unconstitutional.  Additionally, law making is a power delegated and reserved to the Legislative Branch.  Therefore, the executive branch, i.e. the executive branch, cannot make libel laws, much less change them.

The supreme Court, however, involved itself in a case of State law libel in 1964, (New Times, Co. v. Sullivan).  In this case, the supreme Court opined that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media knew the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”  The supreme Court has even said that libel and slander are not valid suits when the information is so ridiculous as to be patently false, as in the case of satire.  Perhaps Reince Priebus wants the supreme Court to change the way State libel laws are written?  Wouldn’t that be political or judicial activism?

There are serious consequences for allowing the federal government to exercise a power not delegated.   Alexander Hamilton, warned us to not allow unconstitutional laws created by Congress to have the force of law.

“No law, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid…would allow men by virtue of powers to not only do what they are not permitted to do, but also what they are forbidden.” Fed #78

As Hamilton warns, to allow a federal libel law to have the force of law would be to create an unlimited government:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.…To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”  Federalist #78

To allow either Congress, the White House, or even the supreme Court to create a law governing this speech, would be to allow the federal government to at best circumvent and at worst disregard the Constitution completely.

Modern America is not a brave new world and the issue of federal libel was not unknow territory for our founders.  In 1688, their executive branch, a king by the name of James II, enforced a libel law that prohibited the church leadership from criticizing the king from the pulpit.  This version of libel was particularly egregious as it made any criticism subject to imprisonment, even if the criticism was based in fact.  The law established that truth was no defense.  In this day, the majority of the courts were more than happy to do the bidding of the executive branch and seven bishops were prosecuted for seditious libel. The enforcement of this law, among several other things, brought about the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the end of the reign of James II.

Benjamin Franklin, writing as Silence Dogood in 1722, reciting the history of James II, made this comment about freedom of speech and press;

“Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors.” Dogood Letter #8

The drafters of our Constitution knew very well the consequences of allowing the central government to create laws that limit the criticism of government.  This history is particularly why they did not delegate this power to the central government and why it was expressly forbidden in the Bill of Rights.  Let us not be a people so ignorant of our history that we end up repeating its mistakes.

I hope you enjoy this guest article by our dear friend, Robin Keorner. ~ KrisAnne

Robin Koerner was a British citizen but is now a proud legal citizen of Washington, Unites States of America. He was educated at Cambridge University, from which he holds three degrees. Having taken graduate degrees in physics and philosophy, he never expected to find himself at the cutting edge of American politics.  Learn more about Robin and his mission at http://robinkoerner.com/

A New Citizen and a New President

For me, the inauguration of President Trump is particularly poignant, as the outgoing President was the one under whom I became a citizen,
while the new President was elected in the first election in which I was also able to participate as a new American.

Born British, I moved to the USA when I was 29. In 2009, I became a permanent resident, and last year, after a 12 year odyssey through a Kafkaesque immigration system, I became a citizen.

In my heart and soul, however, I was American a long time ago – a fact of which I became conscious in two experiential flashes. The first made me realize that I was no longer “just” a Brit. After the second, I knew I was American, even though I didn’t yet have the passport to prove it.

Becoming American

The first occurred in Phoenix. I was in the city with a friend when we heard of a liberty-oriented political conference that was being held in the Sheraton hotel there. Being political types, we quietly went down there, and let ourselves into the back of the hall. Scanning what at that time was for me a rather unusual environment, I noticed a participant who was prominently sporting a side-arm.

I was only five years out of Britain at that time, and the instinctive reaction of most Brits, in whose country even the police don’t carry guns, to such a thing would typically be some combination of horror, perplexity and even derision. At the very least, the sense of cultural dissonance would be instinctive. But for me, somewhat surprisingly, that was not the case. Even though I had never shot a handgun, nor had had any interest in firearms, not only did I feel at ease with that man’s carrying his weapon in an indoor environment in which he was not threatened, but – much more than that – I understood why he was doing it, and that the reasons were, of course, decidedly American. The idea that rights un-asserted are lost over time and that a lethal means of self-defense is a right are alien to British culture, so the fact that I didn’t feel in that moment that the carrier of that gun was of a different species — let alone a different culture — was enough for me to register that I my national identity was already becoming more complex, more layered.

However, the moment I knew that I was American was altogether stranger. I was at the top of a mountain in Kyrgyzstan, sitting in a room in a run-down building that had been converted to a classroom for a week. I was there with others to share some of the principles of political and economic liberty with a group young adults whose formative years had come of age in a former Soviet republic. At the time, one of my colleagues, an opera singer, was giving a class. After loosening up the extremely bright but highly skeptical students by getting them to discuss and then sing the Kyrgyz national anthem, he proceeded to sing the American anthem.

The tears started rolling down my face, and they would not stop.

Not only have I never cried for the British anthem: I cannot even imagine any Englishman doing so. Yet, there I was, with nowhere to hide in the front of this rectangular room, crying for the anthem of a country to which technically I did not yet fully belong — but with which spiritually I resonated at the deepest level.

I was taken aback by my deeply emotional response but perhaps should not have been. After all, there were many occasions in the preceding five years of a brutal legal immigration process when it would have been emotionally, financially and practically much easier just to have just given up, but on those occasions I always returned to the simple fact that I already felt at home, and after all, one’s feelings are the language of one’s soul.
In any case, on that day, on a mountaintop in Kyrgyzstan, I knew that, while I was British, I was also an American.

A few months later, I was back in Phoenix, and went to support an Italian friend as he became an American citizen. I imagined myself going through the same ceremony four years later with my own kith and kin in the audience.

I smiled through the whole thing, sharing fellow-feeling with all of the new citizens — not just as Americans, but as people who had overcome similar stresses and uncertainties to achieve their goal of becoming once and for all American.

Yet, one part of the ceremony gave me serious pause. The oath taken by new citizens includes the words,

I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.

Imagining my mother in the audience, my stomach knotted at how upset she’d be if I renounced where I had come from and the land with which she shall always identify.

I was sufficiently perturbed by the implications of that renunciation that I started googling when I returned home to see what it really meant.

Becoming A Bipatriot

I have no reservation in my commitment to the USA. In fact, I have already done more to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America” than many born-and-bred Americans, and I love doing it, because I believe deeply in the founding principles of the United States and the American project. I would take up arms for the USA and I would fight as hard to defend my fellow Americans as I would for my fellow Brits.

Indeed, to me, my British-to-American narrative is a rather special one in that it follows America’s historical narrative, and to me, much of what is best about the American character and foundation is an evolution, perhaps even a higher expression, of British values and political traditions. (In his poem, “England and America in 1782“, Tennyson explains it better than I can.)

Indeed, my pride in those British gifts underpins my pride in the Americans who fought the revolution and wrote the Constitution to save and improve on those same gifts as they were being trampled in “the motherland”.

Britain formed me. America is what I have chosen to do with how I am formed. Renouncing one for the other would be like renouncing being a son to become a husband — or like renouncing my first child when my second is born. Doing either would be absurd and false. As with two sons, so with two countries: I love both, delight in the success of both, am pained by the falling short of both, and get to celebrate the fact that love is not diluted when it is doubled.

For those reasons and others, I was glad to learn that my renunciation of Britain in the USA carries no weight in Britain, and that even in American law, I can be both American and British.

Thank God for that. I am impatient to embrace America fully, and commit to my new countrymen, but if I really had to choose between an American identity and a British one, I’d be overwhelmed by the unreality of that choice.

So I am a bipatriot, if I might coin a term, and it is a wonderful thing to be.

Just as people who can think in different languages benefit from a certain intellectual and emotional abundance, so do we bipatriots. We have an enriched identity, a more colorful sense of self. We get to see issues — especially political, philosophical and cultural — in very different ways, but in each way clearly. Not only is that exciting; it hopefully gives us something different to contribute to our adoptive country.

Happily, another British-born Americaphile inadvertently helped me understand why bipatriotism makes sense: Daniel Hannan, a British Member of the European Parliament has said,

Patriotism is what makes people behave unselfishly. It’s the basis of our sense of obligation to those around us. A patriot doesn’t belittle other countries: he cheers their sense of national pride, and values their freedom.

Indeed. And I am blessed, like the parent of two children, to have twice the pride

But the skeptical reader might still ask whom would I support in a world-cup soccer final between the US and the UK (choosing soccer only because it’s one of the few team sports that are seriously played by both nations), as the answer to that question would no doubt cut to my deepest allegiance. Upon introspection, I am delighted to find that in that game, my team never loses.

Prejudice Against Patriotism Is as Damaging as Patriotism with Prejudice

I didn’t vote for the President who was sworn in today, and I was not expecting to be much taken by his speech – but I was struck by one line in particular:

When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

That made me recall Hannan, above, and it is the kind of patriotism of which my bipatriotism is made. It is also the patriotism of individual liberty on which our nation – my new home – was founded.

I hope it truly is the patriotism of our new President, and of those who have supported him. Our future depends heavily on it.

But just as importantly, I hope that those who have justified their opposition to our new President as a way of expressing, so they say, their lack of prejudice, will extend that lack of prejudice to those who are inspired by country, its history, and its founding ideals, and so call themselves patriots. Our future depends heavily on that too.