Browse By

Ted Cruz and Ted Poe Introduce S. 2363, the Enabling Bigoted Governors Act

Under United States law, states aren’t in charge of immigration; such matters are part the federal government’s jurisdiction.  Indeed, Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution not only declares that it is the role of the U.S. Congress to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,” but also specifically “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” the process by which those admitted to U.S. borders are handled, treated and granted status up to and including that of citizenship.

Senate bill S. 2363 and its House companion H.R. 4197 (introduced by Republican presidential candidate and Senator Ted Cruz and by Republican Representative Ted Poe, respectively) aims to change all that.  Under their legislation, a refugee already admitted entry into the United States as a fully legal immigrant (after a process of multiple background checks lasting longer than a year) could be barred from entering a state by a Governor of that state if, “in the sole determination of the Governor,” the refugee poses a risk.  The Governor of a state wouldn’t have to provide proof, or even reasoning, behind his or her decision.  All the Governor would have to do is issue a declaration and just like that, a single refugee, a family of refugees, or an entire class of refugees could be banned from living in a state.  Theirs is legislation to unleash bigots and privilege discrimination over principles of equality, justice and fairness.

In other news, some 239 years ago a bunch of lowlife immigrants and refugees somewhere in North America decided that they’d had enough of the arbitrary exercise of power by an unaccountable king who used his power to treat people with capricious unfairness.  They were undoubtedly security threats, all of them.

 

10 thoughts on “Ted Cruz and Ted Poe Introduce S. 2363, the Enabling Bigoted Governors Act”

  1. Leroy says:

    Wouldn’t the passage of such legislation be deemed unconstitutional as based on Article V of the U. S. Constitution?

    Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation’s frame of government, may be altered:

    “Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.

    Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.

    To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress) the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by affirmative decision by State ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states.”

    1. Jim Cook says:

      I agree, Leroy. But a legislator can try. And how many other unconstitutional activities has the U.S. Government gotten away with in the past decade, either through inattention from the Supreme Court or through conservative Supreme Court decisions that render the unconstitutional constitutional?

    2. ella says:

      This time I can agree with you Leroy, that is the way it is supposed to be. And also, Jim Cook. Even the President has gained unprecedented powers over that past few decades. Why is the Congress simply, seemingly, ignoring what is going on? The Congress, in general, has still the authority to act in defense of the Constitution. It comes down to the actions of individual members and the Speaker of the House. ‘Prince’ Reibus has gained control of more than one party by now.

  2. ella says:

    Jim Cook: “In other news, some 239 years ago a bunch of lowlife immigrants and refugees somewhere in North America decided that they’d had enough of the arbitrary exercise of power by an unaccountable king who used his power to treat people with capricious unfairness. They were undoubtedly security threats, all of them.”

    You are so right. Those immigrants entered the lands of many nations and proved themselves to be the worst of security threats. They killed the natives, stole their lands, herded the remaining survivors onto land they (as new owners of the land) couldn’t utilize (until the natives made it viable) and proceeded to call it the United States of America.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Which makes the overwhelmingly peaceful immigrants we have today, with a lower incarceration rate than citizens, look really good by comparison. Way to go, modern-day immigrants!

      1. ella says:

        You are impossible. 🙂 But this time I must agree with you, at least so far. Let us hope they are not coming here to also find a new land to conquer and make home. As they have been for the last several years expanding out into Africa and now Europe. Have you ever noticed that when a group migrates to another country it isn’t long before that country becomes Muslim?

        1. J Clifford says:

          That is so totally true! Like when the Irish began migrating the United States, bam! Now we’re Muslim.

          1. ella says:

            Yes, just check out this American Muslim ideology. Published on You Tube no less. A religion deeply faithful to their beliefs can be respected, yes? http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/leading-us-imam-and-professor-muslims-can-take-property-of-filthy-christians-and-jews-video/

          2. Jim Cook says:

            Devising a policy based on finding videos on YouTube is not a good approach, because in a world of more than 7 billion people, you can find a YouTube video establishing anything and call it a trend, even when it isn’t. Want to trade YouTube video anecdotes? OK, here’s a Christianity-is-evil anecdote:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BdSRyG8_2E

            Now, does that establish that Christianity is evil and that we shouldn’t allow Christian immigrants into the United States? If not, then your YouTube video similarly doesn’t establish anything about how we should consider Muslim immigrants.

          3. ella says:

            I guess I am too young, Google won’t let me in. But I believe you. The Muslim was spouting doctrine of their religion. I doubt the “Christian” was. There are so many one verse, never even read anything, in some cases cannot read, people being led by someone looking for money and to feel powerful. Sometimes I think Christianity attracts doofusses. Anyone can label a building, call themselves Christian and the sheep will flock. But there are genuine followers, just like there are genuine followers of Islam. Unfortunately all that is covered in Islam, and all of that is not covered in Christianity. There are real differences.

            By the way, did you notice that after removing Donald Trumps name from developments in Saudi, today it is back up again? He seems to be a talented person after all. He is beginning to look more Presidential all the time. It seems not be what he appears to say, but how he handles the situation that is created.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!