Immigration and Federal Supremacy

US Constitutional Law

The United States has struggled with an ongoing and increasing flood of foreign aliens entering the
country illegally and vanishing into the shadows ever since the closure of Ellis Island on November 12,
1954. Immigration and naturalization has not been properly regulated in the United States since, despite
more than adequate laws.

On November 6, 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act
(IRCA). ... The primary goal of the sponsors and proponents of IRCA was to increase border security and
establish penalties for employers who hired unauthorized immigrants.

House Speaker Tip O'Neill (D) included in the legislation, a “one-time amnesty” for up to one-million
illegal aliens residing in the United States at that time. Illegals residing in the United States at that time,
were given six-months following the passage of the Bill to come out of the shadows and register for the
one-time amnesty. Less than 40% of illegals ever registered to become “legal” via amnesty.

Thirty-two years later, in 2018, there are more than thirty-million more illegal aliens residing within the
borders of the United States with more than 500,000 more arriving at our southern border each year,
from more than fifty foreign countries.

Nearly all illegal aliens caught at our border or within our borders, makes an “asylum” claim under U.S.
Asylum Laws 8 U.S. Code § 1158, which states – “Any alien who is physically present in the United States
or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien
who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States
waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or,
where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.”

Of course, in most cases, there is no underlying threat in the home country of the asylum-seekers. The
world has simply learned how to exploit the very generous asylum laws of the United States as a means
of entering and remaining in the United States illegally.

Proof of this is the reality that an estimated 90% of these asylum-seekers never show up for their
appointed court dates after being caught and released into the United States.

Making matters worse is the somewhat recent “sanctuary” practice in the following states, California,
Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont. A complete list of
sanctuary states, counties and cities is available HERE.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

The sole legal power and authority to legislate and regulate immigration and naturalization policy for all
fifty states is assigned to the U.S. Congress in Article I – Enumerated Powers of Congress and Congress
has indeed legislated national immigration and naturalization policy for all fifty states in the Immigration
and Naturalization Act.
“The Congress shall have power - To establish a uniform rule of naturalization - throughout the United
States;”

States, counties and cities have NO legal authority over any issues regarding immigration and
naturalization, as a result. The 10th Amendment only protects State powers to regulate that which is
NOT assigned to the Federal Government in the U.S. Constitution.

FEDERAL SUPREMACY

In Article VI – “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance
thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby;”

Because Immigration and Naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress which enjoys Federal
Supremacy of law, every State, County and City that is a “sanctuary” for illegal activities in direct
violation of Supreme Federal Law on the matter, is also in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution itself.

As a result, every Mayor, City Council, County Commissioner and Governor engaged in aiding and
abetting illegal activities is subject to criminal charges, arrest, prosecution and removal from office.
Every Judge who issues a court opinion at odds with Federal Law on the matter, faces the same
potential consequences.

To put a very fine point on this matter, “Newton District Court Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph and
the court officer, identified in court documents as Wesley MacGregor, face several charges stemming
from an April 2, 2018 incident in which the pair allegedly helped Jose Medina-Perez get out of the
courthouse via a back door in order to elude the ICE agent who sought Medina-Perez.” FULL STORY

For the first time, the Federal Department of Justice has taken serious action against a sitting Judge for
their part in aiding and abetting illegal aliens to escape Federal Law enforcement. This is just the
beginning of what needs to happen to secure the United States against ongoing foreign invasion.

Elections and new laws will do nothing to solve this problem and the problem is much bigger than just
the invasion of our country by illegals from all over the globe.

CONSTITUTION OUTLAWED

One of two things is true… either every Mayor, City Manager or Council, Governor and Judge violating
U.S. Immigration Laws is a Federal criminal that should be arrested and charged with acts of sedition
and subversion, or Federal Supremacy no longer exists.

Every legal expert in the country has stated that “nullification” of Federal Law at the State and Local
level is “unconstitutional.” Yet, many of these same legal experts support the “nullification” of Federal
Immigration Law by countless government officials across the country, none of whom have any legal
authority for their actions, all of whom are in direct violation of Federal Law, Supremacy, the U.S.
Constitution and their individual oaths of office.

ALREADY AJUDICATED BY THE US SUPREME COURT

In at least four Supreme Court legacy cases, Marbury v. Madison (1803), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819),
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) and subsequent Immigration Act of 1882 legacy cases, the U.S. Supreme Court
has consistently upheld Federal Supremacy on all matters assigned to the Federal Government in the
U.S. Constitution, when any State or Local laws or ordinances are in conflict with Federal Law.

This is the legal foundation underlying the recent arrest and indictment of Massachusetts Newton
District Court Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph and the court officer who assisted the judge in the
escape of a known federal fugitive.

To be clear, every individual in our country illegal is a “fugitive from justice.” Every individual engaged in
aiding and abetting these fugitives are also fugitives from justice. Under current U.S. law, it is a
misdemeanor to enter the United States illegally. However, it’s a felony for any American to assist in the
carrying out of that crime.

ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW

All Federal, State and Local officials, elected, appointed or otherwise employed, operate under “the
color of law,” which means, their authority is derived from the laws which they are sworn to respect,
uphold and enforce equally, without reservation. Everything they do is done under “the color of law.”

When they act in violation of the law, while operating under the color of law, the offense is often a
“deprivation of Rights under color of law” governed by U.S. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 – which in part
reads, “Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully
deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” –
“The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty,
depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.”

In other words, someone under an oath to uphold, protect and enforce the law is held to a higher
standard than civilians.

THE KATE STEINLE CASE

Applying SECTION 242 of TITLE 18 to the Kate Steinle case, shot dead by felon living illegally in San
Francisco, protected by unconstitutional “sanctuary” status, California and San Francisco officials could
have and should have been held legally accountable for the death of Kate Steinle.

Instead, a federal appeals court in California ruled that the parents of Kate Steinle, a woman fatally shot
by an illegal immigrant felon in July 2015, cannot sue the city of San Francisco for failing to notify
immigration officials of his release from a local jail weeks before the killing. FULL STORY

San Francisco’s “sanctuary” policy is directly responsible for the death of Kate Steinle, which is but one
of many stories across America involving the needless death of American citizens at the hands of illegal
aliens.

The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, ruled that San
Francisco's then-sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, violated no federal, state or local laws when he released Juan
Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, also known as José Inez Garcia Zarate, without notifying Immigration and
Custom Enforcement. FULL STORY

Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez then brutally murdered Kate Steinle…

COURTS HAVE NO SUCH AUTHORITY

Early in our history as a newly founded sovereign nation, it became clear to the Founders that they had
failed to tie the hands of the Judicial Branch sufficiently to prevent that branch from undermining
everything else created in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, dated September 11, 1804, Jefferson wrote -
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive,
more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to
decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of
action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic
branch.”

Still, it is the courts that have repeatedly prevented President Donald J. Trump from executing the laws
of the United States under his oath to protect and defend the United States against foreign invasion, or
any other duties of his office. It should go without saying at this point, that the courts have no such
constitutional authority whatsoever!

In order for the President’s effort to enforce existing immigration laws to be “unconstitutional,’ the laws
themselves would have to be “unconstitutional.” No such claim or ruling has been made. Yet, activist
judges on the courts continue to block every attempt by the duly elected President to secure this nation
from foreign invasion.

THE PEOPLE MUST TAKE ACTION

1. The people MUST get publicly behind the Federal Criminal Prosecution of Newton District Court
Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph and the court officer, Wesley MacGregor, so that this legacy
case does not fade away into the shadows of DC politics and someone is finally held accountable
for their actions under color of law on this issue. United States Attorney Andrew Lelling
2. Contact U.S. Attorney General Barr, calling on the Department of Justice to bring indictments
against all eight Governors of the eight “sanctuary states” for their aiding and abetting of illegal
migration and fugitives from justice.
3. Contact the following anti-Illegal Immigration Organizations and share this report with them,
calling upon them to use the Constitution and the Law to work together to bring an end to the
ongoing invasion of our Constitutional Republic.

Anti-Illegal Immigration Organizations

www.americanimmigrationcontrol.com
www.ccir.net
www.fairus.org
www.numbersusa.com/home.html
www.ProjectUSA.org
www.steinreport.com
www.vdare.com
www.americanpatrol.com
and any others available…

Researched and Published by The North American Law Center, Inc. ©2019