Government

Romans 13:1 New American Standard Bible 1995  “13 Every ^]person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.”  

The following is the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.  https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” 

I would like to dissect this. 

• Who are we talking about?  “We the People of the United States”
• Who are the people of the United States?  Its legal citizens.
• Why are we talking about them?  “In order to form a more perfect Union.”
• What is the purpose of the Union? 
• “establish justice”
• “insure domestic Tranquility”
• “provide for the common defence”
• “promote the general Welfare”
•  Why are the purposes put forth?  “And secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” For who?  “Ourselves and our posterity.”
• What do “We the People of the United States” do?
• “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

 What does ordain mean?   “to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law : ENACTwe the people … do ordain and establish this Constitution— U.S. Constitution”  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ordain 

What does establish mean?  “: to institute (something, such as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/establish 

We the people of the United States are the government. We determine who will represent us through the voting process. And those the represent us should stand for what we the people elected them to stand for. If our representatives deliberately do not represent the views for which they were elected, we have the right to recall them. 

The Constitution of the United States was not created to benefit non-citizens. Though non-citizens are expected to adhere to the laws of the United States and each state respectively.  

There is a legal process by which non-citizens become citizens. That process should be supported by the United State Attorney General, and all pertinent law enforcement officers. To not do so is deliberately not providing for the common defence of United States citizens and promoting the general welfare of United State citizens.    

There is a moral issue to treat aliens fairly, conversely aliens have a moral and legal responsibility to enter the country through the legal process. To enter illegally does not exhibit good faith. Basically, they are thumbing their noses at our laws.  This shows no respect for our nation.

Persons entering the United States know full well that they are not adhering to the laws of the United States. 

The Constitution states that there is to be a uniform rule for naturalization established by Congress. Congress has set this process and it must be adhered to.  Notice that the key word in uniform. What is the use of laws if they are not enforced or are not uniformly enforced?

 “ArtI.S8.C4.1.1 Naturalization Power: Overview Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: The Congress shall have Power . . . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; . . . Naturalization has been defined by the Supreme Court as the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen. In the Dred Scott. . . 

• Footnotes:
• 
  
  • Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135, 162 (1892). Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857). 60 U.S. at 417. Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 311 (1915). Chirac v. Chirac, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 259, 269 (1817); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 701 (1898). The first naturalization act, 1 Stat. 103 (1790), so provided. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421. In Holmgren v. United States, 217. . .”

 “By the end of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court construed Congress's broad immigration power as covering not only the exclusion of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States, but also the expulsion of aliens already within the territorial boundaries of this country.⁹ For example, in 1896 in Fong Yue Ting v. United States, the Court upheld the deportation of Chinese nationals residing in the United States following their failure to obtain certificates of residence under the Chinese Exclusion Act.¹⁰ The Court determined that [t]he right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized, or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of the country, rests upon the same grounds, and is as absolute and unqualified, as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.¹¹ Thus, based on the Supreme Court's early jurisprudence, Congress, and by extension, the executive branch, had virtually unlimited authority to exclude and deport aliens from the United States with little judicial intervention.”  https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-4-2-4/ALDE_00001260/['expel']

“Supreme Court precedent establishes that inherent principles of sovereignty give Congress plenary power to regulate immigration. Notwithstanding the implicit nature of this authority, the Court has described the immigration power as perhaps the most complete that Congress possesses.¹ The core of this power—the part that has proven most impervious to judicial review—is the authority to determine which aliens may enter the United States and under what conditions. The Court has also established that the executive branch, when enforcing the laws concerning alien entry, has broad authority to do so mostly free from judicial oversight. While the Court has recognized that aliens present within the United States generally have more robust constitutional protections than aliens seeking entry into the country, the Court has upheld federal statutes impacting the rights of aliens within the United States in light of Congress's unique immigration power, though the degree to which the immigration power is constrained by these constitutional protections remains a matter of continuing uncertainty. “https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-4-2-7/ALDE_00001269/

“Deportation Deportation is the formal removal of a foreign national from the U.S. for violating an immigration law. Open All + 

• The Deportation Process

 The United States may deport foreign nationals who participate in criminal acts, are a threat to public safety, or violate their visa. Those who come to the U.S. without travel documents or with forged documents may be deported quickly without an immigration court hearing under an order of expedited removal (PDF, Download Adobe Reader). Others may go before a judge in a longer deportation (removal) process. 

• 
  
  • The foreign national may be held in a detention center prior to trial or deportation. See a map of ICE detention facilities or use the ICE Online Detainee Locator System.
  • An Immigration Court of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) hears the related case.
  • If a judge rules that the deportation proceeds, the receiving country of the person being deported must agree to accept them and issue travel documents before the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) carries out a removal order.
  • The majority of removals are carried out by air at U.S. government expense, although some removals may use a combination of air and ground transportation. Learn more about the removal of deported foreign nationals by air.
  • Criminal non-citizens who have committed nonviolent crimes may be subject to Rapid REPAT (PDF, Download Adobe Reader).”  https://www.usa.gov/deportation

Each Attorney General must take an oath.   §544. Oath of office Each United States attorney, assistant United States attorney, and attorney appointed under section 543 of this title, before taking office, shall take an oath to execute faithfully his duties.”  https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section544&num=0&edition=prelim    

Attorneys general not upholding the laws of the United States cannot be viewed as faithfully executing their duties.