Does Edwards v. California contradict Justice Barbour's comments in New York v. Miln?
.
In a previous post regarding Texas’ SB 4 law, I pointed to
New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837) to confirm the reserved power of Texas to prohibit the entry of unwanted foreign nationals.
Since then, I was informed that
Mayor of New York v. Miln was reversed in
Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941). So, I carefully reviewed the case.
As I expected, I found there is absolutely nothing stated by the Court in
Edwards, even remotely, suggesting a State does not maintain the power to refuse entry to an unwanted
"influx" of foreign nationals, and moreover, a duty for a State to protect itself and her citizens from an onslaught of unwanted
“foreign paupers” thereby avoiding
“. . . the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor”, as stated in
Miln by United States Supreme Court Justice Barbour
But getting back to Edwards:
It involved interstate commerce [commerce among the States], not migration of
“foreign paupers,” illegally crossing into a particular State from foreign soil.
The party’s involved in the
Edwards case were citizens of the United States as noted in the case:
“
Appellant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of California. In December, 1939, he left his home in Marysville, California, for Spur, Texas, with the intention of bringing back to Marysville his wife's brother, Frank Duncan, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Texas.”
The law in question was § 2615 of the Welfare and Institutions Code of California, which provided:
"Every person, firm or corporation or officer or agent thereof that brings or assists in bringing into the State any indigent person who is not a resident of the State, knowing him to be an indigent person, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
The Court concluded:
“We are of the opinion that § 2615 is not a valid exercise of the police power of California, that it imposes an unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce, and that the conviction under it cannot be sustained. In the view we have taken, it is unnecessary to decide whether the Section is repugnant to other provisions of the Constitution.”
As everyone can see,
Edwards v. California, not even remotely, conflicts with Justice Barbour’s comments in
Miln, concerning a state having the authority, and duty, to forbid entry to unwanted foreign national paupers.
In any event, I thought those interested in the case, would find the above factual, informative, and important in the fight to have Texas’ SB 4 upheld, and Biden’s orchestrated invasion of our border brought to an end.
.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
