Constitution Grants California the Right to Create Sanctuary Cities

   If these are the arguments California is making -- if these are the things that state is suggesting -- then it is well within its rights in creating sanctuary cities.
   Words have their meanings, and the founding fathers knew what words they were using when they granted the federal government authority to create a path to citizenship so those moving here could be naturalized as equals with those born here.
   Should we not assume that if the founders had wanted to grant authority over immigration,  they would have used an appropriate word? Could they not have said, "immigration" or "migration," if that is what they wanted to talk about? Instead, they chose the word, "naturalization," and we must assume that is what they were talking about.
   Words matter. They have different meanings. To assume they meant meant one word when they used another is a weak argument.
   "The Congress shall have Power . . . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
   Since naturalization does not mean migration, the process of naturalization does not include controlling who shall come to the U.S. Since the founders were talking about rules allowing those from out of country to become equal with those already here, that is what they were talking about.
   They were talking about what they were talking about.
   Now, since the Tenth Amendment says all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, then if anyone has authority over immigration, it is the states -- and California happens to be one of them.
   So, if California chooses to have sanctuary cities, it should be allowed to do so. It is but acting under the authority given it in the Constitution.