Feds warn Texas not to enforce state-level immigration bill

[Invisible Man]

Maybe they don't want to associate with you. Maybe they'd rather associate with the government that gives them I.D. cards, work permits, free housing, etc.

I mean, if I were the government, I'd be more interested in getting their support than yours. You're a very hard voter (I mean, non-voter) to please.

Work permits?

What are those used for?

 

[nobody's_hero]

Work permits?

What are those used for?

I mean, I don't know if you were trying to be snarky, but . . .

https://www.uscis.gov/i-765

 

[Brian4Liberty]

...The more border "security" who directs those immigrants, the more that Wall goes up [to create more entry/exit points], the more those immigrants are processed into the system. Those who are processed obtain government-issued-cards, pay taxes when they work which helps Grow the Fed, restricts who private employers are "allowed" to hire by government dictate, increases the profits of the Security Industrial Complexes, and enables them access to government programs, while shredding our very BoR's on the tax payer dime.

The only proper solution is to allow people to freely go about their business [unless a crime a has been committed and faces their accuser], and not force them to obtain "legal" government issued cards.

And you seriously want Biden/Trump/Government/etc. to have more control? ...

Do you even follow actual politics? What you describe is exactly what the Biden Admin and establishment are trying to push. Biden wants "reform" and more money in order to issue cards and process nearly unlimited immigrants.

And in order to make that happen, and force a few pesky Republicans and the entire nation to go along, they have left the entire border uncontrolled and open to mass illegal immigration, and the chaos that has come from that. It is blackmail. The Biden Admin will destroy the entire nation if they don't get their way, and it is intentional.

If you support that, you support the Biden agenda, and the chaos and increased government control that comes with it. You are part of the problem.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

... That's not a threat, it's simply a description of reality, of which they are living in denial. F-15s and nukes aside, they are not the stronger party in the battle which they are positioning themselves to enter. ...

Biden takes swipe at Second Amendment supporters: 'You need F-15s' to take on the federal government

Will F-16s work?

https://twitter.com/SATXPolice/status/1568585338452320258

 

[Invisible Man]

I mean, I don't know if you were trying to be snarky, but . . .

https://www.uscis.gov/i-765

You see, the thing is, when PAF referred to associations between these people and Americans, and you said, "Maybe they don't want to associate with you," getting a job is one of those kinds of associations.

Hopefully we can all agree that the very concept of a work permit is offensive, as if two people agreeing among themselves to exchange labor for money is some kind of a privilege we ought to have to tell the government about to make sure they're ok with it.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Do you even follow actual politics? What you describe is exactly what the Biden Admin and establishment are trying to push. Biden wants "reform" and more money in order to issue cards and process nearly unlimited immigrants.

And in order to make that happen, and force a few pesky Republicans and the entire nation to go along, they have left the entire border uncontrolled and open to mass illegal immigration, and the chaos that has come from that. It is blackmail. The Biden Admin will destroy the entire nation if they don't get their way, and it is intentional.

If you support that, you support the Biden agenda, and the chaos and increased government control that comes with it. You are part of the problem.

The thing is, and I'll say this again, if you actually stop (or at least, severely limit) unrestricted border crossings at the border [*gasp* how absurd!], it cuts down on the vast majority of big brother nonsense that gets brought to fruition (like inland "border security" checkpoints).

If you're a desperate immigrant watching from the banks south of the Rio Grande and you see federal agents holding up barbed wire with bulldozers to let people in, it doesn't exactly dissuade others from trying the same thing. Next thing you know:

"We need more border patrol agents to process all these people. We need another form and fee schedule (and hire bureaucrats to process them). Oh and they'll need housing, food, medical care."

We could just simply turn them away, but "ThAT's TyRanNY."

 

[Occam's Banana]

... That's not a threat, it's simply a description of reality, of which they are living in denial. F-15s and nukes aside, they are not the stronger party in the battle which they are positioning themselves to enter. ...

Biden takes swipe at Second Amendment supporters: 'You need F-15s' to take on the federal government

Will F-16s work?

https://twitter.com/SATXPolice/status/1568585338452320258

//

Joe Biden makes the case for the right to keep and bear F16s:

https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1748460688010338763

But notice what he left out:

https://twitter.com/CeltusMaximus/status/1748461332007878855

 

[nobody's_hero]

Hopefully we can all agree that the very concept of a work permit is offensive, as if two people agreeing among themselves to exchange labor for money is some kind of a privilege we ought to have to tell the government about to make sure they're ok with it.

I agree. Just click back to the 'forms' link at the USCIS and you can see a disgusting amount of federal forms and paperwork to be filed.

But the thing is, if you're desperate, you don't really care about any of that inconvenience, or what statist controls it might lead to down the road. If the man from the government tells you they can help you if all you do is enroll yourself into the system, it seems like a pretty damn good trade for a shot at a better life. So, PAF can preach about it, but he's outnumbered, we all are, and waving more people through the door does nothing to stem the tide.

So PAF (says he) wants to associate with them, but PAF can't give them what the government (says it) can.

 

[ClaytonB]

//

Somebody needs to dub this over a Max Headroom ad clip... he's straight-up glitching at this point... "w-w-walkin' around"

 

[Anti Federalist]

Did SCOTUS at any point specify which federally authorized activities they were referring to here?

No, they simply agreed with the motion to vacate the Fifth's findings.

They, the Feds, stated those activities as being:

Federal law unambiguously grants Border Patrol agents the
authority, without a warrant, to access private land within 25
miles of the international border, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3), as well as
to “interrogate” and “arrest” anyone “who in [their] presence or
view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law” and is likely to abscond, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(1)-
(2). Federal law further “deem” those who are present in the
United States without having been admitted or paroled “applicant for admission” with certain statutory rights, 8 U.S.C.
1225(a)(1); provides for federal officials to “inspect[]” such
applicants, 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(3); and authorizes federal agents to
“arrest[] and detain[]” noncitizens “pending a [removal] decision,” 8 U.S.C. 1226(a).

 

[Dr.3D]

Somebody needs to dub this over a Max Headroom ad clip... he's straight-up glitching at this point... "w-w-walkin' around"

Somebody should ask him how those F16's worked out in Afghanistan.

 

[oyarde]

texas must not comply

 

[Occam's Banana]

RELATED: Supreme court Allows Fed Agents to Cut Razor Wire Texas Installed on Border

 

[Occam's Banana]

All borders should be open to goods, services, vacationers, travelers, etc.

This is false.

It is not the case that "all borders should be open" to those things. Private borders may and should be as closed to any or all of those things as their respective property owners wish them to be (subject to any relevant contractual encumbrances, such as easements, rights-of-way, etc.).

It is not the place of government to restrict/regulate/approve/disapprove who I can associate with.

Yet that is exactly what must and will occur in the case of public borders, regardless of whether they are "open" or "closed".

When they are public, so-called "open borders" are fundamentally and inescapably statist in nature - as all policies concerning public borders (no matter how permissive or restrictive) must necessarily be. (The only real difference in this regard is that the inherently statist nature of the implementation and consequences of public "open borders" might not be as manifestly obvious and directly observable as they are for "closed borders".)

Any public "open borders" policy necessarily involves the state dictating to others the terms under which they are or are not allowed, forbidden, or required to trade, travel, associate, etc. That those terms might be generously permissive and relatively "open" does not change the dictatorial nature of their implementation by the state; nor does it abnegate the (direct or indirect) negative consequences that arise as a result of imposing that implementation. (Indeed, some of those negative consequences - such as artificially-engineered demographic change, welfare-state expansionism, etc. - redound to the political advantage of some, who desire and seek to impose public "open borders" for that very reason.)

 

[WarriorLiberty]

This is false.

It is not the case that "all borders should be open" to those things. Private borders may and should be as closed to any or all of those things as their respective property owners wish them to be (subject to any relevant contractual encumbrances, such as easements, rights-of-way, etc.).



Yet that is exactly what must and will occur in the case of public borders, regardless of whether they are "open" or "closed".

When they are public, so-called "open borders" are fundamentally and inescapably statist in nature - as all policies concerning public borders (no matter how permissive or restrictive) must necessarily be. (The only real difference in this regard is that the inherently statist nature of the implementation and consequences of public "open borders" might not be as manifestly obvious and directly observable as they are for "closed borders".)

Any public "open borders" policy necessarily involves the state dictating to others the terms under which they are or are not allowed, forbidden, or required to trade, travel, associate, etc. That those terms might be generously permissive and relatively "open" does not change the dictatorial nature of their implementation by the state; nor does it abnegate the (direct or indirect) negative consequences that arise as a result of imposing that implementation. (Indeed, some of those negative consequences - such as artificially-engineered demographic change, welfare-state expansionism, etc. - redound to the political advantage of some, who desire and seek to impose public "open borders" for that very reason.)

Maybe some of the migrants should be bused into those little gated communities you know where elitists/rich are i am sure they would love the idea of "OPEN BORDERS"
The same ones who preach about wanting to keep the borders open for all but they themselves dont live anywhere near the arrivals.


Its easier to preach when you have a mansion fit for a king.

 

[ClaytonB]

Any public "open borders" policy necessarily involves the state dictating to others the terms under which they are or are not allowed, forbidden, or required to trade, travel, associate, etc. That those terms might be generously permissive and relatively "open" does not change the dictatorial nature of their implementation by the state; nor does it abnegate the (direct or indirect) negative consequences that arise as a result of imposing that implementation. (Indeed, some of those negative consequences - such as artificially-engineered demographic change, welfare-state expansionism, etc. - redound to the political advantage of some, who desire and seek to impose public "open borders" for that very reason.)

Nailed it. While "open borders" sounds libertarian-ish, the fact is that an open border policy is an exercise of authority by the central government to impose the condition of an open border, despite the will of locals who would otherwise fence/close it. Thus, both open-borders and closed-borders involve the exercise of authority. The only question is whether the authority exercised is just or unjust.

 

[Occam's Banana]

While "open borders" sounds libertarian-ish, the fact is that an open border policy is an exercise of authority by the central government to impose the condition of an open border [...]

https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1749853398810116098

 

[Occam's Banana]

That is, frankly, more than I expected.

<<<insert joker eating popcorn here>>>

SCOTUS didn't forbid Texas to put razor wire up, they just ruled that the feds could cut it down.

So I guess it's a matter of attrition, until something more final is done by someone.

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1749909415640097235

https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1749898272058085792

 

[RJB]

The most important reason for government is defense of the border, and that is the only thing that this government refuses to do. Purposefully letting in millions of military aged men is dereliction of duty at its highest form.

I will never forget Ron Paul in 2007 saying that we should bring the troops home from overseas and put them on the borders, while the neocons were paradoxically for the foreign wars and open borders.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The most important reason for government is defense of the border, and that is the only thing that this government refuses to do. Purposefully letting in millions of military aged men is dereliction of duty at its highest form.

I will never forget Ron Paul in 2007 saying that we should bring the troops home from overseas and put them on the borders, while the neocons were paradoxically for the foreign wars and open borders.

They still are.