Feds warn Texas not to enforce state-level immigration bill


Amen.

And remember that Civil Disobedience is most effective when it is orchestrated by local government where the rule-of-law is still being maintained. Local sheriffs and state-level law-enforcement and other organizations can create an orderly space for the mobilization of civilian militia and other civilians who want to respond to this crisis in an orderly, lawful and peaceful manner. They want a brawl because they have the F-15s and nukes. That's why we don't give them a brawl. Instead, we give them the fight they can't handle... long, slow and well-calculated, like an MMA fighter systematically choking out a street thug whose only move is a one-punch knockout...

 
Last edited:
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.)


Of course. I don't dispute any of that.
 
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

Wow, that's great news. I'd been wondering how Texas would respond.

It's time to ignore the courts. The Marxist Democraps do when it suits them so if your enemy is choosing to not abide by a formerly established process that that will be your doom, it's suicide to keep using the old rules.
 
twitter_3dbefd4a33525e9233250b63596f628c.jpeg
 
BORDER SHOWDOWN: DHS Sends 2nd Demand Notice to Texas over Seized Park Access

https://www.breitbart.com/border/20...mand-notice-to-texas-over-seized-park-access/

RANDY CLARK24 Jan 2024444
4:47
EAGLE PASS, Texas —Department of Homeland Security General Counsel Jonathan Meyer sent a second demand letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton demanding the state of Texas grant full, unimpeded access to a border city park and boat ramp. The Texas Military Department seized Shelby Park in early January. Tuesday’s letter sets a deadline of January 26, for the state to grant the Border Patrol full access to Shelby Park and other areas along a 2.5 mile stretch of the Rio Grande in the small Texas border town of Eagle Pass.

The letter, attached below, directly addresses Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court order freeing the Border Patrol to cut wire and fencing installed by the state to gain access to the border under their statutory authority to enter private lands without warrant within 25 miles of the border. The 5-4 decision paused a lower court’s ruling that had previously blocked such action.

The letter addresses the issue by saying, “As you are aware, yesterday, the Supreme Court vacated the injunction prohibiting the Department from cutting or moving the concertina wire that Texas had placed along the border except in case of emergency, and restored the Department’s right to cut and move the concertina wire placed by Texas in order to perform their statutory duties. The Department must also have the ability to access the border in the Shelby Park area that is currently obstructed by Texas.”

The letter demands unfettered access to several areas in and around the park stating,

“In sum, we require full access to the Shelby Park area currently obstructed by Texas, including but not limited to the following locations to patrol the border and directly monitor the Rio Grande River consistent with U.S. Border Patrol’s responsibility and statutory authorities:

Access to Eagle Pass International Bridge Port of Entry II, also known as Camino Real International Bridge, from the Loop 480 access road, 24 hours a day. This is to include beneath the port of entry as well.
Access through the federal border barrier entrances described above located on Ford Street, Main Street, near the intersection of Rio Grande Street and Ryan Street, and the two entrances on the end of Ryan Street, for Border Patrol to move through and conduct line watch duties and patrol within the Shelby Park area 24 hours a day.
Full access to the boat ramp located at Shelby Park Main Street entrance, consistent with the perpetual easement.
Unrestricted access to the entire Shelby Park area during emergency circumstances, including but not limited to, assistance to other agents and officers as well as medical and rescue operations.
“By January 26, 2024, please confirm that the State will provide U.S. Border Patrol with the access described above,” the letter continues. “If the State refuses the requested access in part, but not in whole, please specify what access you intend to deny.”
 
Did the SCOTUS actually have a hearing on this or just lift the stay by the lower court?

They only vacated the stay. No ruling on the issue itself has been made yet.

The ball for making a ruling is still in the Fifth Circuit's "court" (ha-ha).

Whatever they end up deciding, I'm sure the losing side will appeal to SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top