Feds warn Texas not to enforce state-level immigration bill

Is this all political theater?

https://twitter.com/RandyClarkBBTX/status/1750198199434813863

Randy Clark @RandyClarkBBTX

For those just tuning in to the big battle of the Alamo at Shelby Park, let’s go back a few chapters. Those of us who have worked the border for decades and live here are not fooled by the rhetoric coming out of politicians and amplified by social media influencers with big followings on X.

The video below is the same Texas Guard that has been deployed to stand up to Biden. They can be seen here coordinating the delivery of migrants from a smuggler across from Miguel Aleman, Tamaulipas, a heavily controlled Gulf Cartel city. This was Sept 2021. They were just following the states orders at the time.

I took the video and I’ll link my story. This happened nightly to the tune of 300-400 crossings delivered by cartel smugglers to the Guard and then handed over to the Border Patrol.

Why is this point in the timeline important? Because by this time, 1.13 million migrants had entered Texas under the Biden Administration. Is that when a declaration of invasion by the state was signed? No.

It would take two more years and two million more migrants to enter. So, when the declaration did happen, is that when Texas began deporting the migrants to Mexico? No.

That’s when the political rhetoric and BS ramped into high gear. In September, we saw the Border Patrol cut wire to let migrants in, their story was to avoid a mass casualty event in a small town with limited medical resources.

Texas sued, the BP was enjoined from cutting the wire, problem solved, now the state could finally secure the border. No, last month, despite the Border Patrol not cutting the wire, nearly 5K migrants per day in Eagle Pass alone cruised through the fences and wire like it was dental floss.

Is that when actions were taken to repel the invasion by forcing migrants back to Mexico like some believe the Constitution allows the state to do? Yeah, No.

That’s when, through inaction, the state conceded only the federal government can remove the migrants and has supremacy over immigration matters. Case lost.

That’s also when there was no one else to blame and more magic wire was added and the political rhetoric was again amplified.

If you wait until 3 million migrants enter the state to consider it an invasion, did you really ever believe it yourself?Can you expect a court of law to believe it either?

The crappy case made by the state and previous actions might explain the latest court ruling going in the direction of clear statutory authority held by the Border Patrol, not a rogue Supreme Court.

But if you still believe any side in this mess that is pushing the conflict to a 2.5 mile tiny park between ground troops, state and federal agents to distract from the other 1,198 miles of Texas border with Mexico, keep watching, remember the politicians have told you this is a battle where the Constitution and states rights are at stake. Right….this border is open because of Biden’s policies and his invitation to surge the border. It remains open today despite what either side says.

Who ever advised the Governor this was a good idea should be fired. This will end as good as the Bud Light mess when everyone sets their emotions aside.
Click to expand...
 
Brian4Liberty said:
Is this all political theater?

https://twitter.com/RandyClarkBBTX/status/1750198199434813863
Click to expand...

It would not surprise me in the least.

But the more theatrics they indulge, the more dry tinder they pile up ...

Anti Federalist said:
https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1750283034799026532
nA2hpO6.png
Click to expand...

qSW4sjq.gif
 
Occam's Banana said:
It would not surprise me in the least.

But the more theatrics they indulge, the more dry tinder they pile up ...



qSW4sjq.gif
Click to expand...

doesn't the clown Beto O'Rourke have a large villa?
If Beto feels so strongly about "Open Borders" Shouldn't he invite some of the migrants to his mansion?
 
https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1750372311515967810
& https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1750376071814426779
{Spike Cohen @RealSpikeCohen | 24 January 2024}

Setting, or enforcing, laws regarding migration is not the domain of the federal government. Nothing in the Constitution grants them that power.

So according to the 10th Amendment, it should be left to the states, or to the people.

Not only is Texas in the right here from a Constitutional standpoint, this is how it should've been all along.

I'll address some common responses:

"The Constitution gives the feds the power to regulate naturalization."

Correct, and naturalization is the process by which someone who is already here may become a citizen. But not the migration itself. That's why the US had no federal immigration laws, and instead left it to the states, for the first 100 years of its existence.

"But the Supreme Court ruled that the feds had the power to limit migration."

Correct. The Democrat labor unionists in SCOTUS ruled Congress's power to be "inherent", despite the Constitution not granting them that authority. You can thank that deference to federal power for just about every unconstitutional rule that's been upheld since the late 1800s[:]

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-...-exclusion-casechae-chan-ping-v-united-states
The Court upheld the law and affirmed Congress’s authority within this sphere as an inherent attribute of sovereignty. This decision interpreted the Constitution as granting Congress broad authority to deal with foreign affairs and immigration, even though no specific clause gave Congress a power over immigration.
Click to expand...
"The Constitution gives the feds the power to protect us against invasion."

Correct. An invasion, as in an organized military operation to invade. Not a bunch of people coming here for jobs, welfare, etc. [1]]/B] The Constitution leaves that to the states.

"The Founders could've never imagined that we'd have to deal with the high-capacity assault migrants of today, instead of the single-shot, muzzle-loaded migrants of their time."

That may be the case, but it doesn't change the fact that the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the authority to regulate migration. That was left to the states, as per the 10th Amendment.



[1] I think AF is gonna take issue with that :D - but even so, it would still leave the feds in dereliction of (Constitutional) duty.
 
Anti Federalist said:
Hmmm...that's disappointing.

I should think orgs like that would be whole heartedly supporting this.

Unless they have just been part of Conservative Inc. all along.
Click to expand...

:confused:

They absolutely do support it - they just fear Abbott will bend the knee if SCOTUS ultimately decides against Texas.

That's not an unreasonable fear, and they're worried about it precisely because of their whole-heartedness.

(But even if they were that kind of weak-kneed milquetoasts, they'd be part of Libertarian Inc. - e.g., Reason, CATO, etc. - not Conservative Inc.)
 
Last edited:
Occam's Banana said:
:confused:

They absolutely do support it - they just fear Abbott will bend the knee if SCOTUS ultimately decides against Texas.

(That's not an unreasonable fear, and they're worried about it precisely because of their whole-heartedness.)

But even if they were that kind of weak-kneed milquetoasts, they'd be part Libertarian Inc. (e.g., Reason, CATO, etc.), not Conservative Inc.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I'm half asleep glancing at my laptop...I guess I read it wrong.
 
Occam's Banana said:
https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1750372311515967810
& https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1750376071814426779
{Spike Cohen @RealSpikeCohen | 24 January 2024}

Setting, or enforcing, laws regarding migration is not the domain of the federal government. Nothing in the Constitution grants them that power.

So according to the 10th Amendment, it should be left to the states, or to the people.

Not only is Texas in the right here from a Constitutional standpoint, this is how it should've been all along.

I'll address some common responses:

"The Constitution gives the feds the power to regulate naturalization."

Correct, and naturalization is the process by which someone who is already here may become a citizen. But not the migration itself. That's why the US had no federal immigration laws, and instead left it to the states, for the first 100 years of its existence.

"But the Supreme Court ruled that the feds had the power to limit migration."

Correct. The Democrat labor unionists in SCOTUS ruled Congress's power to be "inherent", despite the Constitution not granting them that authority. You can thank that deference to federal power for just about every unconstitutional rule that's been upheld since the late 1800s[:]

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-...-exclusion-casechae-chan-ping-v-united-states
The Court upheld the law and affirmed Congress’s authority within this sphere as an inherent attribute of sovereignty. This decision interpreted the Constitution as granting Congress broad authority to deal with foreign affairs and immigration, even though no specific clause gave Congress a power over immigration.
Click to expand...
"The Constitution gives the feds the power to protect us against invasion."

Correct. An invasion, as in an organized military operation to invade. Not a bunch of people coming here for jobs, welfare, etc. [1]]/B] The Constitution leaves that to the states.

"The Founders could've never imagined that we'd have to deal with the high-capacity assault migrants of today, instead of the single-shot, muzzle-loaded migrants of their time."

That may be the case, but it doesn't change the fact that the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the authority to regulate migration. That was left to the states, as per the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...


https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1750430612022845824
{Spike Cohen @RealSpikeCohen | 25 January 2024}

Whenever I talk about a subject from a Constitutional perspective rather than a libertarian one, some of my followers understandably think I'm putting the law over my principles.

What I'm doing is looking at the world we live in, rather than the one I'd prefer that we live in.

The reality is that we are ruled over by warlords, who impose their presumed authority on us.

The vast, vast majority of people believe this to be good and necessary.

These warlords derive their authority under the Constitution.

The Constitution purports to limit their power to a few very specific roles, and to leave all other roles to either more localized governments (the states), or to us (individual people).

If we are ruled by warlords, and almost everyone is cool with that, very often our best course of action is to argue for limitations on those warlords, using the document they derive their authority from.

Is that ideal? No.

If I could snap my fingers and make it disappear, would I? Yes.

But I can't.

What I can do is advocate for power to be decentralized as much as possible.

First from the feds to the states, then from the states to the people.

wddW8Un.jpg

​
 
Occam's Banana said:
https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1750272638688358633
yNZbt7n.png


https://twitter.com/Sextus_Pompeius/status/1750274549248041230
& https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1750275222706741663
8UgGaJS.png
Click to expand...

The US government is committing acts of war on Texas. Of course, this is nothing new for the bully-government in DC, beating and murdering those of its own household in drunken, ego-fueled fits of rage. The State government of Texas is a territorial government and has all the rights and duties that any lawfully convened government has -- to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens who have duly elected and empowered it with their tax funds. That the national government is going on a manifestly illegal rampage and committing acts of war in Texas is not Texas's fault. Whatever DC's power-drunk geopolitical motives may be, is not the concern of Texas. If Federal agents breach barriers that Texas has erected to prevent non-US individuals from circumventing its legal points-of-entry, then those agents are committing acts of war on the state of Texas which, being committed on US soil without any formal declaration of war by Congress, are war-crimes by definition. If Texas is so far out-of-line with the Union, then let the Union declare formal war, as it did back in 1861, you know, back when DC still had a pair of balls and hadn't yet "transitioned" to whatever insanity this current generation of ball-gagged, cum-chugging, fairy goons is. Absent that, the Federal government can rubber-stamp its own acts of war on Texas to its heart's content, but that is as legitimate as any of these illegal military actions which DC has been engaged in all around the world -- in other words, it's completely illegitimate.

Whether Abbott actually has the resolve to face down the Feds -- a truly terrible prospect, just look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lybia or any of the dozens of other countries that have come under the ire of the US in the last few decades -- is another question. I hope he will continue to execute his office faithfully, and if the Feds persist in these manifestly illegal acts of war, that will entail active refusal by the State of Texas to obey Federal court orders, as well as availing themselves of all lawful remedies against these war-crimes. The Feds are quickly aligning themselves to attempt to pierce the veil and the consequences if they were to follow through on such a self-destructive act defy verbal description. It's one thing to break the rules of the game, it's another to attempt to annihilate the game altogether. But there are other rules that come to bear in such a situation, heavenly rules, and my prayer is that those Americans and local governments who are coming under the oppression of these outrageous war crimes by the Federal government will place their faith in Almighty God to provide biblical deliverance in the face of this blasphemous siege by Sennacherib which is shaping up. The key to defeating the demonism emanating out of Washington, DC isn't F15s or nukes, it is repentance, prayer, and faith. We have never before in our history faced such an obvious juxtaposition of material war-crimes and spiritual warfare. We are witnessing the first splashes of vomit as hell itself -- whose throat is surely located directly beneath Washington, DC -- is beginning to spew out upon the earth.
 
Occam's Banana said:
https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1750430612022845824
{Spike Cohen @RealSpikeCohen | 25 January 2024}

Whenever I talk about a subject from a Constitutional perspective rather than a libertarian one, some of my followers understandably think I'm putting the law over my principles.

What I'm doing is looking at the world we live in, rather than the one I'd prefer that we live in.

The reality is that we are ruled over by warlords, who impose their presumed authority on us.

The vast, vast majority of people believe this to be good and necessary.

These warlords derive their authority under the Constitution.

The Constitution purports to limit their power to a few very specific roles, and to leave all other roles to either more localized governments (the states), or to us (individual people).

If we are ruled by warlords, and almost everyone is cool with that, very often our best course of action is to argue for limitations on those warlords, using the document they derive their authority from.

Is that ideal? No.

If I could snap my fingers and make it disappear, would I? Yes.

But I can't.

What I can do is advocate for power to be decentralized as much as possible.

First from the feds to the states, then from the states to the people.

wddW8Un.jpg

​
Click to expand...

Great post. Ideals are just goals and wishes and everyone has different ones or variations of the same ones. Like perfecting the soul, the ideal is never reached but, rather, what one strives for. Idyllic is perfection and their is no perfection in this realm. And, Utopians are dangerous, so there's that. We must deal with the world as it is.

Here's an interesting tweet, providing further insight, regarding that powerful letter from Abbott:

https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1750385861202522130


(someone else please embed if I screwed that up)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Militarized Law Enforcement Reaches a New Level under Trump
Replies
17
Views
189
Invisible Man
I
Voluntarist
US Appeals Court Rejects Trump Bid To Revoke Thousands Of Migrants' Status
Replies
1
Views
35
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
PAF
Immigration-Control Tyranny
Replies
4
Views
111
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Immigration Crackdown Hurting Ag, Labor Dept. Concedes
Replies
2
Views
36
TheTexan
TheTexan
Voluntarist
Immigration Detainments That Make You Say WTF
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
716
nikcers
nikcers
Back
Top