Feds warn Texas not to enforce state-level immigration bill

[PAF]

First off, would they? Second, could they, really? Where does that money come from if not appropriated?

Finally an easy one. Print, tax and print some more.

 

[susano]

Sure, with wall segments costing American taxpayers up to $46 Million per mile, why not?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/brie...omeland-security-plans-for-border-wall-funds/

Though, that is a hefty price tag to hate ourselves for our freedoms.

I'm not convinced about that figure. Let's say it's true, though. It's less than has been handed to Ukraine to fight a proxy war with Russia. End all foreign aid and protect the border.

I don't hate myself or freedom. I know that Americans cannot support the world's poor and that this place will be transformed in a true third world shithole if this isn't stopped. Do you want that - in the name of freedom? Serous question because you know as well as I do that this is not a theoretical problem and that the welfare state isn't going away - until it collapses from supporting the world's poor.

 

[susano]

Finally an easy one. Print, tax and print some more.

Yeah, I agree and as to what Massie said, I don't think congress would do it and Biden would veto it, anyway. It's up to Texas, now, and other states willing to assist.

 

[susano]

I've been checking google news and this story isn't even making it there. I wonder why?

My husband has news on all day and night and I'm not sure I've heard anything on the boob tube, either. It's all Trump drama or Israel-Palestine.

 

[PAF]

I'm not convinced about that figure. Let's say it's true, though. It's less than has been handed to Ukraine to fight a proxy war with Russia. End all foreign aid and protect the border.

I don't hate myself or freedom. I know that Americans cannot support the world's poor and that this place will be transformed in a true third world $#@!hole if this isn't stopped. Do you want that - in the name of freedom? Serous question because you know as well as I do that this is not a theoretical problem and that the welfare state isn't going away - until it collapses from supporting the world's poor.

I promote the only solution which is cheap, easy and preserves our freedoms. Anything else only delays the inevitable.

That said, this ship has sailed, and short of convincing an irate minority enough to affect the proper change, sit back and enjoy whatever there is left.

 

[Madison320]

My husband has news on all day and night and I'm not sure I've heard anything on the boob tube, either. It's all Trump drama or Israel-Palestine.

I'm going to take a wild guess it's because it would make Biden look bad.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

First off, would they? Second, could they, really? Biden and his administration seems to find plenty of money and weapons for Ukraine, some of which I don't think was specifically appropriated. It seems lots of funds flow on orders from the State Dept and I don't know they get away with that. Then the student loan forgiveness. Where does that money come from if not appropriated?

Massie kind of addresses that:

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1750921873557160012

 

[Snowball]

All the other governors signing is good. The cause is good, and I support it.

That being said, Neither of them truly support his actions.

1) He does not cite the actual ruling of Arizona vs. United States (2012), but rather merely a line in Justice Scalia's dissent opinion.
Scalia held a minority opinion. Additionally, Scalia's dissent has nothing to do with state powers concerning national border enforcement.

2) None of the four provisions (one 1 of which SCOTUS upheld) dealt with setting up border enforcement. Abbott is also in violation of other stricken Arizona laws, in the denied provisions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States#Supreme_Court_decision

3) COTUS (Abbott's cited Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3) defines a state's right to "engage in War" (the SIXTH mentioned) are not about immigration: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Although the text is talking about an actual invasion (capitalized "Invasion" in the COTUS text (see below) by troops of a foreign country, for example, a Texas port does not have to wait for a Presidential order to fight back against a fleet of English ships, I don't see how the present crisis applies, because the "engage in War" action is not what Texas is doing, and it's not what Abbott is claiming they are doing.

4) Article 4 Section 4: This has nothing to do with their claimed [states] "rights to self-defense". It reads: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. They are suggesting that the duty "to protect against Invasion" is a right of [states] (it is the only apparent synonym for self-defense, which is absent), HOWEVER, that guarantee is specified as provided by the United States, NOT the self-directed constituent state (in this case, Texas).

5) Abbott says that his actions as governor relating to "self-defense" (not mentioned in the clause, but suggested under the actual term used "engage in War"), is based on HIS OWN prior declation of an invasion. The problem here is that states' governors do not possess the authority to declare invasions on their own. If the United States says it's not an invasion, are we to interpret state governors can override the POTUS and/or COTUS?

This, of course, will have to go to SCOTUS. Monday's Order (by 5-4) to allow the United States (Federal authorities) access to the Texas border with Mexico (to cut the razor wire down, or anything else), via the vacation of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' injunction, could be an indication that the Court will maintain that the Federal government has sole authority over the borders of the country. Strangely enough, they are also seeking an overturning of Arizona vs. United States (2012), de facto, as Texas, since Dec. 18, has directed warantless arrests of migrants, specifically stricken in Section 6 (Arizona vs. United States 2012). Furthermore, it should be noted that Monday's Order was not a Ruling, so the mere fact that 4 Justices chose to lift the Fifth's Injunction should not be interpreted as an indication they would side with Texas in an actual case to settle law.

Regardless of the outcome, I support the actions, but these citations are pleading a case, not speaking of any settled laws. The first citation is irrelevant, unless SCOTUS was going to overturn Arizona vs. United States (2012). The second and third are likely losses, but at least this all buys time. In the meantime, we'll see what else happens.

Ultimately, if things get bad enough, Texas can use its own Constitution to claim the Right of Secession, or it can pursue the breach/violation angle, as a demand that must be met, or it will defy rulings, and then place the onus of action on the Feds.

Article 1 Section 1 (Texas Constitition, my parentheticals): ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States (have to try this first, which is what he's doing, but it may be a loss), and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity (statehood within the United States) of the Union depend upon (a conditional) the preservation of the right of local self-government (a determination to be made by Texas only), unimpaired to all the States.(Texas' statement that they believe these same rights apply to all other states, not just Texas)

(this resolves the right of Texas to secede from the US formally)

What I think these actions do is buy time until the 2024 election, when hopefully another administration renders the action unnecessary. If it remains necessary after the election, then Texas is going to have to secede if they lose the case, or comply, and if other states join the case, the same goes for them.

 

[susano]

I'm going to take a wild guess it's because it would make Biden look bad.

Oh, yes, precisely. We'll see how long they can censor this story by ignoring it.

 

[susano]

Massie kind of addresses that:

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1750921873557160012

I'm skeptical.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Sure, with wall segments costing American taxpayers up to $46 Million per mile, why not?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/brie...omeland-security-plans-for-border-wall-funds/

Though, that is a hefty price tag to hate ourselves for our freedoms.

My man, you know we are kindred... but this is CLEARLY a coordinated invasion... you might push back on that term, then let's take a step back and at least agree that it is coordinated infiltration. I think even Rothbard said that you can either have open borders or a welfare state, but you can't have both. And in today's world, in which we have created innumerable enemies across the planet, now is really not the time to be flippant about who exactly is meandering across our borders.

When a ship is sinking because it has struck an iceberg, that is not the time to get into an argument with the chef about the quality of the steak.

 

[PAF]

I'm skeptical.

Me too.

While Tom is about the best there is up at the WH, what .gov gives, can be taken away, either at the cost of liberty.

 

[Invisible Man]

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1750885034079248614

Congress won't do that.

But if they did, what's to stop Biden from just continuing to fund what Congress refuses to fund by reallocating money that Congress allocated elsewhere like Trump did for the wall?

As it turns out, it's the President who has the power of the purse.

 

[PAF]

My man, you know we are kindred... but this is CLEARLY a coordinated invasion... you might push back on that term, then let's take a step back and at least agree that it is coordinated infiltration. I think even Rothbard said that you can either have open borders or a welfare state, but you can't have both. And in today's world, in which we have created innumerable enemies across the planet, now is really not the time to be flippant about who exactly is meandering across our borders.

When a ship is sinking because it has struck an iceberg, that is not the time to get into an argument with the chef about the quality of the steak.

We are, bro! How've ya been?

Coordinated yes, but an invasion no. It is not an invasion in my eyes simply because too many American's can't fathom stopping the incentives, and the politicians that they vote for are actually funding them. This is an open invitation, one that I do not approve of.

Any/all government solution is only biding time for the inevitable, all while the BoR's continue to burn and the industrial complexes profit by it. Meanwhile, right, wrong or indifferent, I will keep the torch of liberty lit for others to consider ;-)

 

[Invisible Man]

you can either have open borders or a welfare state, but you can't have both

If that's true, then it's a point in favor of having open borders.

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[PAF]

If that's true, then it's a point in favor of having open borders.

I agree with that.

But, I still can't call what we have "open borders". What we actually have are "closed borders"; that wall was put up to funnel those folks into "entry points", hand out government issued cards and force them to be "legal".

If we had true open borders, there would be no wall, no entry/exit points, no easy access points to sign up for government issued cards, and people would be free to travel freely.

Me thinks government indoctrination worked so well that people are too bamboozled to even know the difference.

 

[susano]

All the other governors signing is good. The cause is good, and I support it.

That being said, Neither of them truly support his actions.

1) He does not cite the actual ruling of Arizona vs. United States (2012), but rather merely a line in Justice Scalia's dissent opinion.
Scalia held a minority opinion. Additionally, Scalia's dissent has nothing to do with state powers concerning national border enforcement.

2) None of the four provisions (one 1 of which SCOTUS upheld) dealt with setting up border enforcement. Abbott is also in violation of other stricken Arizona laws, in the denied provisions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States#Supreme_Court_decision

3) COTUS (Abbott's cited Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3) defines a state's right to "engage in War" (the SIXTH mentioned) are not about immigration: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Although the text is talking about an actual invasion (capitalized "Invasion" in the COTUS text (see below) by troops of a foreign country, for example, a Texas port does not have to wait for a Presidential order to fight back against a fleet of English ships, I don't see how the present crisis applies, because the "engage in War" action is not what Texas is doing, and it's not what Abbott is claiming they are doing.

4) The governors' added Article 4 Section 4, which was not cited in Abbott's declaration. This has nothing to do with their claimed [states] "rights to self-defense". It reads: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. They are suggesting that the duty "to protect against Invasion" is a right of [states] (it is the only apparent synonym for self-defense, which is absent), HOWEVER, that guarantee is specified as provided by the United States, NOT the self-directed constituent state (in this case, Texas).

5) Abbott says that his actions as governor relating to "self-defense" (not mentioned in the clause, but suggested under the actual term used "engage in War"), is based on HIS OWN prior declation of an invasion. The problem here is that states' governors do not possess the authority to declare invasions on their own. If the United States says it's not an invasion, are we to interpret state governors can override the POTUS and/or COTUS?

This, of course, will have to go to SCOTUS. Monday's Order (by 5-4) to allow the United States (Federal authorities) access to the Texas border with Mexico (to cut the razor wire down, or anything else), via the vacation of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' injunction, could be an indication that the Court will maintain that the Federal government has sole authority over the borders of the country. Strangely enough, they are also seeking an overturning of Arizona vs. United States (2012), de facto, as Texas, since Dec. 18, has directed warantless arrests of migrants, specifically stricken in Section 6 (Arizona vs. United States 2012). Furthermore, it should be noted that Monday's Order was not a Ruling, so the mere fact that 4 Justices chose to lift the Fifth's Injunction should not be interpreted as an indication they would side with Texas in an actual case to settle law.

Regardless of the outcome, I support the actions, but these citations are pleading a case, not speaking of any settled laws. The first citation is irrelevant, unless SCOTUS was going to overturn Arizona vs. United States (2012). The second (and, now, a third) are likely losses, but at least this all buys time. In the meantime, we'll see what else happens.

Ultimately, if things get bad enough, Texas can use its own Constitution to claim the Right of Secession, or it can pursue the breach/violation angle, as a demand that must be met, or it will defy rulings, and then place the onus of action on the Feds.

Article 1 Section 1 (Texas Constitition, my parentheticals): ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States (have to try this first, which is what he's doing, but it may be a loss), and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity (statehood within the United States) of the Union depend upon (a conditional) the preservation of the right of local self-government (a determination to be made by Texas only), unimpaired to all the States.(Texas' statement that they believe these same rights apply to all other states, not just Texas)

(this resolves the right of Texas to secede from the US formally)

What I think these actions do is buy time until the 2024 election, when hopefully another administration renders the action unnecessary. If it remains necessary after the election, then Texas is going to have to secede if they lose the case, or comply, and if other states join the case, the same goes for them.

Although the text is talking about an actual invasion (capitalized "Invasion" in the COTUS text (see below) by troops of a foreign country, for example

That seems like a safe assumption but who says invasion has to be armed forces or even anyone armed? If commies can call illegal immigrants "asylum seekers" then Abbott can define mass waves of illegals as an invasion (and it is).

The governors' added Article 4 Section 4, which was not cited in Abbott's declaration.

Yes, Abbott did cite that in his own letter.

You're probably right about all of this and I'm so curious to see where it goes. For some oddball reason, SCOTUS decisions are treated as though handed down by God Almighty and I say screw that. Yeah, I know that causes problems but tough shit.

 

[susano]

I agree with that.

But, I still can't call what we have "open borders". What we actually have are "closed borders"; that wall was put up to funnel those folks into "entry points", hand out government issued cards and force them to be "legal".

If we had true open borders, there would be no wall, no entry/exit points, no easy access points to sign up for government issued cards, and people would be free to travel freely.

Me thinks government indoctrination worked so well that people are too bamboozled to even know the difference.

The border with Mexico used to be a lot more "open". It was still controlled but pretty casual with Mexicans and Americans moving back and forth freely. I'm not sure when it changed - probably with Bush and 9/11.

A while ago I was reading the book dictated to another prisoner by Marco Polo. Most of where he traveled was wine open and without barriers (what a world!) but it was tribal and if someone didn't like you passing through they'd kill you. Point being, even in those times movement wasn't always so free or came with extreme risks.

Last, I'd like to apologize to you for my remark associating you with cluster B personalities. I don't even remember the conversation content (something about Marx) but I will say it was my bad and my failure to follow what you were conveying or to understand where you're coming from. It was not nice of me and I was wrong.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I think even Rothbard said that you can either have open borders or a welfare state, but you can't have both.

That's from Milton Friedman.