The DOJ had been threatening to do this, but now it's official. As expected, Garfinkel's DOJ is working to ensures Mayorkas's DHS is allowed to continue the genocidal mass immigration.
And with that the Democrats give up ANY legitimacy about immigration control or internal security since they'll go to court to stop those controls being enforced.
Abbott has always come across as a spineless weasel playing political theater with his antics, but maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe he's a weasel who cares enough about his own political career to do something.
I'm pretty sure the doj is legally correct here, immigration is a federal matter.
That said, what's legal and what's right aren't always the same thing, and Texas should feel free to deport every illegal (or just shoot them on sight as they cross the border).
It quickly and clearly communicates a willingness to defend the borders, it goes viral on social media and the message spreads around the whole world in a matter of hours and all the caravans start to rethink whether or not they want to get shot. Suddenly a whole bunch of human trafficking that gets done under the guise of the poor little immigrant doesn't have a top cover from the US government anymore and as a result has to go elsewhere or just stop beign a thing. Overall death and suffering that results from the invasion goes down sharply and stays lowered.
Or we could just let the situation fester until it requires a full scale war to resolve. But you know, shooting a couple dozen invaders at the border is mean and therefor a much higher price to pay than open war.
Only in the most tortured reasoning would they be able to argue that them actively encouraging and abetting the mass violation of federal law, would be a case of federal primacy.
If I was trying to steel man the leftist argument, I'd take the position that we have to treat asylum claims as valid until proven otherwise because we can't allow people to die, and we have a duty to ensure the law is enforced. They can claim asylum up to however many days of being here, and it's a different process (afaik) so it doesn't have to strictly be at the border to claim it.
I'd also go on to say that immigration is a federal matter, and states have limited powers given to them, and blocking the border completely isn't one of them.
I'd go dig up citations, but frankly my day has been total shit and I'm not in the mood to go that far to make their arguments for them.
Now, my actual argument is that the federal government, while falling within the bounds of the law (largely, as enforcement is an executive function) it doesn't actually meet the intent of the law, and failing to enforce the laws speedily is a violation of the constitution, not to mention that we're bearing a burden that isn't feasible long term both in terms of money and crime.
Additionally, the states have limited rights with this already, and an unfunded mandate (which is what is effectively policy now) for states to carry the burden of illegals is likely unconstitutional. This has been litigated before a few times.
We'd also consider law enforcement on a local level being able to (in some circumstances) enforce federal law or states carrying federal law into their own legal system (think pot here, federally illegal), regardless of what the federal groups do (choose to do, told to do, etc). You also use the argument that states are ignoring pot laws, and the government is actively refusing to fuck them over, as such the federal government has shown a dereliction of duty and enforcement (this isn't a legal argument, so much as a moral one, it could sway some people) and the states then have to do so.
Under the rule, certain individuals who enter the United States through its southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders are presumed to be ineligible for asylum, unless they can demonstrate an exception to the rule or rebut the presumption. Individuals are encouraged to use lawful, safe, and orderly pathways to come to the United States.
While I don't agree with it, that's their argument (and the current policy).
I don't know the court case they're referring to off hand, and there's a lot of legal stuff to dig through and a lot of shifting precedent (and circuit court cases I don't know). I believe there is likely precedent for it, especially given the rather large gray area about enforcement powers of the executive branch.
Give me a week free of work and distractions and I could write a thesis on the argument with citations, but I don't have them now.
But yes, I agree that should be the case (having to apply at an embassy) barring actual exceptional circumstances (eg the embassy being blockaded by armed forces, no embassy, etc). Clearly the illegals can make it it to one since they can walk.
Except that's not a law passed by Congress. That's executive overreach. Congress has never once passed legislation that says illegal aliens stop being illegal if they yell the magic words.
The gray area is in the executive branch enforcement. Yes, I absolutely agree with you. I'm just telling you their arguments, and the reality we live in. Congress doesn't want to take more responsibility for anything and so leave it to the executive.
If we’re going by the letter of the law, every democrat official should be hanged for treason. They have abdicated their duty to protect America’s borders against invasion. The state of Texas attempting to do the job that the federal government won’t is not an invitation for the latter to ruthlessly apply exactly one law (while flagrantly ignoring countless others).
Yeah I mean, technically half the government has been voting remote since Covid, which is a clear lack of quorum and a violation of basic congressional rules. A brave politician could use this to simply declare everything since 2020 null and appoint a whole new congress.
Lots of power there for the man willing to grab it.
this very thing was the other reason the civil war was fought. the feds should have no right meddling in how states govern their borders, or meddling in how states deal with criminals.
The federal government absolutely has the right and the duty to defend the nation’s borders, including any state border that happen to coincide. If Texas were letting in millions of future conservative voters, the federal government would be well within their rights to stop it.
What is happening right now is a total inversion. The federal government is facilitating invasion, a border state is attempting to stop it, and now the former is suing the latter to prevent a proper defense of the state/national border. They are literally applying the law backwards.
if you think you will win the perception war by gunning them down or let them starve near the border you are mistaken. All you will get is that the federal government will have the justification to send in the military and remove the texas government. That would either lead to a civilwar or to the same result as having more possible democrat voters in texas.
Just flood their cities with the people they alleddgly champion and want to protect. And see public opinion change pretty fast and get these people removed from office without too much bloodshed. And I doubt its feasible to send that many back where they came from with planes or buses if they can try again to come back.
and those that allow them to be here
The DOJ had been threatening to do this, but now it's official. As expected, Garfinkel's DOJ is working to ensures Mayorkas's DHS is allowed to continue the genocidal mass immigration.
And with that the Democrats give up ANY legitimacy about immigration control or internal security since they'll go to court to stop those controls being enforced.
How pathetic. I hope my governor ignores the feds
Abbott has always come across as a spineless weasel playing political theater with his antics, but maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe he's a weasel who cares enough about his own political career to do something.
He has a spine, it just doesn't work.
Well hopefully the weaseling works in our favor
That's basically the highest our expectations can be these days.
How (((surprising)))
Unconstitutional? I don't care, it's the right thing to do when the government is an enemy of the people.
Its also not unconstitutional in any way
I'm pretty sure the doj is legally correct here, immigration is a federal matter.
That said, what's legal and what's right aren't always the same thing, and Texas should feel free to deport every illegal (or just shoot them on sight as they cross the border).
Shooting on sight is what's needed honestly.
It quickly and clearly communicates a willingness to defend the borders, it goes viral on social media and the message spreads around the whole world in a matter of hours and all the caravans start to rethink whether or not they want to get shot. Suddenly a whole bunch of human trafficking that gets done under the guise of the poor little immigrant doesn't have a top cover from the US government anymore and as a result has to go elsewhere or just stop beign a thing. Overall death and suffering that results from the invasion goes down sharply and stays lowered.
Or we could just let the situation fester until it requires a full scale war to resolve. But you know, shooting a couple dozen invaders at the border is mean and therefor a much higher price to pay than open war.
Yep, wouldn't have to shoot that many. Could pull an Israel and shoot any unfriendly journalists as well, like a bonus.
Only in the most tortured reasoning would they be able to argue that them actively encouraging and abetting the mass violation of federal law, would be a case of federal primacy.
If I was trying to steel man the leftist argument, I'd take the position that we have to treat asylum claims as valid until proven otherwise because we can't allow people to die, and we have a duty to ensure the law is enforced. They can claim asylum up to however many days of being here, and it's a different process (afaik) so it doesn't have to strictly be at the border to claim it.
I'd also go on to say that immigration is a federal matter, and states have limited powers given to them, and blocking the border completely isn't one of them.
I'd go dig up citations, but frankly my day has been total shit and I'm not in the mood to go that far to make their arguments for them.
Now, my actual argument is that the federal government, while falling within the bounds of the law (largely, as enforcement is an executive function) it doesn't actually meet the intent of the law, and failing to enforce the laws speedily is a violation of the constitution, not to mention that we're bearing a burden that isn't feasible long term both in terms of money and crime.
Additionally, the states have limited rights with this already, and an unfunded mandate (which is what is effectively policy now) for states to carry the burden of illegals is likely unconstitutional. This has been litigated before a few times.
We'd also consider law enforcement on a local level being able to (in some circumstances) enforce federal law or states carrying federal law into their own legal system (think pot here, federally illegal), regardless of what the federal groups do (choose to do, told to do, etc). You also use the argument that states are ignoring pot laws, and the government is actively refusing to fuck them over, as such the federal government has shown a dereliction of duty and enforcement (this isn't a legal argument, so much as a moral one, it could sway some people) and the states then have to do so.
Except asylum claims are only valid if they apply at an embassy.
They're just ignoring that part too.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum
While I don't agree with it, that's their argument (and the current policy).
I don't know the court case they're referring to off hand, and there's a lot of legal stuff to dig through and a lot of shifting precedent (and circuit court cases I don't know). I believe there is likely precedent for it, especially given the rather large gray area about enforcement powers of the executive branch.
Give me a week free of work and distractions and I could write a thesis on the argument with citations, but I don't have them now.
But yes, I agree that should be the case (having to apply at an embassy) barring actual exceptional circumstances (eg the embassy being blockaded by armed forces, no embassy, etc). Clearly the illegals can make it it to one since they can walk.
Except that's not a law passed by Congress. That's executive overreach. Congress has never once passed legislation that says illegal aliens stop being illegal if they yell the magic words.
The gray area is in the executive branch enforcement. Yes, I absolutely agree with you. I'm just telling you their arguments, and the reality we live in. Congress doesn't want to take more responsibility for anything and so leave it to the executive.
I don't care for their arguments, nor to entertain them as though they were genuine rather than the smokescreen they really are.
I will not treat the left as though they're acting in good faith. For more than two centuries the left has never acted in good faith.
If we’re going by the letter of the law, every democrat official should be hanged for treason. They have abdicated their duty to protect America’s borders against invasion. The state of Texas attempting to do the job that the federal government won’t is not an invitation for the latter to ruthlessly apply exactly one law (while flagrantly ignoring countless others).
Yeah I mean, technically half the government has been voting remote since Covid, which is a clear lack of quorum and a violation of basic congressional rules. A brave politician could use this to simply declare everything since 2020 null and appoint a whole new congress.
Lots of power there for the man willing to grab it.
this very thing was the other reason the civil war was fought. the feds should have no right meddling in how states govern their borders, or meddling in how states deal with criminals.
The federal government absolutely has the right and the duty to defend the nation’s borders, including any state border that happen to coincide. If Texas were letting in millions of future conservative voters, the federal government would be well within their rights to stop it.
What is happening right now is a total inversion. The federal government is facilitating invasion, a border state is attempting to stop it, and now the former is suing the latter to prevent a proper defense of the state/national border. They are literally applying the law backwards.
First general who takes a battalion to the border and opens fire will become King of America.
Cant they just bus them to more blue states or is there a limit?
"Can't we just entrench these subhumans deeper into our country so they'll be harder to remove if we ever win?"
if you think you will win the perception war by gunning them down or let them starve near the border you are mistaken. All you will get is that the federal government will have the justification to send in the military and remove the texas government. That would either lead to a civilwar or to the same result as having more possible democrat voters in texas.
Just flood their cities with the people they alleddgly champion and want to protect. And see public opinion change pretty fast and get these people removed from office without too much bloodshed. And I doubt its feasible to send that many back where they came from with planes or buses if they can try again to come back.
Why not bus them back to mexico though?