Texas vs. The united States - border issues

[LaCroix]

After some clashes and court cases, the situation escalated a bit furter.

https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governo ... lf-defense

Texas officially told the Feds to GTFO, we're now in charge of the border security...

[EnterpriseSovereign]

That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the
contrary

I thought Federal law always superseded State law, not the other way round

[Broomstick]

There actually are areas that are "reserved to the states" and not the Federal government. That's why things like marriage licenses and drivers' licenses are issued by states and not the Feds.

It is true that where their domains overlap Fed trumps State.

There are also areas exclusively Federal where the States don't belong.

[LadyTevar]

This does not change my opinion that Abbot is being set out as a trap for Biden, and the GOP are going to milk it for all its worth throughout the rest of the election. "Obama is coming for your GUNS!" Remember?

Now, imagine what will be thrown around if Biden removes Abbot, for ignoring the SCOTUS ruling. Or removes the National Guard from Texas, so Abbot can't keep misusing them.
It's a Trap, but Biden can't just sit back and let Abbot get away with it either.

[Zwinmar]

It's always a trap to 'gatcha' them. It's the same as dealing with a flat earther or religious apologist, they always have some convoluted answer. Don't know, maybe federalize and deploy the TXNG to Alaska for training will cool them down a bit.

[Broomstick]

Now, imagine what will be thrown around if Biden removes Abbot, for ignoring the SCOTUS ruling. Or removes the National Guard from Texas, so Abbot can't keep misusing them.
It's a Trap, but Biden can't just sit back and let Abbot get away with it either.

There is absolutely no legal mechanism where a PotUS could remove the governor of a state so that's just bogus speculation.

The Texas National Guard belongs to Texas, there isn't really a way for the PotUS to remove them, either.

[AniThyng]

Now, imagine what will be thrown around if Biden removes Abbot, for ignoring the SCOTUS ruling. Or removes the National Guard from Texas, so Abbot can't keep misusing them.
It's a Trap, but Biden can't just sit back and let Abbot get away with it either.

There is absolutely no legal mechanism where a PotUS could remove the governor of a state so that's just bogus speculation.

The Texas National Guard belongs to Texas, there isn't really a way for the PotUS to remove them, either.

Can't he federalize the guard? I mean I think that would be political suicide, but he can, right?

[Dominus Atheos]

The law on this is pretty clear:

1§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Guard when the governor of Arkansas tried to use them to stop the Little Rock Nine from attending desegregated schooling:

WHEREAS on September 23, 1957, I issued Proclamation No.3204 reading in part as follows:

"WHEREAS certain persons in the state of Arkansas, individually and in unlawful assemblages, combinations, and conspiracies, have wilfully obstructed the enforcement of orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas with respect to matters relating to enrollment and attendance at public schools, particularly at Central High School, located in Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Arkansas; and

"WHEREAS such willful obstruction of justice hinders the execution of the laws of that State and of the United States, and makes it impracticable to enforce such laws by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings; and

"WHEREAS such obstruction of justice constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution of the United States and impedes the course of justice under those laws:

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, President of the United States, under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the United States, including Chapter 15 of Title 10 of the United States Code, particularly sections 332, 333 and 334 thereof, do command all persons engaged in such obstruction of justice to cease and desist therefrom, and to disperse forthwith;" and

WHEREAS the command contained in that Proclamation has not been obeyed and wilful obstruction of enforcement of said court orders still exists and threatens to continue:

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the United States, including Chapter 15 of Title 10, particularly sections 332, 333 and 334 thereof, and section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, It is hereby ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of Defense to order into the active military service of the United States as he may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Order, any or all of the units of the National Guard of the United States and of the Air National Guard of the United States within the State of Arkansas to serve in the active military service of the United States for an indefinite period and until relieved by appropriate orders.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to take all appropriate steps to enforce any orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas for the removal of obstruction of justice in the State of Arkansas with respect to matters relating to enrollment and attendance at public schools in the Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Arkansas. In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use the units, and members thereof, ordered into the active military service of the United States pursuant to Section 1 of this Order.

SEC. 3. In furtherance of the enforcement of the aforementioned orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use such of the armed forces of the United States as he may deem necessary.

SEC. 4. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to delegate to the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, or both, any of the authority conferred upon him by this Order.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/252

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10730

[AniThyng]

Suppose Biden does this, and Federalizes the Texas Guard, how likely is it that the guard will go along with it vs defying it or going AWOL enmasse?

[bilateralrope]

Supreme Court allows federal agents to cut razor wire at US-Mexico border

Ruling seen as win for Biden administration amid dispute with Texas over ‘inhumane’ fence that has injured migrants.
23 Jan 2024

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Border Patrol agents may resume cutting a razor wire fence that Texas installed on its border with Mexico to deter migrants and asylum seekers from entering the country.

The 5-4 ruling on Monday was a victory for the administration of US President Joe Biden, issued in the midst of an ongoing legal battle that saw a federal appeals court force agents to stop cutting the fence last month.

For more than two years, the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, has sought to bar migrants and asylum seekers from entering the US, unspooling razor wire that extends over 46km (30 miles) of its border with Mexico along the banks of the Rio Grande river and has left people injured and bloodied.

Border control has historically been the legal domain of the federal government. The US Department of Justice argues that the fence has sown chaos, impeding it from carrying out controls along the border.

“Texas’s political stunts, like placing razor wire near the border, simply make it harder and more dangerous for front-line personnel to do their jobs,” White House spokesperson Angelo Fernandez Hernandez said.

Andrew Mahaleris, Abbott’s spokesperson, said the absence of razor wire and other deterrents encourages people to risk unsafe crossings and makes the job of Texas border personnel more difficult. “This case is ongoing, and Governor Abbott will continue fighting to defend Texas’s property and its constitutional authority to secure the border,” he said.

Court battle

The fencing at issue in the dispute was installed on private property along the Rio Grande by the Texas National Guard.

Texas sued the Biden administration in October, asserting that US Customs and Border Protection agents had no right to cut fencing that it said had been erected with the permission of landowners.

In November, US District Judge Alia Moses criticised the administration for failing to stem migration but said the federal government enjoyed “sovereign immunity” protecting it from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution.

A federal appeals court later granted Texas’s request to block federal agents from “damaging, destroying or otherwise interfering with” the razor-wire fencing while the case played out.

Lawyers for the Biden administration this year requested it be lifted, arguing there was no indication the wire had stopped migrants from entering the US. They said the new barriers also prevented border agents from monitoring and responding to emergencies.

The fence has been criticised by Mexican officials as a violation of international law.

Texas’s border with Mexico spans 1,930km (1,200 miles) in total.

Operation Lone Star

The fence is part of a wider state effort to take control of Texas’s borders. Operation Lone Star, launched in 2021 with significant public support, pushes the legal boundaries of what a state can do to control immigration.

The operation, which has cost more than $4.5bn so far, also includes a floating barrier installed in the Rio Grande. Democratic legislators Sylvia Garcia and Joaquin Castro, both members of the US Congress from Texas, last year decried the “barbaric” string of buoys, which are linked with “chainsaw devices” to stop crossings.

Embedded tweet

As the number of people crossing the US-Mexico border continues to surge, the Texas operation has become a flashpoint in immigration policy with critics decrying the “inhumane” measures. Abbott has used the fentanyl crisis to justify his measures, citing a rise in drug smuggling.

While Republicans have criticised the Biden administration for the rising numbers, there is also pressure from within the Democratic Party. Politicians like New York City Mayor Eric Adams are slamming the president for not doing more to address irregular immigration as his city struggles to provide housing and other services for the new arrivals.

Former President Donald Trump, whom Abbot has backed to be the Republican candidate in November’s presidential election, has made immigration a key plank of his bid to retake the White House.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

Lets see if Abbot defies SCOTUS.

[bilateralrope]

Suppose Biden does this, and Federalizes the Texas Guard, how likely is it that the guard will go along with it vs defying it or going AWOL enmasse?

If they go AWOL, they are still getting out of the way. So that would be acceptable.

If they refuse orders to stand down, then there will be a problem.

[LaCroix]

Lets see if Abbot defies SCOTUS.

Well, given that he issued his Order AFTER this ruling, yes, he does...

[Broomstick]

Suppose Biden does this, and Federalizes the Texas Guard, how likely is it that the guard will go along with it vs defying it or going AWOL enmasse?

If they go AWOL, they are still getting out of the way. So that would be acceptable.

If they refuse orders to stand down, then there will be a problem.

That could be defined as insurrection or rebellion and provide an opening for sending the regular US military in. I'm pretty sure in the Texas National Guard vs US Military the Feds would win. But it would get ugly and the political fallout could be disastrous.

[Alferd Packer]

The national guards of the states act a reserve for the US Army and Air Force. If activated by the President, they're subject to the UCMJ just like any other arm of the military. Disobeying an order would, I presume, result in a court martial and the appropriate punishment rendered against the offending officer/enlisted solider.

No chucklefuck Texas National Guard officer is going to risk losing his pension from a dishonorable discharge, to say nothing a stay at Leavenworth, for political theater.

Well, almost no chucklefuck officer.

[Broomstick]

It comes down to how many Texas National Guard are True Believers for Abbott and which follow the current structure of the US government.

[PainRack]

The national guards of the states act a reserve for the US Army and Air Force. If activated by the President, they're subject to the UCMJ just like any other arm of the military. Disobeying an order would, I presume, result in a court martial and the appropriate punishment rendered against the offending officer/enlisted solider.

No chucklefuck Texas National Guard officer is going to risk losing his pension from a dishonorable discharge, to say nothing a stay at Leavenworth, for political theater.

Well, almost no chucklefuck officer.

Of note, Texas National Guard can be federalized, but Texas also has the State National Guard, which belongs to Texas governor. At the moment, it's the NG supporting DPS to man the border, but the funds to pay said NG is dependent on emergency funding that is time limited.


https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/27 ... tt-budget/

In order to fund operations in 2023, they raided the prison service, deployed funds from their emergency disaster fund and diverted the COVID rescue plan funding to said disaster fund as a replacement.

For this year budget
https://www.keranews.org/texas-news/202 ... mmigration

They allocated 5 billion dollars.... Well. Texas DOES have a state surplus in 2023.


So..... Running out of money isbt going to be an issue soon.

[Zaune]

That could be defined as insurrection or rebellion and provide an opening for sending the regular US military in. I'm pretty sure in the Texas National Guard vs US Military the Feds would win. But it would get ugly and the political fallout could be disastrous.

More so than the fallout from not doing it? If Abbott isn't reined in one way or another I could see him ordering the National Guard to start setting up extermination camps.

[Tribble]

I’m actually kinda confused here - what is the Democrats position on this? ‘Cause sometimes it comes across like they are just as incompetent as republicans, don’t care and/or are actively encouraging people to enter the country illegally by offering paths to citizenship.

Isn’t illegally entering a country and illegally staying there you know, illegal? As in you should be going to jail and be deported for doing so?

Note that I’m not talking about people who immigrate to the USA legally, or claim refugee status etc., I’m talking about people who enter the country illegally to begin with, then stay there illegally.

Why should actual permanent residents and citizens (including all the people / refugees who followed the rules) have to put up with that?

What Texas is doing is wrong because it is apparently outside their scope of powers. However, IMO illegal immigration is one of those things that can cost Biden if he doesn’t start taking it more seriously.

[Ralin]

Why should actual permanent residents and citizens (including all the people / refugees who followed the rules) have to put up with that?

Put up with what? Unapproved people existing in their proximity? Almost no one born in the US had to get official permission to exist here in the first place. Why should someone from Mexico or Venezuela be held to a higher standard?

What Texas is doing is wrong because it is apparently outside their scope of powers. However, IMO illegal immigration is one of those things that can cost Biden if he doesn’t start taking it more seriously.

No, it's wrong because it unnecessarily hurts actual people. Unless you can give me a reason why people coming into the country should be held to a higher standard than 'Pay like 50 bucks to register at the nearest police station and if they can go five years without killing or robbing or running over someone while drunk they get to be citizens' then no, Biden doesn't need to take it seriously at all and the people who want him to can get fucked.

[Zwinmar]

A few things:
1. A hundred years ago many did not have nor need a birth certificate.
2. It was very common for people to cross the Texas-Mexican border as they had family on both sides because Texas is in a very real way just North Mexico.
3. Certain groups, usually with an R after their name, purposefully make it as difficult and convoluted as possible to cross legally while ignoring the legalities themselves.
4. Immigration courts have been purposefully underfunded and even if they were fully funded they would not be able to keep up with demand.
.4a. Translation services exist for these courts, in theory anyways, in reality they are few on the ground and people are given a document to sign while being lied to.
.4b. Even native residents have been denied and deported by these courts even with proof of their citizenship presented.

This is not even touching on how certain law enforcement do whatever they wish while ignoring laws. If you want to see just some of the nightmare then you must realize that Border Patrol Agents have the 'right' to detain anyone for no reason anywere 100miles from the border, that includes ports, rivers, and i think airports, so they have no real oversight.

[PainRack]

I’m actually kinda confused here - what is the Democrats position on this? ‘Cause sometimes it comes across like they are just as incompetent as republicans, don’t care and/or are actively encouraging people to enter the country illegally by offering paths to citizenship.

Isn’t illegally entering a country and illegally staying there you know, illegal? As in you should be going to jail and be deported for doing so?

Note that I’m not talking about people who immigrate to the USA legally, or claim refugee status etc., I’m talking about people who enter the country illegally to begin with, then stay there illegally.

Why should actual permanent residents and citizens (including all the people / refugees who followed the rules) have to put up with that?

What Texas is doing is wrong because it is apparently outside their scope of powers. However, IMO illegal immigration is one of those things that can cost Biden if he doesn’t start taking it more seriously.

Biden is already deporting them at record levels. Not to mention confiscating drugs.

The key problem here is, Biden isn't literally fucking with Mexico sovereignty, such as putting buoys and barbed wire in the Rio River.

[Broomstick]

The "buoys and barbed wire" crowd have a certain number who would gleefully kill people coming across the border, so they don't give a rat's ass if people die in the crossing. Biden, on the other hand, isn't out to kill anyone with such obstacles.

[bilateralrope]

I wouldn't be surprised if they are cheering about the deaths.

As for taking illegal immigration seriously, is anyone prosecuting the people who hire them ?

[Broomstick]

I believe it's mostly fines, plausible deniability and firing corporate fall guys.

Me, I'd like to see some CEO's perp walked into actual jail sentences but no one put me in charge of anything these days.

[MC_Lovecraft]

It's not illegal to cross the border if you are seeking asylum in the US, or any other country. This is accepted international law. There is a legal process to follow, and it begins by entering the country at any point and then presenting yourself, within 6 months, to an immigration office. Now, a lot of the migrants originating in Mexico are not seeking asylum (although lots of them are!) but most of the folks coming from further South definitely are, and there's a lot of them these days. Refusing to take in these people and process them as asylum seekers is a violation of international law, and it's something both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of. Every administration going back to at least 9/11, and the "temporary" crossing closures which never re-opened, has operated an illegal immigration policy.