Who is supporting the immigrant caravan?

[old salt]

What does Zanny at the Economist tell you about our open borders "immigration" system ?
That it's good for our economy. How do they do it back home in the UK ?
https://www.economist.com/united-states ... e-election
https://www.unhcr.org/us/news/press-rel ... ffice-warn
https://www.foxnews.com/world/uk-govern ... eport-says

Ask Nigel Farage who tanked the UK economy over Brexit - they still haven't recovered.

The US economy should aspire to be the UK.

Should we aspire to round up illegal aliens & ship them to Rwanda the way the Brits want to do ?

MAGA prefers concentration camps.

Are you referring to more DHS detention facilities which are already required by law ?

https://www.ice.gov/detention-facilities

Nope, I'm referring to Trump's pronouncements and those of Miller and other a-holes in and around Trump-world. They're taking it way beyond mere temporary detention.

DHS detention facilities have already been criticized as concentration camp by open borders advocates & will be again, especially if built, contracted or operated by a (R) admin.

MAGA is much different than "R".
What Trump and Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon et al are promising is very different from what we've seen, not that those Trump era detention camps were any picnic. The family separations being particularly ugly.

Mass camps. Mass deportation, without due process. Not just for those who have come in the last few years, but those many millions who have been here for decades living peacefully, but not documented. Dreamers too. Heck, they want to remove the US born children of undocumented. They want to repeal or ignore birthright citizenship.

Mass registry of all 'undesirables', however they wish to define those. Muslim registry, Muslim ban re-instated.

And that's only what they've said out loud, publicly. So far...
but MAGA UnBound? Expect gross excesses.

Note, these a-holes don't want legal immigration either, unless a limited number from 'desirable' (northern Western European and perhaps White Russian). No more asylum seekers.

They want a complete reversal of what they call the "Great Replacement", a cleansing of America of all those 'mud people'...ok, that's just what the internet and OAN a-holes call for so explicitly, but it's what the faux 'conservative intellectuals' allude to on Fox too. Wink wink to the worst of the worst, follow us and we'll get you what you want and clothe it in 'patriotism'. Wave the flag, stand up to anthem...Hail Leader...

Based on the latest polls, apparently Hispanic-American voters do not yet share your fear of Trump.

[MDlaxfan76]

What does Zanny at the Economist tell you about our open borders "immigration" system ?
That it's good for our economy. How do they do it back home in the UK ?
https://www.economist.com/united-states ... e-election
https://www.unhcr.org/us/news/press-rel ... ffice-warn
https://www.foxnews.com/world/uk-govern ... eport-says

Ask Nigel Farage who tanked the UK economy over Brexit - they still haven't recovered.

The US economy should aspire to be the UK.

Should we aspire to round up illegal aliens & ship them to Rwanda the way the Brits want to do ?

MAGA prefers concentration camps.

Are you referring to more DHS detention facilities which are already required by law ?

https://www.ice.gov/detention-facilities

Nope, I'm referring to Trump's pronouncements and those of Miller and other a-holes in and around Trump-world. They're taking it way beyond mere temporary detention.

DHS detention facilities have already been criticized as concentration camp by open borders advocates & will be again, especially if built, contracted or operated by a (R) admin.

MAGA is much different than "R".
What Trump and Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon et al are promising is very different from what we've seen, not that those Trump era detention camps were any picnic. The family separations being particularly ugly.

Mass camps. Mass deportation, without due process. Not just for those who have come in the last few years, but those many millions who have been here for decades living peacefully, but not documented. Dreamers too. Heck, they want to remove the US born children of undocumented. They want to repeal or ignore birthright citizenship.

Mass registry of all 'undesirables', however they wish to define those. Muslim registry, Muslim ban re-instated.

And that's only what they've said out loud, publicly. So far...
but MAGA UnBound? Expect gross excesses.

Note, these a-holes don't want legal immigration either, unless a limited number from 'desirable' (northern Western European and perhaps White Russian). No more asylum seekers.

They want a complete reversal of what they call the "Great Replacement", a cleansing of America of all those 'mud people'...ok, that's just what the internet and OAN a-holes call for so explicitly, but it's what the faux 'conservative intellectuals' allude to on Fox too. Wink wink to the worst of the worst, follow us and we'll get you what you want and clothe it in 'patriotism'. Wave the flag, stand up to anthem...Hail Leader...

Based on the latest polls, apparently Hispanic-American voters do not yet share your fear of Trump.

ya und?

Did you poll the 12 million + undocumented ? Whether Hispanic or African or Asian?

Did you even poll Dreamers?

come back to us with those polls.

[youthathletics]

Make it make sense. So now the Biden Admin is telling us, out loud, the want this to continue?

[Seacoaster(1)]

Make it make sense. So now the Biden Admin is telling us, out loud, the want this to continue?

Hope and trust the surgery went well, and that you are resting comfortably, YA.

I am really doubtful I can make this make sense to you. But it makes sense. First, immigration policy is largely if not completely a federal issue, committed to the federal government under the Constitution. States rolling out their own regimes of criminal enforcement risks dividing the power by the number of states that share a border with a foreign nation. The Biden Administration is mostly saying here that Congress and the Executive Branch are committed by the Constitution to work together and cooperatively to create and impose policy on border and immigration matters.

Here is the Solicitor General's filing, asking the Court to stay enforcement of SB4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... rected.pdf

The application for the stay (really, an order vacating the Fifth Circuit Order which of course lawlessly vacated the district court stay) required a showing that the Texas law was somehow legal or constitutionally infirm:

"On the merits, SB4 is both field and conflict preempted. This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested “solely in the Federal Government.” Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., Congress has created a comprehensive regime governing the admission and removal of noncitizens. And because the federal government has fully occupied the field of entry and removal, even “complementary state regulation” is preempted. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. Just as Arizona could not “add a state-law penalty” for failure to comply with the INA’s registration requirements, Texas may not impose state law criminal penalties for violations of federal entry and reentry provisions and may not implement state-law “decision[s] on removability.” Id. at 409. Those matters are committed to the National Government because, inter alia, they “touch on foreign relations.” Id. at 401, 409. Indeed, because entry and removal are so central to federal immigration authority, the preemptive force of federal law is even plainer in this case than it was in Arizona."

Alito granted the relief sought by the United States. So federal law preempts Texas law in this particular sphere. It's actually pretty clear and my guess is that Abbott and Paxton both understand this, but need to spend time performing their unlawful antics to a thirsty and less-informed audience.

The Constitution imposes duties on the national government, many of which are cooperative. This is part of why Red v. Blue intransigence -- and the total demonization of "working across the aisle" wrought by our current environment -- is killing the country.

[a fan]

Make it make sense. So now the Biden Admin is telling us, out loud, the want this to continue?

Hope and trust the surgery went well, and that you are resting comfortably, YA.

I am really doubtful I can make this make sense to you. But it makes sense. First, immigration policy is largely if not completely a federal issue, committed to the federal government under the Constitution. States rolling out their own regimes of criminal enforcement risks dividing the power by the number of states that share a border with a foreign nation. The Biden Administration is mostly saying here that Congress and the Executive Branch are committed by the Constitution to work together and cooperatively to create and impose policy on border and immigration matters.

Here is the Solicitor General's filing, asking the Court to stay enforcement of SB4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... rected.pdf

The application for the stay (really, an order vacating the Fifth Circuit Order which of course lawlessly vacated the district court stay) required a showing that the Texas law was somehow legal or constitutionally infirm:

"On the merits, SB4 is both field and conflict preempted. This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested “solely in the Federal Government.” Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., Congress has created a comprehensive regime governing the admission and removal of noncitizens. And because the federal government has fully occupied the field of entry and removal, even “complementary state regulation” is preempted. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. Just as Arizona could not “add a state-law penalty” for failure to comply with the INA’s registration requirements, Texas may not impose state law criminal penalties for violations of federal entry and reentry provisions and may not implement state-law “decision[s] on removability.” Id. at 409. Those matters are committed to the National Government because, inter alia, they “touch on foreign relations.” Id. at 401, 409. Indeed, because entry and removal are so central to federal immigration authority, the preemptive force of federal law is even plainer in this case than it was in Arizona."

Alito granted the relief sought by the United States. So federal law preempts Texas law in this particular sphere. It's actually pretty clear and my guess is that Abbott and Paxton both understand this, but need to spend time performing their unlawful antics to a thirsty and less-informed audience.

The Constitution imposes duties on the national government, many of which are cooperative. This is part of why Red v. Blue intransigence -- and the total demonization of "working across the aisle" wrought by our current environment -- is killing the country.

Well, lets not forget that many Dems played this same dangerous and stupid game with their "Sanctuary Cities".

I called out this behavior at the time as dangerous. And here we are, seeing the "but mommy, I don't WANT to follow Federal law" game playing out. It's dangerous as F, and I'm livid at both groups playing this pointless political game looking to score points with rabid and idiotic partisans.

I didn't like Trump, either. But I'm not gonna break the law to throw a temper tantrum with the idea that this will hurt Trump.....because it does no such thing. It hurts our Nation.

[cradleandshoot]

Up until Bidens recent visit to Brownsville " on top of the border Joe" has never even met with the man in charge of the Border Patrols 21 thousand officers. Joe must have been just too damn busy to find the time for over 3 years. Yet he was still on top of the situation at the border at all times. Those goddamn Canadians better damn do what he tells them to do about illegals sneaking in.

[youthathletics]

Make it make sense. So now the Biden Admin is telling us, out loud, the want this to continue?

Hope and trust the surgery went well, and that you are resting comfortably, YA.

I am really doubtful I can make this make sense to you. But it makes sense. First, immigration policy is largely if not completely a federal issue, committed to the federal government under the Constitution. States rolling out their own regimes of criminal enforcement risks dividing the power by the number of states that share a border with a foreign nation. The Biden Administration is mostly saying here that Congress and the Executive Branch are committed by the Constitution to work together and cooperatively to create and impose policy on border and immigration matters.

Here is the Solicitor General's filing, asking the Court to stay enforcement of SB4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... rected.pdf

The application for the stay (really, an order vacating the Fifth Circuit Order which of course lawlessly vacated the district court stay) required a showing that the Texas law was somehow legal or constitutionally infirm:

"On the merits, SB4 is both field and conflict preempted. This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested “solely in the Federal Government.” Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., Congress has created a comprehensive regime governing the admission and removal of noncitizens. And because the federal government has fully occupied the field of entry and removal, even “complementary state regulation” is preempted. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. Just as Arizona could not “add a state-law penalty” for failure to comply with the INA’s registration requirements, Texas may not impose state law criminal penalties for violations of federal entry and reentry provisions and may not implement state-law “decision[s] on removability.” Id. at 409. Those matters are committed to the National Government because, inter alia, they “touch on foreign relations.” Id. at 401, 409. Indeed, because entry and removal are so central to federal immigration authority, the preemptive force of federal law is even plainer in this case than it was in Arizona."

Alito granted the relief sought by the United States. So federal law preempts Texas law in this particular sphere. It's actually pretty clear and my guess is that Abbott and Paxton both understand this, but need to spend time performing their unlawful antics to a thirsty and less-informed audience.

The Constitution imposes duties on the national government, many of which are cooperative. This is part of why Red v. Blue intransigence -- and the total demonization of "working across the aisle" wrought by our current environment -- is killing the country.

Seacoaster....thank you for the explanation, what you say above makes sense, BUT, it is my understanding that Texas SB4 is in essence a mirror of what is already on the books and the responsibility of the Feds. Meaning, they (TX) are just doing the job on behalf of the Feds who are NOT holding up their legal portion and responsibility It's like the Feds are arguing with themselves just to buy time and accomplish whatever it is they are trying to do.

[old salt]

Did you poll the 12 million + undocumented ? Whether Hispanic or African or Asian?

Did you even poll Dreamers?

come back to us with those polls.

Do they already have the right to vote (legally) ? You're getting ahead of yourself.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Make it make sense. So now the Biden Admin is telling us, out loud, the want this to continue?

Hope and trust the surgery went well, and that you are resting comfortably, YA.

I am really doubtful I can make this make sense to you. But it makes sense. First, immigration policy is largely if not completely a federal issue, committed to the federal government under the Constitution. States rolling out their own regimes of criminal enforcement risks dividing the power by the number of states that share a border with a foreign nation. The Biden Administration is mostly saying here that Congress and the Executive Branch are committed by the Constitution to work together and cooperatively to create and impose policy on border and immigration matters.

Here is the Solicitor General's filing, asking the Court to stay enforcement of SB4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... rected.pdf

The application for the stay (really, an order vacating the Fifth Circuit Order which of course lawlessly vacated the district court stay) required a showing that the Texas law was somehow legal or constitutionally infirm:

"On the merits, SB4 is both field and conflict preempted. This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested “solely in the Federal Government.” Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., Congress has created a comprehensive regime governing the admission and removal of noncitizens. And because the federal government has fully occupied the field of entry and removal, even “complementary state regulation” is preempted. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. Just as Arizona could not “add a state-law penalty” for failure to comply with the INA’s registration requirements, Texas may not impose state law criminal penalties for violations of federal entry and reentry provisions and may not implement state-law “decision[s] on removability.” Id. at 409. Those matters are committed to the National Government because, inter alia, they “touch on foreign relations.” Id. at 401, 409. Indeed, because entry and removal are so central to federal immigration authority, the preemptive force of federal law is even plainer in this case than it was in Arizona."

Alito granted the relief sought by the United States. So federal law preempts Texas law in this particular sphere. It's actually pretty clear and my guess is that Abbott and Paxton both understand this, but need to spend time performing their unlawful antics to a thirsty and less-informed audience.

The Constitution imposes duties on the national government, many of which are cooperative. This is part of why Red v. Blue intransigence -- and the total demonization of "working across the aisle" wrought by our current environment -- is killing the country.

Seacoaster....thank you for the explanation, what you say above makes sense, BUT, it is my understanding that Texas SB4 is in essence a mirror of what is already on the books and the responsibility of the Feds. Meaning, they (TX) are just doing the job on behalf of the Feds who are NOT holding up their legal portion and responsibility It's like the Feds are arguing with themselves just to buy time and accomplish whatever it is they are trying to do.

I just think the potential for a splintered -- again, by the number of states on our borders -- authority is reason enough to foil this state law. And again, the Constitution vests immigration and border matters in the federal government, and demands that they work together. I'm not blaming only one party or actor here. I am saying that the Constitution -- engrafted with the two party system -- has to be honored by policy that is the result of a real effort to work together and cut a deal in the name of consensus. It calls for a settlement, in which both parties walk away mildly unsatisfied where their parochial interests are concerned, and satisfied that a policy will be rolled out, evaluated and tweaked as necessary. Now (inflamed because of the upcoming election, but hardly 100% because of it) we have the House (and therefore the nation's purse) paralyzed by demonization of the other. We are all the losers.

[MDlaxfan76]

Did you poll the 12 million + undocumented ? Whether Hispanic or African or Asian?

Did you even poll Dreamers?

come back to us with those polls.

Do they already have the right to vote (legally) ? You're getting ahead of yourself.

You are talking about polls, not me.

I'm talking about fascism at work.

[MDlaxfan76]

Make it make sense. So now the Biden Admin is telling us, out loud, the want this to continue?

Hope and trust the surgery went well, and that you are resting comfortably, YA.

I am really doubtful I can make this make sense to you. But it makes sense. First, immigration policy is largely if not completely a federal issue, committed to the federal government under the Constitution. States rolling out their own regimes of criminal enforcement risks dividing the power by the number of states that share a border with a foreign nation. The Biden Administration is mostly saying here that Congress and the Executive Branch are committed by the Constitution to work together and cooperatively to create and impose policy on border and immigration matters.

Here is the Solicitor General's filing, asking the Court to stay enforcement of SB4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... rected.pdf

The application for the stay (really, an order vacating the Fifth Circuit Order which of course lawlessly vacated the district court stay) required a showing that the Texas law was somehow legal or constitutionally infirm:

"On the merits, SB4 is both field and conflict preempted. This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested “solely in the Federal Government.” Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., Congress has created a comprehensive regime governing the admission and removal of noncitizens. And because the federal government has fully occupied the field of entry and removal, even “complementary state regulation” is preempted. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. Just as Arizona could not “add a state-law penalty” for failure to comply with the INA’s registration requirements, Texas may not impose state law criminal penalties for violations of federal entry and reentry provisions and may not implement state-law “decision[s] on removability.” Id. at 409. Those matters are committed to the National Government because, inter alia, they “touch on foreign relations.” Id. at 401, 409. Indeed, because entry and removal are so central to federal immigration authority, the preemptive force of federal law is even plainer in this case than it was in Arizona."

Alito granted the relief sought by the United States. So federal law preempts Texas law in this particular sphere. It's actually pretty clear and my guess is that Abbott and Paxton both understand this, but need to spend time performing their unlawful antics to a thirsty and less-informed audience.

The Constitution imposes duties on the national government, many of which are cooperative. This is part of why Red v. Blue intransigence -- and the total demonization of "working across the aisle" wrought by our current environment -- is killing the country.

Seacoaster....thank you for the explanation, what you say above makes sense, BUT, it is my understanding that Texas SB4 is in essence a mirror of what is already on the books and the responsibility of the Feds. Meaning, they (TX) are just doing the job on behalf of the Feds who are NOT holding up their legal portion and responsibility It's like the Feds are arguing with themselves just to buy time and accomplish whatever it is they are trying to do.

The states simply don't have the authority to act as the federal government without the direction of the federal government. Period.

It's just posturing for the cameras, all politics not policy, and certainly no respect for the rule of law.

And that's regardless of what one feels about the federal government, Congress, the Administration et al.

[cradleandshoot]

What a farce. The government whines about Texas doing their job for them. Wouldn't it be simpler if the government actually did their job instead of abstaining and doing nothing at all? This is stupidity at its best. Only the US government is capable of this level of incompetence. They refuse to do the job they are obligated to do then whine and complain when someone else does it for them. What is not surprising is some of the folks on this forum have no problem with the government turning their back on their responsibility. I wish the IRS worked the same way.

[youthathletics]

Make it make sense. So now the Biden Admin is telling us, out loud, the want this to continue?

Hope and trust the surgery went well, and that you are resting comfortably, YA.

I am really doubtful I can make this make sense to you. But it makes sense. First, immigration policy is largely if not completely a federal issue, committed to the federal government under the Constitution. States rolling out their own regimes of criminal enforcement risks dividing the power by the number of states that share a border with a foreign nation. The Biden Administration is mostly saying here that Congress and the Executive Branch are committed by the Constitution to work together and cooperatively to create and impose policy on border and immigration matters.

Here is the Solicitor General's filing, asking the Court to stay enforcement of SB4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... rected.pdf

The application for the stay (really, an order vacating the Fifth Circuit Order which of course lawlessly vacated the district court stay) required a showing that the Texas law was somehow legal or constitutionally infirm:

"On the merits, SB4 is both field and conflict preempted. This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested “solely in the Federal Government.” Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., Congress has created a comprehensive regime governing the admission and removal of noncitizens. And because the federal government has fully occupied the field of entry and removal, even “complementary state regulation” is preempted. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. Just as Arizona could not “add a state-law penalty” for failure to comply with the INA’s registration requirements, Texas may not impose state law criminal penalties for violations of federal entry and reentry provisions and may not implement state-law “decision[s] on removability.” Id. at 409. Those matters are committed to the National Government because, inter alia, they “touch on foreign relations.” Id. at 401, 409. Indeed, because entry and removal are so central to federal immigration authority, the preemptive force of federal law is even plainer in this case than it was in Arizona."

Alito granted the relief sought by the United States. So federal law preempts Texas law in this particular sphere. It's actually pretty clear and my guess is that Abbott and Paxton both understand this, but need to spend time performing their unlawful antics to a thirsty and less-informed audience.

The Constitution imposes duties on the national government, many of which are cooperative. This is part of why Red v. Blue intransigence -- and the total demonization of "working across the aisle" wrought by our current environment -- is killing the country.

Seacoaster....thank you for the explanation, what you say above makes sense, BUT, it is my understanding that Texas SB4 is in essence a mirror of what is already on the books and the responsibility of the Feds. Meaning, they (TX) are just doing the job on behalf of the Feds who are NOT holding up their legal portion and responsibility It's like the Feds are arguing with themselves just to buy time and accomplish whatever it is they are trying to do.

The states simply don't have the authority to act as the federal government without the direction of the federal government. Period.

It's just posturing for the cameras, all politics not policy, and certainly no respect for the rule of law.

And that's regardless of what one feels about the federal government, Congress, the Administration et al.

IS it really posturing or doing the right thing? I am really suprised to hear you say Texas and all border states need to just sit there quietly and take it up the ass b/c the Feds choose to make a states life a living hell. This letter, which also refers back to the Founders, makes it rather clear. https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/pre ... 4.2024.pdf

So my question back to you and Seacoaster.....WHY?

Why did this Admin 'intentionally' make matters worse AND at the same time continue to lie to gaslight the entire US as if they ARE doing something? What is it they are doing that they can not say out loud?

Is it for (potential blue) votes?
Is it for population growth, as we are in decline?
Is it for increased tax revenue?
Is it just another place for deficit spending to keep us from hitting a recession floor?
IS it all the above and they just can not say it our loud?

[Seacoaster(1)]

YA, I have tried to answer the question you originally posed: why would the DOJ try to keep Texas from implementing and enforcing SB4. I'll stick to my answer; fragmented, non-unitary enforcement is both unconstitutional and a recipe for disaster as the states roll out ragged, piecemeal methods of enforcement. The Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government have to together solve or manage the issues.

Your new questions are the ones I have tried to avoid, freighted as they are with election-intensified Blue v. Red politics. We know -- we observed with our own eyes -- the deal struck in the name of some kind of consensus, which was derailed by a candidate for office who needs the issue either boiling over, or needs a concession from Biden to reinstall the Trump-era immigration policies like Title 42 (which let federal officials rapidly expel unauthorized migrants to Mexico under the Covid-19 emergency) or the “Remain in Mexico” program (which required most asylum-seekers to wait out their cases in Mexico). These proved to be lawyer full employment policies, as they were attacked from every angle by lawyers working on migrant and migration issues. You know that Biden isn't going to do that without some concession to his administration. Giving yo the benefit of the doubt, we seem to have gaslighting on tis by everyone, irrespective of party.

[MDlaxfan76]

Make it make sense. So now the Biden Admin is telling us, out loud, the want this to continue?

Hope and trust the surgery went well, and that you are resting comfortably, YA.

I am really doubtful I can make this make sense to you. But it makes sense. First, immigration policy is largely if not completely a federal issue, committed to the federal government under the Constitution. States rolling out their own regimes of criminal enforcement risks dividing the power by the number of states that share a border with a foreign nation. The Biden Administration is mostly saying here that Congress and the Executive Branch are committed by the Constitution to work together and cooperatively to create and impose policy on border and immigration matters.

Here is the Solicitor General's filing, asking the Court to stay enforcement of SB4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... rected.pdf

The application for the stay (really, an order vacating the Fifth Circuit Order which of course lawlessly vacated the district court stay) required a showing that the Texas law was somehow legal or constitutionally infirm:

"On the merits, SB4 is both field and conflict preempted. This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested “solely in the Federal Government.” Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., Congress has created a comprehensive regime governing the admission and removal of noncitizens. And because the federal government has fully occupied the field of entry and removal, even “complementary state regulation” is preempted. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. Just as Arizona could not “add a state-law penalty” for failure to comply with the INA’s registration requirements, Texas may not impose state law criminal penalties for violations of federal entry and reentry provisions and may not implement state-law “decision[s] on removability.” Id. at 409. Those matters are committed to the National Government because, inter alia, they “touch on foreign relations.” Id. at 401, 409. Indeed, because entry and removal are so central to federal immigration authority, the preemptive force of federal law is even plainer in this case than it was in Arizona."

Alito granted the relief sought by the United States. So federal law preempts Texas law in this particular sphere. It's actually pretty clear and my guess is that Abbott and Paxton both understand this, but need to spend time performing their unlawful antics to a thirsty and less-informed audience.

The Constitution imposes duties on the national government, many of which are cooperative. This is part of why Red v. Blue intransigence -- and the total demonization of "working across the aisle" wrought by our current environment -- is killing the country.

Seacoaster....thank you for the explanation, what you say above makes sense, BUT, it is my understanding that Texas SB4 is in essence a mirror of what is already on the books and the responsibility of the Feds. Meaning, they (TX) are just doing the job on behalf of the Feds who are NOT holding up their legal portion and responsibility It's like the Feds are arguing with themselves just to buy time and accomplish whatever it is they are trying to do.

The states simply don't have the authority to act as the federal government without the direction of the federal government. Period.

It's just posturing for the cameras, all politics not policy, and certainly no respect for the rule of law.

And that's regardless of what one feels about the federal government, Congress, the Administration et al.

IS it really posturing or doing the right thing? I am really suprised to hear you say Texas and all border states need to just sit there quietly and take it up the ass b/c the Feds choose to make a states life a living hell. This letter, which also refers back to the Founders, makes it rather clear. https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/pre ... 4.2024.pdf

So my question back to you and Seacoaster.....WHY?

Why did this Admin 'intentionally' make matters worse AND at the same time continue to lie to gaslight the entire US as if they ARE doing something? What is it they are doing that they can not say out loud?

Is it for (potential blue) votes?
Is it for population growth, as we are in decline?
Is it for increased tax revenue?
Is it just another place for deficit spending to keep us from hitting a recession floor?
IS it all the above and they just can not say it our loud?

None of that applies, certainly not the great replacement nods.

That said I do think moderates and the left see immigration differently than does the 'right'. The current right, and certainly MAGA right, sees this much more through a racial/ethnic lens, whether they do so consciously or not. And, led by Trump, they say so out loud, increasingly brazenly. In contrast, Moderates see benefits to immigration, even illegal, though greatly favor legal. These aren't partisan benefits, they're economic and overall vitality. The left sees the distress of migrants and wants to help (sometimes naively IMO given resources) and they get very angry when they see government be callous towards those with the least.

Where there can be agreement across the board is that control of immigration flow is important, and even more importantly, combatting criminal smuggling is essential. Fentanyl is a huge scourge and the resources and policies necessary to combat that scourge can be supported across the spectrum.

Migration has spiked because of Covid's ripple effects on the economies and a loss of order in counties they're from. And this migration has overwhelmed the system to process them.

The policy that was the Fed's toughest tool, enabling them to push migrants back immediately, was overturned by the Courts. They said Congress needed to act. Not in the Admin's control. That's when the problem grew fast.

Way beyond the resources, though early days it wasn't having a big impact politically.

Did they take it seriously enough at that point? Arguably not, but the politics weren't amenable to spending money and attention to that priority when there were such large other problems, both domestically and internationally. Covid, economic recovery, infrastructure, strategic competition, Russia-Ukraine, global warming...

But when the problem became better recognized by the middle/left to be expanding fast, the Admin decided that the politics provided an opening to get way more resources and some key policies authorized that would address the challenge far better than without. The most conservative policy set and largest increase in resources in over 5 decades was negotiated by and with very conservative Senators who still believe in governance...and this was nevertheless rejected by MAGA/Trump for short term political benefit.

There's no way that Congress, even with a total MAGA control, will pass the same legislation or more conservative legislation a year from now. At least not unless they blow up the filibuster...which I predict they'd do right away, hypocrites. They believe in authoritarian rule, so they might just ignore the courts and let Der Leader act...expect mass round-ups including those who have been here for decades, Dreamers, and into concentration camps, with mass deportations wherever they can force countries to accept them. They've promised this, as well as a reinstatement of a Muslim ban and a Muslim registry. Expect such for all "undesirables". "Re-education camps".

Expect no allowed legal immigration from numerous s-hole countries, primarily the global south.

Crazy fact though, the urban centers with the most new illegal immigrants have seen a reduction in violent crime, indeed crime overall. I don't think that's a good reason to to want undocumented immigration, but it's the opposite of the propaganda that gets consumed daily about it. That said, historically cities with steady increases in population through migration have tended to have improved economies, and lower crime rates. Immigrants have tended to refresh neighborhoods, not allow them to decline. I'm in favor of legal, documented immigration for lots of reasons, but it's not for blue votes. And they wouldn't be Dem necessarily if the GOP adopted a Reagan and Bush posture towards immigration.

But MAGA is in control.

And no, the States don't have the right to 'mirror' federal legislation and then execute upon it willy nilly in conflict with the federal government because they claim the federal government has not done enough to the States' satisfaction. That's not constitutional. Doesn't mean there aren't legitimate resource issues, but taking an oppositional, adverse stance will not succeed...at least not legally.

[cradleandshoot]

Make it make sense. So now the Biden Admin is telling us, out loud, the want this to continue?

Hope and trust the surgery went well, and that you are resting comfortably, YA.

I am really doubtful I can make this make sense to you. But it makes sense. First, immigration policy is largely if not completely a federal issue, committed to the federal government under the Constitution. States rolling out their own regimes of criminal enforcement risks dividing the power by the number of states that share a border with a foreign nation. The Biden Administration is mostly saying here that Congress and the Executive Branch are committed by the Constitution to work together and cooperatively to create and impose policy on border and immigration matters.

Here is the Solicitor General's filing, asking the Court to stay enforcement of SB4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... rected.pdf

The application for the stay (really, an order vacating the Fifth Circuit Order which of course lawlessly vacated the district court stay) required a showing that the Texas law was somehow legal or constitutionally infirm:

"On the merits, SB4 is both field and conflict preempted. This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested “solely in the Federal Government.” Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., Congress has created a comprehensive regime governing the admission and removal of noncitizens. And because the federal government has fully occupied the field of entry and removal, even “complementary state regulation” is preempted. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. Just as Arizona could not “add a state-law penalty” for failure to comply with the INA’s registration requirements, Texas may not impose state law criminal penalties for violations of federal entry and reentry provisions and may not implement state-law “decision[s] on removability.” Id. at 409. Those matters are committed to the National Government because, inter alia, they “touch on foreign relations.” Id. at 401, 409. Indeed, because entry and removal are so central to federal immigration authority, the preemptive force of federal law is even plainer in this case than it was in Arizona."

Alito granted the relief sought by the United States. So federal law preempts Texas law in this particular sphere. It's actually pretty clear and my guess is that Abbott and Paxton both understand this, but need to spend time performing their unlawful antics to a thirsty and less-informed audience.

The Constitution imposes duties on the national government, many of which are cooperative. This is part of why Red v. Blue intransigence -- and the total demonization of "working across the aisle" wrought by our current environment -- is killing the country.

Seacoaster....thank you for the explanation, what you say above makes sense, BUT, it is my understanding that Texas SB4 is in essence a mirror of what is already on the books and the responsibility of the Feds. Meaning, they (TX) are just doing the job on behalf of the Feds who are NOT holding up their legal portion and responsibility It's like the Feds are arguing with themselves just to buy time and accomplish whatever it is they are trying to do.

The states simply don't have the authority to act as the federal government without the direction of the federal government. Period.

It's just posturing for the cameras, all politics not policy, and certainly no respect for the rule of law.

And that's regardless of what one feels about the federal government, Congress, the Administration et al.

IS it really posturing or doing the right thing? I am really suprised to hear you say Texas and all border states need to just sit there quietly and take it up the ass b/c the Feds choose to make a states life a living hell. This letter, which also refers back to the Founders, makes it rather clear. https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/pre ... 4.2024.pdf

So my question back to you and Seacoaster.....WHY?

Why did this Admin 'intentionally' make matters worse AND at the same time continue to lie to gaslight the entire US as if they ARE doing something? What is it they are doing that they can not say out loud?

Is it for (potential blue) votes?
Is it for population growth, as we are in decline?
Is it for increased tax revenue?
Is it just another place for deficit spending to keep us from hitting a recession floor?
IS it all the above and they just can not say it our loud?

None of that applies, certainly not the great replacement nods.

That said I do think moderates and the left see immigration differently than does the 'right'. The current right, and certainly MAGA right, sees this much more through a racial/ethnic lens, whether they do so consciously or not. Moderates see benefits to immigration, even illegal, though greatly favor legal. These aren't partisan benefits, they're economic and overall vitality. The left sees the distress of migrants and wants to help (sometimes naively IMO given resources) and they get very angry when they see government be callous towards those with the least.

Where there can be agreement across the board is that control of immigration flow is important, and even more importantly, combatting criminal smuggling is essential. Fentanyl is a huge scourge and the resources and policies necessary to combat that scourge can be supported across the spectrum.

Migration has spiked because of Covid's ripple effects on the economies and a loss of order in counties they're from. And this migration has overwhelmed the system to process them.

The policy that was the Fed's toughest tool, enabling them to push migrants back immediately, was overturned by the Courts. They said Congress needed to act. Not in the Admin's control. That's when the problem grew fast.

Way beyond the resources, though early days it wasn't having a big impact politically.

Did they take it seriously enough at that point? Arguably not, but the politics weren't amenable to spending money and attention to that priority when there were such large other problems, both domestically and internationally. Covid, economic recovery, infrastructure, strategic competition, Russia-Ukraine, global warming...

But when the problem became better recognized by the middle/left to be expanding fast, the Admin decided that the politics provided an opening to get way more resources and some key policies authorized that would address the challenge far better than without. The most conservative policy set and largest increase in resources in over 5 decades was negotiated by and with very conservative Senators who still believe in governance...and this was nevertheless rejected by MAGA/Trump for short term political benefit.

There's no way that Congress, even with a total MAGA control, will pass the same legislation or more conservative legislation a year from now. At least not unless they blow up the filibuster...which I predict they'd do right away, hypocrites. They believe in authoritarian rule, so they might just ignore the courts and let Der Leader act...expect mass round-ups including those who have been here for decades, Dreamers, and into concentration camps, with mass deportations wherever they can force countries to accept them. They've promised this, as well as a reinstatement of a Muslim ban and a Muslim registry. Expect such for all "undesirables". "Re-education camps".

Expect no allowed legal immigration from numerous s-hole countries, primarily the global south.

Crazy fact though, the urban centers with the most new illegal immigrants have seen a reduction in violent crime, indeed crime overall. I don't think that's a good reason to to want undocumented immigration, but it's the opposite of the propaganda that gets consumed daily about it. That said, historically cities with steady increases in population through migration have tended to have improved economies, and lower crime rates. Immigrants have tended to refresh neighborhoods, not allow them to decline. I'm in favor of legal, documented immigration for lots of reasons, but it's not for blue votes. And they wouldn't be Dem necessarily if the GOP adopted a Reagan and Bush posture towards immigration.

But MAGA is in control.

And no, the States don't have the right to 'mirror' federal legislation and then execute upon it willy nilly in conflict with the federal government because they claim the federal government has not done enough to the States' satisfaction. That's not constitutional. Doesn't mean there aren't legitimate resource issues, but taking an oppositional, adverse stance will not succeed...at least not legally.

So at no point in time in your contrived word salad do address the problem why Texas has found itself forced to do the job the government has neglected to do. All the usual knuckle heads on this forum are saying is that border security is the governments responsibility. At no point in time did any of you consider this... Why isn't the government doing the job they claim is their responsibility? They have made it quite clear they are unwilling to enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. Texas did what they had to do to protect Texans. Good for them, what is the point in having immigration laws if you don't enforce them? Why even a lifelong conservative republican should understand that concept.

[a fan]

Make it make sense. So now the Biden Admin is telling us, out loud, the want this to continue?

Hope and trust the surgery went well, and that you are resting comfortably, YA.

I am really doubtful I can make this make sense to you. But it makes sense. First, immigration policy is largely if not completely a federal issue, committed to the federal government under the Constitution. States rolling out their own regimes of criminal enforcement risks dividing the power by the number of states that share a border with a foreign nation. The Biden Administration is mostly saying here that Congress and the Executive Branch are committed by the Constitution to work together and cooperatively to create and impose policy on border and immigration matters.

Here is the Solicitor General's filing, asking the Court to stay enforcement of SB4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... rected.pdf

The application for the stay (really, an order vacating the Fifth Circuit Order which of course lawlessly vacated the district court stay) required a showing that the Texas law was somehow legal or constitutionally infirm:

"On the merits, SB4 is both field and conflict preempted. This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested “solely in the Federal Government.” Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., Congress has created a comprehensive regime governing the admission and removal of noncitizens. And because the federal government has fully occupied the field of entry and removal, even “complementary state regulation” is preempted. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. Just as Arizona could not “add a state-law penalty” for failure to comply with the INA’s registration requirements, Texas may not impose state law criminal penalties for violations of federal entry and reentry provisions and may not implement state-law “decision[s] on removability.” Id. at 409. Those matters are committed to the National Government because, inter alia, they “touch on foreign relations.” Id. at 401, 409. Indeed, because entry and removal are so central to federal immigration authority, the preemptive force of federal law is even plainer in this case than it was in Arizona."

Alito granted the relief sought by the United States. So federal law preempts Texas law in this particular sphere. It's actually pretty clear and my guess is that Abbott and Paxton both understand this, but need to spend time performing their unlawful antics to a thirsty and less-informed audience.

The Constitution imposes duties on the national government, many of which are cooperative. This is part of why Red v. Blue intransigence -- and the total demonization of "working across the aisle" wrought by our current environment -- is killing the country.

Seacoaster....thank you for the explanation, what you say above makes sense, BUT, it is my understanding that Texas SB4 is in essence a mirror of what is already on the books and the responsibility of the Feds. Meaning, they (TX) are just doing the job on behalf of the Feds who are NOT holding up their legal portion and responsibility It's like the Feds are arguing with themselves just to buy time and accomplish whatever it is they are trying to do.

The states simply don't have the authority to act as the federal government without the direction of the federal government. Period.

It's just posturing for the cameras, all politics not policy, and certainly no respect for the rule of law.

And that's regardless of what one feels about the federal government, Congress, the Administration et al.

IS it really posturing or doing the right thing? I am really suprised to hear you say Texas and all border states need to just sit there quietly and take it up the ass b/c the Feds choose to make a states life a living hell. This letter, which also refers back to the Founders, makes it rather clear. https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/pre ... 4.2024.pdf

So my question back to you and Seacoaster.....WHY?

Why did this Admin 'intentionally' make matters worse AND at the same time continue to lie to gaslight the entire US as if they ARE doing something? What is it they are doing that they can not say out loud?

Is it for (potential blue) votes?
Is it for population growth, as we are in decline?
Is it for increased tax revenue?
Is it just another place for deficit spending to keep us from hitting a recession floor?
IS it all the above and they just can not say it our loud?

None of that applies, certainly not the great replacement nods.

That said I do think moderates and the left see immigration differently than does the 'right'. The current right, and certainly MAGA right, sees this much more through a racial/ethnic lens, whether they do so consciously or not. Moderates see benefits to immigration, even illegal, though greatly favor legal. These aren't partisan benefits, they're economic and overall vitality. The left sees the distress of migrants and wants to help (sometimes naively IMO given resources) and they get very angry when they see government be callous towards those with the least.

Where there can be agreement across the board is that control of immigration flow is important, and even more importantly, combatting criminal smuggling is essential. Fentanyl is a huge scourge and the resources and policies necessary to combat that scourge can be supported across the spectrum.

Migration has spiked because of Covid's ripple effects on the economies and a loss of order in counties they're from. And this migration has overwhelmed the system to process them.

The policy that was the Fed's toughest tool, enabling them to push migrants back immediately, was overturned by the Courts. They said Congress needed to act. Not in the Admin's control. That's when the problem grew fast.

Way beyond the resources, though early days it wasn't having a big impact politically.

Did they take it seriously enough at that point? Arguably not, but the politics weren't amenable to spending money and attention to that priority when there were such large other problems, both domestically and internationally. Covid, economic recovery, infrastructure, strategic competition, Russia-Ukraine, global warming...

But when the problem became better recognized by the middle/left to be expanding fast, the Admin decided that the politics provided an opening to get way more resources and some key policies authorized that would address the challenge far better than without. The most conservative policy set and largest increase in resources in over 5 decades was negotiated by and with very conservative Senators who still believe in governance...and this was nevertheless rejected by MAGA/Trump for short term political benefit.

There's no way that Congress, even with a total MAGA control, will pass the same legislation or more conservative legislation a year from now. At least not unless they blow up the filibuster...which I predict they'd do right away, hypocrites. They believe in authoritarian rule, so they might just ignore the courts and let Der Leader act...expect mass round-ups including those who have been here for decades, Dreamers, and into concentration camps, with mass deportations wherever they can force countries to accept them. They've promised this, as well as a reinstatement of a Muslim ban and a Muslim registry. Expect such for all "undesirables". "Re-education camps".

Expect no allowed legal immigration from numerous s-hole countries, primarily the global south.

Crazy fact though, the urban centers with the most new illegal immigrants have seen a reduction in violent crime, indeed crime overall. I don't think that's a good reason to to want undocumented immigration, but it's the opposite of the propaganda that gets consumed daily about it. That said, historically cities with steady increases in population through migration have tended to have improved economies, and lower crime rates. Immigrants have tended to refresh neighborhoods, not allow them to decline. I'm in favor of legal, documented immigration for lots of reasons, but it's not for blue votes. And they wouldn't be Dem necessarily if the GOP adopted a Reagan and Bush posture towards immigration.

But MAGA is in control.

And no, the States don't have the right to 'mirror' federal legislation and then execute upon it willy nilly in conflict with the federal government because they claim the federal government has not done enough to the States' satisfaction. That's not constitutional. Doesn't mean there aren't legitimate resource issues, but taking an oppositional, adverse stance will not succeed...at least not legally.

So at no point in time in your contrived word salad do address the problem why Texas has found itself forced to do the job the government has neglected to do. All the usual knuckle heads on this forum are saying is that border security is the governments responsibility. At no point in time did any of you consider this... Why isn't the government doing the job they claim is their responsibility? They have made it quite clear they are unwilling to enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. Texas did what they had to do to protect Texans. Good for them, what is the point in having immigration laws if you don't enforce them? Why even a lifelong conservative republican should understand that concept.

The Texans have been dealing with a broken immigration system since I was in grammar school.

The pitch here is: this "problem just happened ten minutes ago, when Biden arrived".

The second pitch was "everything was perfect under Trump".

The third pitch is: the number of people who have arrived here illegally since Biden showed up is larger than the number that was already here illegally.

Both parties don't care. Donal Trump, in particular has made MILLIONS hiring illegal workers at his properties.

The ENTIRE reason this is a problem, cradle is:

A. Dems don't see this as a priority. I've explained this several times. They just don't care, which is fine. R's don't care about plenty of issues like letting kids read books.

B. Republican voters, and we have many here, REFUSE to hold Trump and other Republican leaders accountable for ACTUALLY fixing the problem. This is the big one. This is the OPPOSITE of how other countries operate. In other countries, when you vote for someone, you are up their ***ses when they take office, making doggone sure they do what they campaigned on. And when they don't? They get voted out.

In America, and you see this here on the Forum, Americans spend 100% of their time telling the world that "the other side is bad". This is the DUMBEST way to get the policies you want enacted, but then again, America thinks that education (and health care) are only thing the rich should enjoy, so it's zero surprise that Americans are too freaking stupid to hold the people they voted for (or their political party) accountable for ANYTHING.

The American mantra is: "well, my guy is better than the "other" guy".....and then they wonder why nothing has been accomplished in the US for decades.

Again: look how old this thread is, Cradle. Now how is it possible that this is STILL a problem if Trump and the R's fixed the problem, as Trump campaigned on?

Simple: Trump did nothing, and R voters cheered him on. This will NEVER get fixed.

[MDlaxfan76]

Make it make sense. So now the Biden Admin is telling us, out loud, the want this to continue?

Hope and trust the surgery went well, and that you are resting comfortably, YA.

I am really doubtful I can make this make sense to you. But it makes sense. First, immigration policy is largely if not completely a federal issue, committed to the federal government under the Constitution. States rolling out their own regimes of criminal enforcement risks dividing the power by the number of states that share a border with a foreign nation. The Biden Administration is mostly saying here that Congress and the Executive Branch are committed by the Constitution to work together and cooperatively to create and impose policy on border and immigration matters.

Here is the Solicitor General's filing, asking the Court to stay enforcement of SB4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... rected.pdf

The application for the stay (really, an order vacating the Fifth Circuit Order which of course lawlessly vacated the district court stay) required a showing that the Texas law was somehow legal or constitutionally infirm:

"On the merits, SB4 is both field and conflict preempted. This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested “solely in the Federal Government.” Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., Congress has created a comprehensive regime governing the admission and removal of noncitizens. And because the federal government has fully occupied the field of entry and removal, even “complementary state regulation” is preempted. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. Just as Arizona could not “add a state-law penalty” for failure to comply with the INA’s registration requirements, Texas may not impose state law criminal penalties for violations of federal entry and reentry provisions and may not implement state-law “decision[s] on removability.” Id. at 409. Those matters are committed to the National Government because, inter alia, they “touch on foreign relations.” Id. at 401, 409. Indeed, because entry and removal are so central to federal immigration authority, the preemptive force of federal law is even plainer in this case than it was in Arizona."

Alito granted the relief sought by the United States. So federal law preempts Texas law in this particular sphere. It's actually pretty clear and my guess is that Abbott and Paxton both understand this, but need to spend time performing their unlawful antics to a thirsty and less-informed audience.

The Constitution imposes duties on the national government, many of which are cooperative. This is part of why Red v. Blue intransigence -- and the total demonization of "working across the aisle" wrought by our current environment -- is killing the country.

Seacoaster....thank you for the explanation, what you say above makes sense, BUT, it is my understanding that Texas SB4 is in essence a mirror of what is already on the books and the responsibility of the Feds. Meaning, they (TX) are just doing the job on behalf of the Feds who are NOT holding up their legal portion and responsibility It's like the Feds are arguing with themselves just to buy time and accomplish whatever it is they are trying to do.

The states simply don't have the authority to act as the federal government without the direction of the federal government. Period.

It's just posturing for the cameras, all politics not policy, and certainly no respect for the rule of law.

And that's regardless of what one feels about the federal government, Congress, the Administration et al.

IS it really posturing or doing the right thing? I am really suprised to hear you say Texas and all border states need to just sit there quietly and take it up the ass b/c the Feds choose to make a states life a living hell. This letter, which also refers back to the Founders, makes it rather clear. https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/pre ... 4.2024.pdf

So my question back to you and Seacoaster.....WHY?

Why did this Admin 'intentionally' make matters worse AND at the same time continue to lie to gaslight the entire US as if they ARE doing something? What is it they are doing that they can not say out loud?

Is it for (potential blue) votes?
Is it for population growth, as we are in decline?
Is it for increased tax revenue?
Is it just another place for deficit spending to keep us from hitting a recession floor?
IS it all the above and they just can not say it our loud?

None of that applies, certainly not the great replacement nods.

That said I do think moderates and the left see immigration differently than does the 'right'. The current right, and certainly MAGA right, sees this much more through a racial/ethnic lens, whether they do so consciously or not. Moderates see benefits to immigration, even illegal, though greatly favor legal. These aren't partisan benefits, they're economic and overall vitality. The left sees the distress of migrants and wants to help (sometimes naively IMO given resources) and they get very angry when they see government be callous towards those with the least.

Where there can be agreement across the board is that control of immigration flow is important, and even more importantly, combatting criminal smuggling is essential. Fentanyl is a huge scourge and the resources and policies necessary to combat that scourge can be supported across the spectrum.

Migration has spiked because of Covid's ripple effects on the economies and a loss of order in counties they're from. And this migration has overwhelmed the system to process them.

The policy that was the Fed's toughest tool, enabling them to push migrants back immediately, was overturned by the Courts. They said Congress needed to act. Not in the Admin's control. That's when the problem grew fast.

Way beyond the resources, though early days it wasn't having a big impact politically.

Did they take it seriously enough at that point? Arguably not, but the politics weren't amenable to spending money and attention to that priority when there were such large other problems, both domestically and internationally. Covid, economic recovery, infrastructure, strategic competition, Russia-Ukraine, global warming...

But when the problem became better recognized by the middle/left to be expanding fast, the Admin decided that the politics provided an opening to get way more resources and some key policies authorized that would address the challenge far better than without. The most conservative policy set and largest increase in resources in over 5 decades was negotiated by and with very conservative Senators who still believe in governance...and this was nevertheless rejected by MAGA/Trump for short term political benefit.

There's no way that Congress, even with a total MAGA control, will pass the same legislation or more conservative legislation a year from now. At least not unless they blow up the filibuster...which I predict they'd do right away, hypocrites. They believe in authoritarian rule, so they might just ignore the courts and let Der Leader act...expect mass round-ups including those who have been here for decades, Dreamers, and into concentration camps, with mass deportations wherever they can force countries to accept them. They've promised this, as well as a reinstatement of a Muslim ban and a Muslim registry. Expect such for all "undesirables". "Re-education camps".

Expect no allowed legal immigration from numerous s-hole countries, primarily the global south.

Crazy fact though, the urban centers with the most new illegal immigrants have seen a reduction in violent crime, indeed crime overall. I don't think that's a good reason to to want undocumented immigration, but it's the opposite of the propaganda that gets consumed daily about it. That said, historically cities with steady increases in population through migration have tended to have improved economies, and lower crime rates. Immigrants have tended to refresh neighborhoods, not allow them to decline. I'm in favor of legal, documented immigration for lots of reasons, but it's not for blue votes. And they wouldn't be Dem necessarily if the GOP adopted a Reagan and Bush posture towards immigration.

But MAGA is in control.

And no, the States don't have the right to 'mirror' federal legislation and then execute upon it willy nilly in conflict with the federal government because they claim the federal government has not done enough to the States' satisfaction. That's not constitutional. Doesn't mean there aren't legitimate resource issues, but taking an oppositional, adverse stance will not succeed...at least not legally.

So at no point in time in your contrived word salad do address the problem why Texas has found itself forced to do the job the government has neglected to do. All the usual knuckle heads on this forum are saying is that border security is the governments responsibility. At no point in time did any of you consider this... Why isn't the government doing the job they claim is their responsibility? They have made it quite clear they are unwilling to enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. Texas did what they had to do to protect Texans. Good for them, what is the point in having immigration laws if you don't enforce them? Why even a lifelong conservative republican should understand that concept.

I realize that the reading comprehension impaired among us like to toss out "word salad" when they don't understand. But not bothering to even try to read and comprehend is just rude.

No, the Biden Admin is following the law, as decided by the Courts. They have asked for more authority from Congress, as such is required according to the Courts, in order to take additional actions...and they've requested large increases in resources for border control, fast asylum processing, and drug detection technology. Without demanding concessions for liberal priorities like Dreamers and path to citizenship in return. The GOP should have declared victory and told their voters that the Dems had buckled, but nah...they clearly don't care at all.

Texas isn't "forced" to do anything to combat immigration. Not their job, unless requested by the feds to assist in some way.

Is it unfair for them to bear a burden of accommodating so many people who aren't allowed to work and support themselves? Sure. Complain to Congress...it's their own Congressional Reps and Senators who stand in the way of getting more help.

[cradleandshoot]

Make it make sense. So now the Biden Admin is telling us, out loud, the want this to continue?

Hope and trust the surgery went well, and that you are resting comfortably, YA.

I am really doubtful I can make this make sense to you. But it makes sense. First, immigration policy is largely if not completely a federal issue, committed to the federal government under the Constitution. States rolling out their own regimes of criminal enforcement risks dividing the power by the number of states that share a border with a foreign nation. The Biden Administration is mostly saying here that Congress and the Executive Branch are committed by the Constitution to work together and cooperatively to create and impose policy on border and immigration matters.

Here is the Solicitor General's filing, asking the Court to stay enforcement of SB4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... rected.pdf

The application for the stay (really, an order vacating the Fifth Circuit Order which of course lawlessly vacated the district court stay) required a showing that the Texas law was somehow legal or constitutionally infirm:

"On the merits, SB4 is both field and conflict preempted. This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested “solely in the Federal Government.” Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., Congress has created a comprehensive regime governing the admission and removal of noncitizens. And because the federal government has fully occupied the field of entry and removal, even “complementary state regulation” is preempted. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. Just as Arizona could not “add a state-law penalty” for failure to comply with the INA’s registration requirements, Texas may not impose state law criminal penalties for violations of federal entry and reentry provisions and may not implement state-law “decision[s] on removability.” Id. at 409. Those matters are committed to the National Government because, inter alia, they “touch on foreign relations.” Id. at 401, 409. Indeed, because entry and removal are so central to federal immigration authority, the preemptive force of federal law is even plainer in this case than it was in Arizona."

Alito granted the relief sought by the United States. So federal law preempts Texas law in this particular sphere. It's actually pretty clear and my guess is that Abbott and Paxton both understand this, but need to spend time performing their unlawful antics to a thirsty and less-informed audience.

The Constitution imposes duties on the national government, many of which are cooperative. This is part of why Red v. Blue intransigence -- and the total demonization of "working across the aisle" wrought by our current environment -- is killing the country.

Seacoaster....thank you for the explanation, what you say above makes sense, BUT, it is my understanding that Texas SB4 is in essence a mirror of what is already on the books and the responsibility of the Feds. Meaning, they (TX) are just doing the job on behalf of the Feds who are NOT holding up their legal portion and responsibility It's like the Feds are arguing with themselves just to buy time and accomplish whatever it is they are trying to do.

The states simply don't have the authority to act as the federal government without the direction of the federal government. Period.

It's just posturing for the cameras, all politics not policy, and certainly no respect for the rule of law.

And that's regardless of what one feels about the federal government, Congress, the Administration et al.

IS it really posturing or doing the right thing? I am really suprised to hear you say Texas and all border states need to just sit there quietly and take it up the ass b/c the Feds choose to make a states life a living hell. This letter, which also refers back to the Founders, makes it rather clear. https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/pre ... 4.2024.pdf

So my question back to you and Seacoaster.....WHY?

Why did this Admin 'intentionally' make matters worse AND at the same time continue to lie to gaslight the entire US as if they ARE doing something? What is it they are doing that they can not say out loud?

Is it for (potential blue) votes?
Is it for population growth, as we are in decline?
Is it for increased tax revenue?
Is it just another place for deficit spending to keep us from hitting a recession floor?
IS it all the above and they just can not say it our loud?

None of that applies, certainly not the great replacement nods.

That said I do think moderates and the left see immigration differently than does the 'right'. The current right, and certainly MAGA right, sees this much more through a racial/ethnic lens, whether they do so consciously or not. Moderates see benefits to immigration, even illegal, though greatly favor legal. These aren't partisan benefits, they're economic and overall vitality. The left sees the distress of migrants and wants to help (sometimes naively IMO given resources) and they get very angry when they see government be callous towards those with the least.

Where there can be agreement across the board is that control of immigration flow is important, and even more importantly, combatting criminal smuggling is essential. Fentanyl is a huge scourge and the resources and policies necessary to combat that scourge can be supported across the spectrum.

Migration has spiked because of Covid's ripple effects on the economies and a loss of order in counties they're from. And this migration has overwhelmed the system to process them.

The policy that was the Fed's toughest tool, enabling them to push migrants back immediately, was overturned by the Courts. They said Congress needed to act. Not in the Admin's control. That's when the problem grew fast.

Way beyond the resources, though early days it wasn't having a big impact politically.

Did they take it seriously enough at that point? Arguably not, but the politics weren't amenable to spending money and attention to that priority when there were such large other problems, both domestically and internationally. Covid, economic recovery, infrastructure, strategic competition, Russia-Ukraine, global warming...

But when the problem became better recognized by the middle/left to be expanding fast, the Admin decided that the politics provided an opening to get way more resources and some key policies authorized that would address the challenge far better than without. The most conservative policy set and largest increase in resources in over 5 decades was negotiated by and with very conservative Senators who still believe in governance...and this was nevertheless rejected by MAGA/Trump for short term political benefit.

There's no way that Congress, even with a total MAGA control, will pass the same legislation or more conservative legislation a year from now. At least not unless they blow up the filibuster...which I predict they'd do right away, hypocrites. They believe in authoritarian rule, so they might just ignore the courts and let Der Leader act...expect mass round-ups including those who have been here for decades, Dreamers, and into concentration camps, with mass deportations wherever they can force countries to accept them. They've promised this, as well as a reinstatement of a Muslim ban and a Muslim registry. Expect such for all "undesirables". "Re-education camps".

Expect no allowed legal immigration from numerous s-hole countries, primarily the global south.

Crazy fact though, the urban centers with the most new illegal immigrants have seen a reduction in violent crime, indeed crime overall. I don't think that's a good reason to to want undocumented immigration, but it's the opposite of the propaganda that gets consumed daily about it. That said, historically cities with steady increases in population through migration have tended to have improved economies, and lower crime rates. Immigrants have tended to refresh neighborhoods, not allow them to decline. I'm in favor of legal, documented immigration for lots of reasons, but it's not for blue votes. And they wouldn't be Dem necessarily if the GOP adopted a Reagan and Bush posture towards immigration.

But MAGA is in control.

And no, the States don't have the right to 'mirror' federal legislation and then execute upon it willy nilly in conflict with the federal government because they claim the federal government has not done enough to the States' satisfaction. That's not constitutional. Doesn't mean there aren't legitimate resource issues, but taking an oppositional, adverse stance will not succeed...at least not legally.

So at no point in time in your contrived word salad do address the problem why Texas has found itself forced to do the job the government has neglected to do. All the usual knuckle heads on this forum are saying is that border security is the governments responsibility. At no point in time did any of you consider this... Why isn't the government doing the job they claim is their responsibility? They have made it quite clear they are unwilling to enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. Texas did what they had to do to protect Texans. Good for them, what is the point in having immigration laws if you don't enforce them? Why even a lifelong conservative republican should understand that concept.

I realize that the reading comprehension impaired among us like to toss out "word salad" when they don't understand. But not bothering to even try to read and comprehend is just rude.

No, the Biden Admin is following the law, as decided by the Courts. They have asked for more authority from Congress, as such is required according to the Courts, in order to take additional actions...and they've requested large increases in resources for border control, fast asylum processing, and drug detection technology. Without demanding concessions for liberal priorities like Dreamers and path to citizenship in return. The GOP should have declared victory and told their voters that the Dems had buckled, but nah...they clearly don't care at all.

Texas isn't "forced" to do anything to combat immigration. Not their job, unless requested by the feds to assist in some way.

Is it unfair for them to bear a burden of accommodating so many people who aren't allowed to work and support themselves? Sure. Complain to Congress...it's their own Congressional Reps and Senators who stand in the way of getting more help.

I have exceptional reading comprehension. The issue is practically nothing you compose anymore is worth reading. Your right up there with trump when it comes to trying to be a bullchit artist. Why don't you take your bullchit to Eagle Pass, Texas? I bet you wind up with cowboy boot jammed up your ass. Go and tell those folks that live in Eagle Pass that Joe is obeying our immigration laws.

You do realize that Bidens catastrophic screw up at the southern border could be why he loses in November.

[MDlaxfan76]

Make it make sense. So now the Biden Admin is telling us, out loud, the want this to continue?

Hope and trust the surgery went well, and that you are resting comfortably, YA.

I am really doubtful I can make this make sense to you. But it makes sense. First, immigration policy is largely if not completely a federal issue, committed to the federal government under the Constitution. States rolling out their own regimes of criminal enforcement risks dividing the power by the number of states that share a border with a foreign nation. The Biden Administration is mostly saying here that Congress and the Executive Branch are committed by the Constitution to work together and cooperatively to create and impose policy on border and immigration matters.

Here is the Solicitor General's filing, asking the Court to stay enforcement of SB4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... rected.pdf

The application for the stay (really, an order vacating the Fifth Circuit Order which of course lawlessly vacated the district court stay) required a showing that the Texas law was somehow legal or constitutionally infirm:

"On the merits, SB4 is both field and conflict preempted. This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested “solely in the Federal Government.” Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., Congress has created a comprehensive regime governing the admission and removal of noncitizens. And because the federal government has fully occupied the field of entry and removal, even “complementary state regulation” is preempted. See Arizona, 567 U.S. at 401. Just as Arizona could not “add a state-law penalty” for failure to comply with the INA’s registration requirements, Texas may not impose state law criminal penalties for violations of federal entry and reentry provisions and may not implement state-law “decision[s] on removability.” Id. at 409. Those matters are committed to the National Government because, inter alia, they “touch on foreign relations.” Id. at 401, 409. Indeed, because entry and removal are so central to federal immigration authority, the preemptive force of federal law is even plainer in this case than it was in Arizona."

Alito granted the relief sought by the United States. So federal law preempts Texas law in this particular sphere. It's actually pretty clear and my guess is that Abbott and Paxton both understand this, but need to spend time performing their unlawful antics to a thirsty and less-informed audience.

The Constitution imposes duties on the national government, many of which are cooperative. This is part of why Red v. Blue intransigence -- and the total demonization of "working across the aisle" wrought by our current environment -- is killing the country.

Seacoaster....thank you for the explanation, what you say above makes sense, BUT, it is my understanding that Texas SB4 is in essence a mirror of what is already on the books and the responsibility of the Feds. Meaning, they (TX) are just doing the job on behalf of the Feds who are NOT holding up their legal portion and responsibility It's like the Feds are arguing with themselves just to buy time and accomplish whatever it is they are trying to do.

The states simply don't have the authority to act as the federal government without the direction of the federal government. Period.

It's just posturing for the cameras, all politics not policy, and certainly no respect for the rule of law.

And that's regardless of what one feels about the federal government, Congress, the Administration et al.

IS it really posturing or doing the right thing? I am really suprised to hear you say Texas and all border states need to just sit there quietly and take it up the ass b/c the Feds choose to make a states life a living hell. This letter, which also refers back to the Founders, makes it rather clear. https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/pre ... 4.2024.pdf

So my question back to you and Seacoaster.....WHY?

Why did this Admin 'intentionally' make matters worse AND at the same time continue to lie to gaslight the entire US as if they ARE doing something? What is it they are doing that they can not say out loud?

Is it for (potential blue) votes?
Is it for population growth, as we are in decline?
Is it for increased tax revenue?
Is it just another place for deficit spending to keep us from hitting a recession floor?
IS it all the above and they just can not say it our loud?

None of that applies, certainly not the great replacement nods.

That said I do think moderates and the left see immigration differently than does the 'right'. The current right, and certainly MAGA right, sees this much more through a racial/ethnic lens, whether they do so consciously or not. Moderates see benefits to immigration, even illegal, though greatly favor legal. These aren't partisan benefits, they're economic and overall vitality. The left sees the distress of migrants and wants to help (sometimes naively IMO given resources) and they get very angry when they see government be callous towards those with the least.

Where there can be agreement across the board is that control of immigration flow is important, and even more importantly, combatting criminal smuggling is essential. Fentanyl is a huge scourge and the resources and policies necessary to combat that scourge can be supported across the spectrum.

Migration has spiked because of Covid's ripple effects on the economies and a loss of order in counties they're from. And this migration has overwhelmed the system to process them.

The policy that was the Fed's toughest tool, enabling them to push migrants back immediately, was overturned by the Courts. They said Congress needed to act. Not in the Admin's control. That's when the problem grew fast.

Way beyond the resources, though early days it wasn't having a big impact politically.

Did they take it seriously enough at that point? Arguably not, but the politics weren't amenable to spending money and attention to that priority when there were such large other problems, both domestically and internationally. Covid, economic recovery, infrastructure, strategic competition, Russia-Ukraine, global warming...

But when the problem became better recognized by the middle/left to be expanding fast, the Admin decided that the politics provided an opening to get way more resources and some key policies authorized that would address the challenge far better than without. The most conservative policy set and largest increase in resources in over 5 decades was negotiated by and with very conservative Senators who still believe in governance...and this was nevertheless rejected by MAGA/Trump for short term political benefit.

There's no way that Congress, even with a total MAGA control, will pass the same legislation or more conservative legislation a year from now. At least not unless they blow up the filibuster...which I predict they'd do right away, hypocrites. They believe in authoritarian rule, so they might just ignore the courts and let Der Leader act...expect mass round-ups including those who have been here for decades, Dreamers, and into concentration camps, with mass deportations wherever they can force countries to accept them. They've promised this, as well as a reinstatement of a Muslim ban and a Muslim registry. Expect such for all "undesirables". "Re-education camps".

Expect no allowed legal immigration from numerous s-hole countries, primarily the global south.

Crazy fact though, the urban centers with the most new illegal immigrants have seen a reduction in violent crime, indeed crime overall. I don't think that's a good reason to to want undocumented immigration, but it's the opposite of the propaganda that gets consumed daily about it. That said, historically cities with steady increases in population through migration have tended to have improved economies, and lower crime rates. Immigrants have tended to refresh neighborhoods, not allow them to decline. I'm in favor of legal, documented immigration for lots of reasons, but it's not for blue votes. And they wouldn't be Dem necessarily if the GOP adopted a Reagan and Bush posture towards immigration.

But MAGA is in control.

And no, the States don't have the right to 'mirror' federal legislation and then execute upon it willy nilly in conflict with the federal government because they claim the federal government has not done enough to the States' satisfaction. That's not constitutional. Doesn't mean there aren't legitimate resource issues, but taking an oppositional, adverse stance will not succeed...at least not legally.

So at no point in time in your contrived word salad do address the problem why Texas has found itself forced to do the job the government has neglected to do. All the usual knuckle heads on this forum are saying is that border security is the governments responsibility. At no point in time did any of you consider this... Why isn't the government doing the job they claim is their responsibility? They have made it quite clear they are unwilling to enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. Texas did what they had to do to protect Texans. Good for them, what is the point in having immigration laws if you don't enforce them? Why even a lifelong conservative republican should understand that concept.

I realize that the reading comprehension impaired among us like to toss out "word salad" when they don't understand. But not bothering to even try to read and comprehend is just rude.

No, the Biden Admin is following the law, as decided by the Courts. They have asked for more authority from Congress, as such is required according to the Courts, in order to take additional actions...and they've requested large increases in resources for border control, fast asylum processing, and drug detection technology. Without demanding concessions for liberal priorities like Dreamers and path to citizenship in return. The GOP should have declared victory and told their voters that the Dems had buckled, but nah...they clearly don't care at all.

Texas isn't "forced" to do anything to combat immigration. Not their job, unless requested by the feds to assist in some way.

Is it unfair for them to bear a burden of accommodating so many people who aren't allowed to work and support themselves? Sure. Complain to Congress...it's their own Congressional Reps and Senators who stand in the way of getting more help.

I have exceptional reading comprehension. The issue is practically nothing you compose anymore is worth reading. Your right up there with trump when it comes to trying to be a bullchit artist. Why don't you take your bullchit to Eagle Pass, Texas? I bet you wind up with cowboy boot jammed up your ass. Go and tell those folks that live in Eagle Pass that Joe is obeying our immigration laws.

You do realize that Bidens catastrophic screw up at the southern border could be why he loses in November.

Another hateful diatribe, unresponsive to rational discussion.

I responded to the policy and legal issues. No cogent response.

You want to turn to the politics, read what I wrote about that.
I don't think the politics of his own party were ready, and his own calculation was to focus on much larger and more pressing issues.
Right or wrong, that was the calculation...does it have a cost politically? sure.

Maybe you want to know what I think the Biden Campaign should do with the issue, politically?
Hang it around Trump's neck and those of the cowards who wouldn't pass the most conservative policy set and largest increase in resources in more than half a century. Stupid, venal cowards.