Below is my column in The Hill on the worsening situation at the Southern border and how the Supreme Court laid the seeds for this crisis over a decade ago. The courts have left few options for either the states or Congress in compelling the enforcement of federal law.
Here is the column:
The upcoming impeachment vote on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has caused a deep rift even among his critics, including some Republican members of Congress.
Many view Mayorkas as an unmitigated disaster as Homeland secretary. The massive numbers of migrants crossing the border has become a growing economic and security threat to the entire nation.
I have previously expressed my disagreement with the two articles of impeachment, which present their own inherent dangers to the underlying constitutional standards. But whatever happens in the House, the real crisis is not the employment status of Mayorkas. It is what brought the House to seriously consider this extreme remedy in the first place.
The seeds of this disaster were planted by the Supreme Court over a decade ago, in Arizona v. U.S., if not earlier. In that case, a 5-3 majority ruled against a state seeking to enforce immigration laws in light of what it described as a vacuum of federal action. The court declared that the states were preempted or barred from taking such action. While giving the state a small victory in allowing state officers to investigate the immigration status of a suspect with reasonable suspicion, it left little room for independent state action in the area.
Despite President Obama’s orders giving some migrants effective immunity from enforcement (such as the youths that came to be known as “DREAMers”), he actually deported a significant number of illegal migrants. At the time, many of us asked where the line would be drawn in the future, often raising the hypothetical of a president who abandons enforcement entirely or to a large extent.
It took a decade, but that hypothetical seems dangerously close to reality. Mayorkas is carrying out the policies of President Biden, who continues to praise his work and the worst record of enforcement in history. One of the first things that Biden did when coming into office was to seek to shut down policies and construction used to deter unlawful migration. At the same time, both Biden and Mayorkas were widely viewed as supportive of those crossing the border as many Democratic cities declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented migrants pursued by ICE.
Now, even some Democrats are now criticizing President Biden for his lax policies and the failure to do more in securing the border, as hundreds of thousands pour into the country. Most are promptly released, and many are not even asked to appear for eight years at an immigration proceeding.
For the states, desperate times call for desperate measures. For example, Texas recently declared that it was acting unilaterally under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution. That provision reserves the right of self-defense for a state that is “actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”
The current crisis is a practical invasion, overwhelming towns and cities across the country. No state faces a greater danger than Texas. However, “invasion” was clearly meant in the traditional sense of a foreign power or army. Similarly, “such imminent danger” was referencing “such” an invasion.
The southern border in 2024 is, constitutionally, suffering no more an “invasion” than the Capitol riot in 2021 was an “insurrection.” There is a difference between the colloquial and constitutional meaning of such terms.
States have also tried to go to court to enforce these laws in cases like Arizona v. United States and, most recently, in U.S. v. Texas. They have often found the courts closed to them. The courts have denied standing to sue in many cases or else granted sweeping authority (and preemption) over immigration.
That has left many in Congress or the states with few meaningful ways to compel enforcement of the law. This includes provisions written as mandatory “shall” obligations, which have been effectively ignored by the federal government.
The result is that many now see impeachment as the only viable option to force change. However, given Biden’s support for his actions, it is difficult to see how Mayorkas’s removal would alter policies or practices in any respect.
Congress is not blameless in any of this. The court has virtually invited Congress to pass laws giving people greater standing to sue the government. It could also apply more stringent conditions on spending and block confirmations.
Yet this crisis is the result of decades of court rulings expanding executive powers while limiting the ability to challenge those policies. The court’s decisions narrowing standing have been deleterious, limiting those who can challenge unlawful or unconstitutional acts by the federal government.
States such as Texas are absolutely correct that this is a breach of the original understanding with the federal government. The combination of the sweeping preemption by the courts and diminishing enforcement by the agencies has left states as mere observers to their own destruction. It is like watching your house burn down as the fire department works primarily to prevent anyone else from putting it out.
The Biden fire department is claiming that, just as it has the authority to put out fires, it has the authority to let them burn.
The question is whether states have finally reached a point of near-total disempowerment, becoming effective nullities or nonentities in dealing with this overwhelming influx across their own borders. While they can patrol the border, they are powerless to exercise inherent powers to protect their citizens and society. It runs counter to the original federalism guarantees used to secure ratification of the Constitution. States were viewed as partners in our federalism system, not mere pedestrians.
One can see why this looks like a bait-and-switch for states, who were offered something very different when they agreed to abandon the Articles of Confederation. They understood the need for a stronger federal government and that states could not act as separate sovereign powers. States yielded authority to the central government, including interstate matters.
Yet, the Constitution would have likely failed in ratification if they had been told of the degree to which they would become dependent on federal authority within their states.
Clearly, the federal government will continue to determine who enters the country. However, Congress has repeatedly tried to impose limits on such actions through express legislative mandates.
That brings us back to the courts. Members of Congress have been told that they cannot sue to enforce mandatory provisions, while states are told that they cannot sue to secure their own borders. It reduces our system to a mere Potemkin Village, a facade of constitutional powers with little ability to protect them.
The combination of open borders and closed courts will continue to fuel this crisis. If the justices will not allow states to close their borders, they can at least open the courts to allow them greater ability to be heard.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
Turley is correct that impeaching Mayorkis will not accomplish anything even if he is forced to resign. What’s happening at the southern border is not inattentiveness or incompetence. It is a vital part of the Democratic Party’s long-term strategy of changing the demographics of this country. They want to do to the country what they have succeeded in doing to California. We know that they changed the immigration laws in the mid-sixties to open our doors wider to people of non-European descent; and they made it easier for entire families to come here. Then, in the Clinton admistratiion, they adopted the policy of “catch-and-release”, knowlingly allowing illegals to live here. In the Biden adminstration, they have dropped any pretense of enforcing immigration laws and now seek to stop enforcement of any kind. During this entire period, they have ratcheted up the rhetoric against all opponents of illegal immigration calling us “racists” and “xenophobes.” I suspect there have been secret communications between Democratic leaders and groups in the business of bringing people into the coutnry, telling them through a wink-and-a-nod that the federal government will actively block state authorities from interfering with their “holy work” of transforming America. It is true that we should not call this “an invasion”. It is much more. It is the unprecedented conspiracy of a political party and ruling class to destroy the country that they are supposed to be protecting. We need a new word. A word meaing “murder of a country.”
the 17th amendment should have never been created.
The Appointment of Senators by the the States was designed to give the States, not the citizens, a direct voice in Washington DC.
I Dont know if that would make the negotiation better, if all of Senate was working to win the favor of their States powers, rather than the vagaries of the voters.
But I doubt it would be worse.
NY and Illinois are upset about the border disaster also. Would Durbin be more motivated to get the border closed if pressure was coming from the STATE POWERS of Illinois? Govt’s have a much longer memory than voters.
the 17th amendment should have never been created.
The Appointment of Senators by the the States was designed to give the States, not the citizens, a direct voice in Washington DC.
Absolutely Iowan! The citizens have their voice in Congress via the House.
LOL — you two are the dumbest, live-in, hired Turley-trolls on this blog
ad hominem. . . the word was invented for the trolls here.
Lacking intellectual capacity to comprehend the debate, just attack the messenger.
That was persuasive. I am thoroughly persuaded by your juvenile name calling. Keep it up and show everyone just what a great person you truly are!
The “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments,” Karl Marx’s concept, were a result of the unconstitutional denial of fully constitutional secession, and improperly ratified in an environment of duress under brutal post-war military oppression.
The “Reconstruction Amendments” are invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional and as unconstitutional as Lincoln’s denial of not prohibited and fully constitutional secession.
Lincoln was a fellow traveler of Karl Marx, not a constitutional American.
Reprehensible slavery must have been legally abrogated in a society of laws.
When America gets the law and Constitution right, the welfare state will vaporize overnight.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“They consider…that it fell to…Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
– Karl Marx Letter To Abraham Lincoln, 1865
This is ridiculous. Senators are elected by the states. Who are the states? A state is its people, not its legislature. That is the entire basis of our whole constitution, which starts out by declaring the fact that it was to be enacted not by the state legislatures, but by “we, the people of the united states of America”. That was a slap in the legislatures’ faces; the Philadelphia convention knew that the state legislatures would never ratify the new constitution, so they made a deliberate decision to go around the legislatures and send it directly to the people of each state, because they are the state. The legislature is merely their servant, and reflects their views only imperfectly. So the 17th amendment makes senators more responsible to their states, not less.
Without the 17th amendment, Durbin would depend for re-election, not on the people of Illinois but on the state legislature, which is permanently controlled by the Democrat Party; that would make him more of a party hack, not less. In any event he’s not up for reelection till 2026, so he has two years till he has to worry about it, and the 17th doesn’t change that; but without the 17th all he would need to do in 2026 was make sure that a small number of his fellow party hacks were satisfied with the private promises he made them, and the rest of us wouldn’t even know about it. At least now he will have to campaign to the public, and he can’t possibly make private promises to enough individual voters to make a difference.
Some people seem to be under the impression that before the 17th senators could be recalled. I don’t know how they got such a bizarre notion, but it’s just not true. A newly-elected senator was just as free then as he is now. He had six years to do as he wished before he even had to worry about reelection, if he even wanted another term.
Does President Biden still have authority under Section 212(f) to act on the border crisis? If so, then is his demand for money to enforce this power just Joe (Biden Crime Family) being Joe?
The southern border in 2024 is, constitutionally, suffering no more an “invasion” than the Capitol riot in 2021 was an “insurrection.” There is a difference between the colloquial and constitutional meaning of such terms.
FALSE, Professor.
This is a Trojan Horse of Unrestricted Warfare against the United States. These millions of people can fall in many categories, but MAKE ZERO MISTAKE, professor, there are seriously motivated folks in this mass of people that could effectively paralyze this country before you could type up your next opinion piece – and U.S. population would be blind & dumb for a long enough spell to effectively seize this government by its throat, break its back, and turn the country into vassal of the actors (many and varied) that would love that.
By comparison, J6 was a bunch of pissed off and pissed on people that had legit reasons to voice their displeasure and a few got caught up by US agents. More staging and acting than insurrecting took place that day and the US government agencies DAMN WELL know it. But to compare J6 to able-body, fighting-age male foreigners from 100+ countries totaling more than the ENTIRE US Military (scattered around the globe at 867 bases, MIND YOU) to J6 as being colloquial in constitutional nature, is Gobsmackingly arrogant and professorially naïve.
That you do not understand the existential threat – with merely a signal and coordination these people could accomplish – is how countries and empires fall. Vandalism got its name how professor?
D.C. is seriously close to losing everything…..don’t think the nukes are deterring anyone. Remember back in February 2021?
I do – what happen, Professor? There was a little letter that was floated about nuclear command authority.
“As president, two of your most critical and solemn duties are the security of the country and the
safeguarding of its nuclear arsenal. You alone possess the authority to order the use of nuclear
weapons, which assures that nuclear weapons remain under civilian control.
However, vesting one person with this authority entails real risks. Past presidents have
threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behavior that caused
other officials to express concern about the president’s judgment.”
Anyone truly know who is in charge in an absolute crisis?
I don’t think you (or I) know….that should scare liberals and conservatives alike.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/f/?id=00000177-cc92-dca5-a3f7-cfb77ab90000
Finally, get serious. Those Georgetown liberals, and all your posh parties, will be the Vandals of you.
One good thing about the massive immigration bill is that it finally and nakedly reveals what these lunatics really intend: the final destruction of the United States of America.
Why didnt Republicans support President Trump when the GOP controlled both chambers?
Lankford noted that Trump called for stronger border laws when he was in office, in 2018, but complained that he couldn’t get any Democratic votes.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/three-senators-try-to-sell-skeptical-colleagues-on-long-awaited-border-deal-53b2b179
You are a sucker for Republicans. They play you like Democrats play blacks, LGBTQ, etc. It seems some Americans relish being battered spouses from their respective political parties; they cant seem to leave them in spite of the battering. The immigration debacle has been happening for more than a decade as Prof Turley notes. That you and others continue to blindly vote Republican in spite of their abusing your trust, is on you.
Americans need to dump both political parties now. Throw the election campaign season into a long overdue revolution by dragging Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin into a new political party, RFK Jr into a separate party, perhaps Tulsi Gabbard into another party or with RFK Jr, and so forth
Republicans vs Democrats hasnt worked for decades. That these two monopolies continue to dominate our body politic is a dim reflection on Americans.
Estovir– “Why didnt Republicans support President Trump when the GOP controlled both chambers?”
+++
That’s a very good question. Too many Romneys, Ryans and McCains with separate agendas or debts to other powerful interests I suppose. Plus Trump was sabotaged to a degree by the administrative state that has become too powerful and lawless, particularly since the foolish Chevron decision.
The Democrats have their own problems with entitled and brainwashed young college grads who think their opinions matter. Note the WH staffers who threaten to strike if they don’t get their way. One wonders if they don’t actually walk out whether with that attitude they may quietly sabotage Biden just as Trump was sabotaged.
Simultaneously, with DEI we have filled the government with incompetents, sort of like Boeing seems to have done.
No wonder so much is falling apart. More than crashing planes we are crashing an entire country.
We just might revive federalism as states like Texas and Florida step up to act where the federal government is clearly failing.
Estovir– Some change may be happening in the Republican party as new people disgusted with what happened to Trump have become politically active and are pushing out the Romney types. For example
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13047987/Knives-Mitch-McConnell-border-bill-Republicans-start-calls-kick-leadership-accuse-bromance-Democrats-package-thats-betrayal-American-people.html
I have seen it on a local level as well.
Demential Don is now claiming that he didn’t endorse Sen. Lankford in 2022.
Dementia Joe told CBS he would do a 3 minute Super Bowl interview.
Then canceled all together. The guy we are supposed to believe is able to run the USA, turns down TV time during the Super Bowl, while running for re-election.
Lunchbucket Joe no longer makes any important decisions. His only decision is what flavor of ice cream he will order.
Dementia Joe told an audience Trump accuses him of being for Late Term abortions…but he claims..he is not…just all three trimesters…https://twitter.com/i/status/1754512656671666655
Sunday in Vegas
“Biden recounted a story he has told many times during his presidency, about a meeting he had with French President Emmanuel Macron during a G7 meeting in England, some months after Biden had taken over the White House.
“I sat down and I said, ‘America’s back,’” Biden recalled. “And Mitterrand from Germany – I mean from France – looked at me and said…”
Do you trolls seriously think you can play this silly game? Biden Provides a dozen examples per public event proving he’s zoned out.
That’s why Obama canceled his 3 MINUTE Super Bowl interview. can’t have 10 million people getting a glimpse of the BEST Democrats have to offer.
While an Excellent article – Turley does not go deep enough.
The fundimental problem is neither immigration nor the constitution.
It is that deeply flawed arrangement do not work.
Turley is touching on the core to conservatism – The courts, the executive, the congresses, the states should tread very carefully when changing things that have worked for centuries – no matter how flawed we beleive them to be.
Making things worse is far more likely than making them better.
Change is absolutely necescary. But the vast majority of change FAILS.
One of many reasons that we have limited government, with limited power is because change in govenrment is so hard and so dangerous
Change is the domain of the individual of the private sector, of free markets.
In that domain failure is quickly reverted or modified, until we finally find the arrangement that not merely works, but works better.
The problem right now is NOT the mess at the southern border.
The problem is that the executive is both lawless and failed and worse still that it does not give a schiff.
The Senile old man and the children running our executive do not care about the mess they have made.
Nor do they care about the law.
There is a radical difference between prosecutorial discretion as a means to deal with insufficient resources to deal with all offenses,
and prosecutorial discretion as a means to ignore law in favor of the executive in powers policy.
Democrats have given Republicans a huge election issue and republicans are exploiting it to the fullest.
But the claim that some new immigration law would magically solve this when the core problem is a failure to enforce the law that exists,
is stupid. There is no deal that congress can come to regarding immigration that means anything if it will not be enforced by the executive.
In a statement to @FoxNews, the Border Patrol union says they endorse the bipartisan border deal negotiated in the Senate and hope for it’s quick passage, adding “While not perfect, the Border Act of 2024 is a step in the right direction and is far better than the status quo.”
Did they happen to mention how they feel about spending another $60 billion of tax money on pointless wars and making corrupt oligarchs rich, when we the people are already $34 trillion in debt – and in a death spiral as a nation due to that unbearable level of debt?
No. They also didn’t mention that Trump’s a con artist and criminal.
Nor did they say that there are good reasons to help the Ukrainians win against Russia: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/12/fiona-hill-ukraine-putin-00131285
Nor did they advocate for an end to the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy, or express their support for the increased IRS funding to go after super-rich tax cheats.
Nor did they suggest that there shouldn’t be a $168K cap on the wages that are subject to Social Security taxes.
And yes, we do need to attend to the debt. But it’s not the only thing to attend to.
Blah, blah, blah. All you’re “whatabout Trump” kvetching is irrelevant, and frankly, pathetic. The thing now is solutions, and that starts with not running any more deficits, ever. We need a balanced budget amendment. Everyone should oppose border legislation that ties in reckless spending.
For goodness sake, I included suggestions for increasing the revenue: ending the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy (not at all irrelevant), continuing the increased IRS funding to go after super-rich tax cheats (which brings in more revenue than it costs), and ending the $168K cap on the wages that are subject to Social Security taxes.
As for my other comment about Trump, IDGAF about whether you dislike my saying it.
And when it comes to “reckless” border spending, I invite you to identify things in the bill that you think can be characterized that way.
The old “tax cuts for the rich” are left-wing talking points that are as old as the hills. When I read that my eyes glaze over and the writer loses all credibility. As for reckless spending, you bet your ass there is. Tens of billions to go to other nations when we are drowning in $34 trillion in debt is the definition of reckless. NOT ONE MORE DIME TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY!!!! NOT ONE MORE DIME!!!!!!!! (can I make that clearer?)
Do you deny that there were tax cuts for the rich under Trump? Maybe you need your eyes checked if they glaze over from reading straightforward facts.
Over 1/5 of our total debt was accrued in 4 years under Trump. Biden has cut back significantly on the growth.
Yes, your opinion is clear. It’s not the only opinion that matters.
Ending Trump’s tax cuts will decrease government revenue.
It does not take a great deal of intelligence to understand that a 100% tax rate will NOT bring in the most tax revenue.
Christine Romer – Obama’s Cheif Economic advisor found that the revenue optimizing maximum marginal income tax rate was close to 33%, Above that revenue slowly decreased.
That Rate BTW is NOT the top federal tax rate – that the the top combined federal state and local tax rate,
Nor BTW is that tax rate the correct rate. The national growth optimizing tax rate is below 20% – we do not know how much below, but one should note that Lincoln conducted the Civil war on a tax rate of about 8% of GDP.
I would note this information – is robust.
It is solid for the US over the past 40 years, over the past century, over the past 2 centuries,
it is sold across the entire OECD and accross the globe.
The fastest growing countries in world history had tax rates below 20%
These also went from poverty to the richest countries in the world in 70 years.
What is your goal ? To screw the rich and have everyone live in poverty ?
Or to have everyone become the rich ?
Let’s suppose we could coerce all the rich to pay a 99% tax rate and there was no opportunity for them to move money to tax havens to avoid it. That would only solve a tiny, tiny, miniscule portion of the $34 trillion debt problem. Plus, we’d be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs to get at a finite chunk of gold inside, and it would barely dent the national debt . . . and the goose would stop laying the eggs. So it would be self-defeating, but it gives liberals warm, fuzzy feelings inside to say “tax the rich” . . . while the nation dies.
Who suggested that? Not me.
Who suggested that a single change could fix everything? Not me?
Do you honestly think that kind of hyperbole is productive? I don’t.
BTW, if you look at total wealth, not just income, the total wealth of the top 20% is about 3x the total debt. The top 10% have 2x the wealth of the bottom 90%. Just so we’re clear on how much the very wealthy actually have.
Another Cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat Pathological Liar recited as instructed: For goodness sake, I included suggestions for increasing the revenue: ending the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy (not at all irrelevant)
Ah yes, the greedy, envious Welfare Kings and Queens that make up the Soviet Democrats’ Marxist Useful Idiot base. Let’s give this one an IQ test to see if it can think instead of just be a faithful Soviet Democrat parrot:
1. What percentage of all the income taxes collected now come from The Evil Rich that these commies hate so much and demand be punished for being wealthy and providing jobs.
2. What percentage of all income taxes collected SHOULD The Evil Rich be paying in order to satisfy the greed, envy, and hate of the Soviet Democrat Gimme Free Shit voter class?
3. At what percentage point do the Soviet Democrat Gimme Free Shit voter class become aware of the Laffler Curve being a real thing?
As for my other comment about Trump, IDGAF about whether you dislike my saying it.
And IDGAF that you hope you can slide by as another Soviet Democrat Apparatchik pimping and posing to defend the Soviet Democrat criminal class that you voted into office. You greedy, envious, hate filled, excuse ridden commies are a failure of humanity. You do not deserve the liberty and freedom this country provided you with at no cost to yourselves.
We need new immigration legislation – but there is no crisis regarding immigration law.
The border crisis would end quickly if existing law was enforced.
New immigration law is something that should be publicly debated for a long time, and publicly negotiated.
It is not something that a handful of senators should negotiate in back room deals.
there is no crisis regarding immigration law. The border crisis would end quickly if existing law was enforced.
EXACTLY!! Trump used existing laws and had the border under control. Biden willfully chooses not to enforce immigration laws. He puts the word out to the world that the southern border is open. He is committing an insurrection even as we speak. He should be prosecuted under 18 USC 2383.
Everything that some people think is a good thing, is not inherently something that the US people should be forced to spend billions for.
You say Trump is a con man ? Yet both Trump voters and Trump oponents knew before electing him, and know today what they are getting.
That is pretty much the opposite of a Con Man.
Bush promised an end to US nation building, and then became the penultimate nation builder.
Obama promised to end the endless wars, and instead started new ones.
Biden promised to to unite us and he has divided us more than any president.
Trump did what he promised. Whether you like that is a different question.
Regardless, Trump is actually the most honest president we may ever have had.
He said what he would do, and he either did that or tried his damnest.
If Trump is a criminal – you could name an actual crime.
Turley correctly notes there is no invasion, and there was no insurrection.
Turley is slowly getting red pilled – not by Fox, but by the failure of those on the left and your batschiff claims.
Trumps’ tax cuts worked – they actually increased tax revenues, and more importantly they increased growth – which means more jobs, higher standard of living. There is a reasont hat democrats did not actually repeal Trump’s tax custs when they had the power to do so – that is because they worked.
If you think hiring 80K new IRS agents is going after the wealthy – I have swamp land to sell you.
Nearly all IRS agents target the poor and working class. They go after people who fail to report benefits. or collect a bit more than they should.
Not only are the tax laws written by the rich for the rich – but you would not want it any other way.
Aside from satisfying your envy, taxing the rich, taxing corporations is directly taxing the forces that raise standard of living and create jobs.
What is it that you think that Elon Musks $400B of net worth is doing ? Buying him lavish meals ?
It is building factories, and creating jobs and raising standard of living.
“Nearly all IRS agents target the poor and working class.” Indeed, the IRS tends to prosecute the most vulnerable who can’t afford to defend themselves in Tax Court – the only court where the defendent is presumed guilty until he can prove himself ‘innocent’.
Change the capp on SS if you want – that will just increase the amount of SS you must pay out.
SS is supposed to be the same as an IRA – your money saved by you for the future.
If you convert it into just another social safety net program you will destroy public support for it, and you will make it much easier to get rid of.
It would be pretty trivial to replace SS with a UBI – but you would have lots of irrate seniors whose income dropped.
I rarely disagree with you, John, but Social Security is nothing like an IRA, and never has been. It has always been nothing but another welfare program, that is associated with but not actually paid for by a separate income tax. There is nobody currently paying SS tax who has any right to think that the money is being put away for him, or that he has any contractual right to an eventual payout. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise before any current taxpayer started working, so we’ve all been on notice our entire working lives that paying SS tax gives us no contractual rights, and that Congress is free to alter the SS rules or abolish it entirely whenever it pleases.
Oldmanfromkansas.
I heard today the annual budget for the Marine Corps is $53 million. Just to give the numbers context
There is nothing that can be negotiated in congress that has any meaning at all if the president will not follow the law.
The left is arguing that Republicans are politicizing this – absolutely. But they are not merely benefiting from the immigration problem, but from the complete lawlessness of this administration.
Ordinary people know that whatever the problems with current immigration law, the lawless chaos we see would be radically reduced – if Biden made half an effort to enforce the law.
The mess at the southern border is not an unforeseen consequence. It is the direct result of a deliberate choice to fail to follow the existing law.
That can not be solved by ANY new law.
As to the current proposal – it is OBVIOUSLY stupid.
The Quota’s it imposes empower the Mexican drug cartels to ensure that in the future as close to 4,999 people cross the border each day as possible. That means 1.8M illegal immigrants per year. In addition to 1M legal immigrants that is nearly 3M immigrants each year
If 100% of the jobs the US economy creates when growth is 3% go to immigrants, we would still see unemployment RISE forever solely due to immigration. And if the economy is running at less than 3% growth – unemployment will rise even faster.
The Federal Courts (9th) stripped the People of California the power under Prop 187 to defend their state from illegal immigration.
Federal Judge Jon Tigar (CA) destroyed a delicate negotiation process in the Senate seeking to reform Immigration in Feb. 2018. Pres. Trump has motivated Congress to act by giving a deadline of March 5, 2018 to legalize the Dreamers (SCOTUS had ruled previously that Obama’s Exec. Order protecting illegals brought in as minors was overstepping his authority). Judge Tigar took the deadline off the table, and within hours, the Senate bills all collapsed. Why would Democrats give concessions to help the Dreamers if leftist plaintiffs and the Courts could cancel Trump’s deadline?
I’m very angry about what the Fed. Courts have done. They have no standing under Article I, Section 8 to be calling the shots in Immigration Policy.
Why does America conduct diplomatic relations and trade with nations such as India, China, Saudi Arabia et al. that have no actual Americans in mid or high office, for example, in their Administration, Supreme Court, Congress, State Departments, Defense Departments, etc.?
Why are American high offices overflowing with non-American foreigners while those in other nations are manned exclusively by natives?
What in the world is going on?
What non-citizens are in high officer in the US?
Chief dan George thinks Abraham Lincoln was a threat to the Union .. . and has vowed to endeavor to persevere.
For him, LDS means Lincoln Derangement Syndrome, not latter-day saints.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is the wrong impeachment target for ignoring the law. It should be Biden himself.
The political Big Question is, will doddering dilapidated Uncle Joe recognize that his current position will probably put Donald Trump back in the White House?
Recognize? No, vegetables don’t recognize things.
He’s no more a vegetable than you are.
If that’s what you think, then you haven’t seen him (try to) speak in the last two years.
Mayorkas is a perfectly good start.
Contra Turley impeaching Mayorkas – merely starting the process DOES have effect.
It sends a message to Biden and others in the cabinet.
It sends a message to future cabinet officials.
No one wants to be remembered for having been impeached.
That messages is even stronger if the senate removes Mayorkas.
This also forces Senators to take a stand – both democrats and republicans.
Increasingly Democrats recognize that their border policy has FAILED.
I do not think Mayorkas will be removed by the Senate. This time.
But until the Biden administration deals with the problem more and more democrats will defect – both voters and democratic politicians,
and eventually Mayorkas may be impeached and removed.
Nor is this just about immigration.
It is an effort by the house to solve the issue that Turley raises.
In the US actual policy is the domain of the congress. The president’s job is to ENFORCE that policy – not to make it.
One of the problems with the left is that they seek to empower every single branch of the govenrment to impose by force whatever their prefered policy is, so that controlling any one branch allows them to do whatever they want.
Isn’t the border crisis fundamentally about property rights? Our governments; federal, state and local have laws and regulations determining what I can and cannot do within the borders of my property line. But it would be a violation of my rights to prevent me from securing my property from “invasion.” As I expand that principle outward, our town has borders, our country has borders, our state has borders and of course our country has borders. At every level, governments are instituted for the purpose of securing the rights of its citizens within those borders. What’s happening along our national borders is essentially the federal government telling the states they cannot put locks on their doors, bars on their windows, put in alarm systems and fences. They must allow strangers to enter into their property, stay if they like, or pass on through. The property owners should never be prevented from securing their rights from what amounts to an invasion. As an individual, no asylum seeker has a right to invade my property. And that should be the same for the states.
“THE U.S….SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION”
______________________________________________________________________
Article 4, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature can-not be convened) against domestic Violence.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Oxford Dictionary
invade, v.
transitive.
To enter in a hostile manner…; to make an inroad…into.
___________________________________________________________
Cambridge Dictionary
invade
verb
2. to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage: Hundreds of squatters have invaded waste land in the hope that they will be allowed to stay.
3. to enter an area of activity in a forceful and noticeable way: Maria looks set to invade the music scene with her style and image.
4. to spoil a situation or quality for another person without thinking about their feelings: Famous people often find their privacy is invaded by the press.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Britannica Dictionary
invade
2a: to enter (a place) in large numbers – Ants invaded the kitchen. Tourists invaded the town. When tourists invade, the town is a very different place.
2b: to enter or be in (a place where you are not wanted) – She was invading my space. [=she was too close to me; she was in the place/space where I was or where I wanted to be]
3: to spread over or into (something) in a harmful way – The cancer eventually invaded the brain. Weeds had invaded the garden. Doubts invaded my mind.
4: to affect (something, such as your life or privacy) in an unwanted way – He thinks people were happier before TV and the Internet invaded our lives.
Excellent point, Olly. Same feds that don’t want barbed wire at the border to prevent foreign invasion have no problem installing barbed wire around the Capitol building to prevent citizen’s redress of greivences. Chances are they all have walls and fences to deter unwanted guests at their homes, too. Hypocrites.
Yes sir!
States can not control who enters them. That is fundamental to the US being a country. We have freedom of movement between states. International borders are the sole responsibility of the federal government.
“STATES SHALL…ENGAGE IN WAR [IF] ACTUALLY INVADED, OR [ARE] IN SUCH IMMINENT DANGER AS WILL NOT ADMIT OF DELAY”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
States can not control who enters them. That is fundamental to the US being a country…International borders are the sole responsibility of the federal government.
Really? So there is no provision in the constitution providing the states the right to secure their borders from a foreign invasion? Before you kneejerk into some Lefty talking point, consider the debates regarding increasing federal power vis a vis the Articles of Confederation. Do you believe the framers, representing states that were all effectively border states, would have ratified the constitution had they been told this document would prohibit them from defending their borders from invasion? While securing our international borders is the responsibility of the federal government, do you believe any state further than a lunchtime ride away from the seat of federal power would have agreed to sit idle as foreigners poured over their borders, waiting for the federal government to enforce the law? Let’s pretend for a moment they did. How long would it be before the states decided to take this power anyway, once the federal government told them they have no intention of enforcing the laws currently in place?
Congress could repeal all immigration laws and have a true open border and Texas or any other state could not do squat about it. Our country was like that for the first 100 years. Immigrants are not an invaliding army it takes true derangement to fail to see that.
Sammy, the Soviet Democrat Marxist Useful Idiot shill let his underwear show with this slip:Immigrants are not an invaliding army it takes true derangement to fail to see that.
It takes a very poor sophomoric Soviet Democrat agent brainwashed with Marxist theology to hope to convince normal Americans that Illegal Aliens illegally crossing the border are immigrants.
Immigrants, for Marxist cult acolytes like Sammy, are those people who complete a large mountain of paperwork, pay a long list of fees, submit to background checks, vetting, and waiting, physical exams, vaccinations, immigration interviews outside of the USA, etc, to finally receive an immigrant visa. Criminals do not go through that process… that’s why they are criminals, not immigrants.
Illegal Aliens/Replacement Soviet Democrat Voters are criminals. And every Soviet Democrat sophomoric apparatchik sent here to attempt to tell normal Americans they’re actually immigrants isn’t going to change that fact.
And when the Federal government fails to do its job ?
When it fails to follow the laws that congress enacted ?
As Scalia once said – the constitution is not a suicide pact.
The entire point of Turley’s essay was that we have a big problem that we can not duck.
An understanding of the constitution that does not work imposed by force without remedy on the people, is FAILURE that can not endure.
Oricinalsims is the correct way to read the constitution – not as a matter of ideology, but as a matter of the rule of law.
There is no guarantee that the constitution works as written.
The 18th amendment was a failure and was later repealed.
But to know if the constitution or law works so that we can know whether and how we need to change it, we must follow the law and constitution, and we must agree on what following it means.
That is NOT agreeing on what it SHOULD be. We pass laws or amend the constitution to change what they SHOULD be.
But to know what should be, we must know what is and then evaluate how that works so that we know how to change it.
Turley appears to be tacking towards evaluating Texas’s actions as constitutional. Why ?
Because there MUST be a constitutional remedy if the exceutive fails to follow the law, the courts fail to require the law to be followed, and the congress fails to reign in the executive.
When things do not work – there must be SOME way to fix that, and the constitution can NOT require that we ride it slowly into h311.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rhtLx08sAqc&pp=ygUXSG9sZCBvbiBJJ20gY29taW4gVHJ1bXA%3D
Jonathan: I call your column the “waffle” column of the year. You start by claiming Secy. Mayorkas is an “unmitigated disaster”. Then you waffle by saying there is no basis to impeach him. Mayorkas is not the problem. He has been working with the Senate that just came up with a bill to fix the border problem. Don’t blame the Secretary because House MAGA Republicans have rejected the deal.
Then you admit that a series of SC decisions has affirmed that states have no role to play in immigration or border enforcement. But you waffle again by complaining that the SC has “left states as mere observers to their own destruction”. You seem to think states, like Texas, should have the ability to secure their own borders. Otherwise, you claim it “reduces our system to a mere Potemkin village, a facade of constitutional powers with little ability to protect them”.
It’s pretty clear the states, like Texas, have no authority to police their international borders. That is the sole prerogative of the federal government under our constitution. So why do you keep waffling on the issue?
Dennis,
No Mayorkas is not the problem.
The current failure is the problem.
That failure is NOT a failure of existing law. While we have had problems at our borders of varying scale since the 60’s. Those were orders of magnitude smaller than the mess now.
That mess is specifically the result of the Failure of Biden/Mayorkas to follow existing immigration law.
Would doing so make everything perfect ? Nope.
We can not even agree on what perfect is, so perfect is not acheivable.
Would it resolve the vast majority of current problems ? Absolutely and nearly everyone knows it.
You conducted an experiment and it backfired.
Should we pass new immigration law ? Absolutely – but not in response to the current mess.
That was caused by the failure of mayorkas to follow the current law.
All that is necescary to “fix” the current mess is to follow the existing law.
Any new immigration law should be extensively publicly debated – we ALL have a stake in immigration law.
It should not be concocted by half a dozen senators in shady back room deals.
6 Senators behind closed doors have no more legitimacy than MAyorkas acting on his own or at the direction of Biden.
He has been working with the Senate that just came up with a bill to fix the border problem. Don’t blame the Secretary because House MAGA Republicans have rejected the deal.
Dennis, Obama is ignoring existing law. Why would he obey a new law?
Iowan2: What century are you living in? You say “Obama is ignoring existing law”. Obama has been out of office since 2017!
Dennis,
Do you accept that what is occuring right now – is not working ?
Forget Texas, if we continue to refuse to enforce existing immigration law, we are seeing illegal immigration increase by about 100,000/month each year. It is over 300,000 now. If we do nothing it will be 400,000 next year.
Assuming that you accept that what we have now is not working,
What do we do about it ?
You say we need new laws – I agree. But not because the old law is broken and causing this mess. But because I would prefer to see much more legal immigration and ZERO illegal immigration.
No matter how much legal immigration we chose to have, our choices are meaningless if we allow significant illegal immigration.
300,000 illegal immigrants a month – means we have have no control over who immigrates to this country.
Actually it is WORSE than that – it means we have given Mexican Drug Cartels control of who immigrates to this country.
The peak illegal crossings under Trump was 70,000/month in 2019. In Dec 2020 that number was down to 35K per month for the year and dropping. Currently it is 10 times that.
The correct number of illegal immigrants crossing the border is ZERO.
That is the only number at which the citizens of this country get to decide who comes here – rather than the cartels.
The failure to fund the border wall – which has been authorized by law since 1986 is the reason that the number is not close to zero.
But the failure of the Biden administration to enforce the laws we currently have is the reason that december 2023 had ten times as many illegal crossings as Dec. 2020.
You say TX does not have authority over the border. The federal government does, and there are federal laws passed by congress regarding border enforcement, and those are not being followed.
So why would this back room deal by 6 senators result in law that would be followed ?
President Biden has no more unilateral authority over the border than Gov. Abbott.
You want Abbott to follow the law and constitution – but you do not want Biden to.
I do not care if Congress passes a new immigration law. It will not work if Mayorkas and Biden continue to ignore the law.
I would like to see a bipartisan effort to write new immigration law.
But I expect that to take several years.
It should be carefully considered, debated publicly, it should be an election issue – though not in this “throw the lawless bums out” that we are seeing. To be clear – that is a failure on the part of democrats. – Republicans SHOULD be demanding that we “throw the bums out”
Democrats should be trying to determine what the american people want – not what 6 senators in back rooms want.
Regardless, given that is how you have chosen to solve the problem – then lets make the election a referendum on the proposed new immigration law. Do you think the new law is such a good solution you will bet your parties future on it ? Because that is what is happening.
Regardless there is no reason to care about new immigration law, unless we can beleive that whatever the law is the president will enforce it.
We KNOW Trump will enforce the law.
Right now we KNOW that unless his feet are held to the fire Biden will not.
And that is why this is an election issue.
As to the constitutional issues – Turley is starting to grasp that Abbott has a very important point.
The constitution is a contract – no state would ever have ratified it, if it did not bind the federal government to follow the laws passed by represenatives and senators elected by the states acting in congress.
If the president refuses to enforce the law regarding our borders – then Biden has breached the contract that is the constitution.
Arguably the constitution itself is then void.
We had a civil war in 1860 because states wanted to breach the contract that is the constitution.
Right now we have a president that is in breach.
President Biden’s failure to follow our laws is no different from the confederates that overran Ft. Sumter.
Today it is the president that is breaking the contract. Not the states.
Dennis McIntyre/Biden’s Baghdad Bob, was dispatched here by Bribery Biden to regurgitate this line: Jonathan: I call your column the “waffle” column of the year.
Savage, how Dennis/Baghdad Bob could talk to Professor Turley like that – with them apparently being on a first name basis friendship in how Dennis/Baghdad Bob addresses him with every post by his first name.
And every time we think Dennis/Baghdad Bob can’t come up with a lie or a deflection bigger or more obvious than this one… Dennis/Baghdad Bob says ‘hold my meth pipe that Hunter Biden autographed and watch this’
Dennis/Baghdad Bob enjoys his job coming here to lie to everybody. And I enjoy coming here to point out what everybody already knows: he’s a pathological – and pathetic – liar that manages to make Biden’s designated White House Spokesliar, Cringe Jean-Pierre look somewhat competent.
Sign an organ donor card Denis/Baghdad Bob – do at least one thing useful in your otherwise meaningless life.
“. . . fix the border problem.”
Wait.
The Left’s position for some three years has been that there is *no* problem at the border. But suddenly — in an election year, when the Left wants a boondoggle bill passed — there is a problem?
Yet again, the Left’s MO: The ends justifies the means.
SCOTUS is 6 non-leftists and 3 leftists, but 9 anti-states rights justices. Not going to end well for this country.
Judges and Justices must be impeached and convicted with enhanced severe penalties for willfully diminishing, undermining, and subverting the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for failing to adjudicate impartially, and for being partial.
Being organized with weapons is not a stipulative, elemental requirement to “invade” any sovereign territory, Professor. I often wonder how our bettors (Professor, Congress, el Presidente, Justices on the Court, etc.) would respond if their personal fortunes, families, properties and resources were ‘squatted’ upon by people from foreign lands without permission to do so. Scratch that. We all know what would happen, we’d have infinitely more demand that immigration laws be obeyed and enforced.
At what levels of numbers of illegal aliens and foreigners does an invasion occur? At what percentage of U.S. ‘residents’ does that invasion occur? At 6%? At 25%? At 51%?
Normally I agree with Professor Turley, but on this point I disagree. We have only to look at Ancient Rome for the answers and the lessons.
ONE-MAN, ONE-VOTE DEMOCRACY IS THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT
________________________________________________________________________________________
“I’ll have those ——- voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”
– Lyndon B. Johnson
_______________________
The Mexican, Haitian, African, and various and sundry flotsam invaders are illegal alien VOTE INVADERS who will vote Democrat for the next 2,000 years.
The immigration law of the Founders was NEVER legally abrogated; Lincoln unconstitutionally imposed martial law, illicitly usurped power through the commission of unconstitutional violence and “fundamentally transformed” the United States of America by killing one million Americans.
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) are importing democrat voters to eliminate all opposition and secure the liberal democrat vote forever in order to fulfill Karl Marx’s motto: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” as administered by Karl Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat,” under Karl Marx’s principles of central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth, and social engineering.
If the top general of the Ukrainian military, who has broad support of the military, could end the war but Zelensky may attempt to remove General Zaluzhny, shouldn’t the Ukrainian people and the world support General Zaluzhny if it brings about peace?
Yes. Let’s see: peace, versus, more war including running up to WW3 and nuclear armageddon. I’ll take the option that leads to peace, thank you.
Trump had the border pretty well secured under existing federal law. It stands to reason that if Biden would enforce existing laws the way Trump did, the open-border problem would be largely solved. So . . . all this garbage about new legislation, and a legislative package deal in Congress, is superfluous – perhaps no more than political theater. No new legislation is needed. Maybe the only reason the whores in Congress pretend it is needed – besides being able to prance in front of TV cameras – is that their eyeballs look like dollar signs as they salivate over tens of billions more of taxpayers’ money to go to their pet projects — including enriching their political donors, as usual.
OldManFromKS,
Well said and you are right.
Members of Congress to include some Democrats have said the same.
Allowing up to 5,000 illegals a day, over a 5 day average is just plain dumb.
And tying this to the $60 billion to the Ukraine is BS.
Yeah, I mean, being over $34 trillion in debt, where is this $60 billion going to come from? We’re in a death spiral and the only way to stop it is to (a) stop having budget deficits — i.e., don’t add any more to the national debt — and (b) grow the economy to bring down the debt-to-GDP ratio which is presently at an unsustainable 123%.
The rubber is starting to meet the road. All these warm and fuzzy feelings about illegal aliens is beginning to evaporate because the bill has come due to feed them, house them, police them, take care of their medical needs, and deal with the displaced citizens of whatever city the herd has landed in. Unlike the Federal government, cities like New York, do not have an unlimited budget, and they can not print their own money. The heart of the whole liberal/left establishment is PRETENSE, and has been for decades. It is the same with the whole “blacks are victims of white racism” nonsense. That narrative has been pushed for decades now, and most large inner cities have become overrun with black hooligans, convinced that they are victims of oppression, and they are doing their best to make it up by stealing and killing, etc. The Reality can not be avoided much longer on immigration, civil rights, social justice, and the financial weakness of the country. Not to mention all the war-mongering stupidity. The crash is coming, and I do not think it is going to be pretty. There are too many brain-dead people in the country, and they will not be able to handle the upcoming repression that needs to take place.
Jonathan Turley wrote: I have previously expressed my disagreement with the two articles of impeachment, which present their own inherent dangers to the underlying constitutional standards.
Your articles are generally worth reading, Mr. Turley, but there is also the comic relief of watching you desperately avoid saying the obvious out loud. Just can’t figure out how to split that baby!
What sections of your Constitution say a President or one of his appointed officials are complying with the Constitution and their oath of office by deliberately refusing to enforce the existing laws of the country? Blatantly and repeatedly lying under oath to Congressional oversight committees is perfectly Constitutional? When did that cease being at least a repeated felony committed against an elected Congress?
If impeaching Mayorkas for refusing to enforce existing immigration laws, and repeatedly and openly lying to Congressional oversight hearings that the border is secure is within constitutional standards – as a legal scholar, tell your readers what Constitutional standards allow that behavior in office? Any particular sections of the Constitution that come to mind you would like to share with us?
Or how about trying this approach, Mr. Turley: What would Mayorkas have to do now that he hasn’t done so far that would lead you to write “that behavior does not meet the constitutional standards for what he can and can’t do in office, and now it is Constitutional to bring articles of impeachment”?
Really hard for you to write against your Democrat roots, clearly. And thus my amusement at watching you fart and tapdance around stating the obvious on this and other matters.
Just as when election day arrives and the choice is between Trump and his policy record regarding Illegal Aliens (and the economy) and another four years of Bribery Biden and his policy record… you’ll roll with hopes of another four years of Biden instead of another four years of Trump.
To Old Airborne Dog: You are entitled to your opinion and free to express it. I found your commentary to be disrespectful.
I am not sure about disrespectful, but I think Old Airborne has a valid point or two. If Mayorkas’ compete failure to do hos job is not impeachable, what is? He has not done his job. He is being paid to do a job, and whether thru negligence, incompetence, or sheer willfulness, the only remedy is not in Biden firing him. Congress also has a say. He has, at the very least, betrayed his public trust. From wiki:
“Since 1386, the English Parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc.[9]
Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive “rendered himself obnoxious,” and the Constitution should provide for the “regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” James Madison said that “impeachment… was indispensable” to defend the community against “the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, “loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.”[10]
The process of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and convicting in the Senate is complex, made to be the balance against efforts to remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It was George Mason who offered up the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as “high misdemeanor,” “maladministration,” or “other crime.” Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who “misbehave.” Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved “for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust.” As can be seen from all these references to “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the definition or its rationale does not relate to specific offenses. This gives much freedom of interpretation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. Constitutional law, by nature, is not concerned with being specific. The courts, through precedence and the legislature, through lawmaking, make constitutional provisions clear. In this case, the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) acts as a court and can create a precedent.”