The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has blocked border enforcement by the state under Texas’s SB 4. Many of us had predicted this result given the prior precedent of the Supreme Court on the federal preemption of state immigration laws. However, the opinion also rejected the invasion theory made by states under Article 1, Section 10 and the “State War Clause.” I also previously discussed how this interpretation would fail due to the text, intent, and history of the underlying constitutional provision.
The lawsuit had a good-faith basis in challenging the scope of federal preemption and seeking to regain some room for state officials to protect their border. Texas and other states have been reduced to passive observers as the Biden Administration maintains an effective open border. The state is then expected to deal with the massive burden of the influx. While I agree with the Fifth Circuit that it is largely locked into the existing precedent in cases like Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399 (2012), finding “field preemption” of state immigration laws. The state can now seek a review with the Supreme Court itself.
In the 2-1 opinion, Chief Judge Priscilla Richman upheld the district court’s preliminary injunction, but it is effectively a ruling on the merits since it had to find a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits to rule in favor of the federal government.
She found that that the detention and removal provisions conflict with federal laws and policies on granting access and asylum status for immigrants pending review. It is a bitter recognition for the state that the open border conditions are the product of federal laws and policies. The majority noted that:
“The Supreme Court in Arizona spent considerable time and ink in explaining how the removal procedures work under federal law. ‘Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter.’ The Texas and federal laws are not congruent on this score. The Supreme Court also explained that ‘[a] principal feature of the [federal] removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.'”
Judge Andrew Oldham dissented and argued that “The people of Texas are entitled to the benefit of state law right up to the point where any particular application of it offends the Supremacy Clause. And Texas state officials should be trusted at least to try sorting those constitutional applications from any potentially unconstitutional ones.”
The rejection of the State War Clause argument is important for future cases in other states. The panel declared:
“Texas has not identified any authority to support its proposition that the State War Clause allows it to enact and enforce state legislation regulating immigration otherwise preempted by federal law. One would expect a contemporary commentator to have noticed such a proposition. Instead, in The Federalist No. 44, James Madison glossed over the portion of the State War Clause at issue here by writing: ‘The remaining particulars of this clause fall within reasonings which are either so obvious, or have been so fully developed, that they may be passed over without remark…’
Thus, we cannot say Texas has persuaded us that the State War Clause demonstrates it is likely to succeed on the merits.”
The State War Clause provides:
“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.”
Texas insisted that the massive numbers coming over the border is an invasion, particularly given the role of cartel gangs in organizing the effort. As I previously wrote, Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution bars states from conducting foreign policy or performing other federal duties, including the power to “engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
That language was not the manifestation of a new deal with the states. It was largely taken from the much-maligned Articles of Confederation. Despite wanting to strengthen the powers of a federal government, the Framers incorporated the original recognition that a state can always act in self-defense in the face of an invasion.
This argument is usually combined with the Guarantee Clause of Article IV of the Constitution that states that the federal government must protect the states “against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” However, the reference to invasion was clearly used more narrowly to refer to the armed incursion of a state or nation.
In his Report of 1800, James Madison discussed the Guarantee Clause in relation to the enactment of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. He noted that “[i]nvasion is an operation of war.”
What constitutes an “invasion” in a colloquial sense is highly subjective. When Benedict Arnold took 1,600 men over the northern border into Canada in 1775, it was rightfully called an invasion. Yet when millions pour over the southern border, it is called lax enforcement.
The legal difference is obvious. One was an organized national force seeking to take over a country. The other is a collection of people from various nations seeking to join this country. Yet, for border states, the distinction easily can be lost in the costs and the crime associated with runaway illegal immigration.
It is clear that the Constitution’s references to “invasion” meant an organized foreign army. When the Constitution was ratified, the federal government had only a small regular army, and border states were legitimately concerned about an invasion by hostile foreign powers or their surrogates.
The failure at our border is a problem of competency rather than the Constitution. If “invasion” can be defined this broadly, any lack of border security could be defined as an invasion, from illegal drug imports to illegal gang activity.
The theory has been rejected by various trial and appellate courts. This issue will again be before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Abbott, in an en banc review in April.
Annex Mexico send the message (Trump) – We the People of the United States are Annexing The Six Mexican States that Boarder the United States of America. as American Territories. Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Caohila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas are now hereby Annexed and under the authority if the U.S.A..
Move In, Declare Marshal Law, Lock it Down, Clean it Up, Tighten the Boarder- Just Like Israel is doing in Gaza as we speak.
I don’t want them. I don’t want to be responsible for them. Now if you want to mount a serious law enforcement measure against the cartels to break their back since Mexico seems incapable, that’s fine.
Understand your point, but we need a permanent DMZ like N&S Korea.
Security Zone controlled by the U.S.
Move in, figure out where to draw the Line, and Clean up.
(And take the Rio Grande River and Gulf of California in the process.)
A fortified border with a deep buffer zone, say 50 or 100 miles, pick a number, is sensible.. Something like the State of Free Lebanon back in the early 80’s would go a long way toward protecting the southern border.
A wall, and then make it a military and public shooting range. Enter at your own risk. Make a few sections an artillery range.
currentsitguy said: “I don’t want them. I don’t want to be responsible for them. ”
Me, etiher. Maybe we could offer Mexico to have California (back) in exchange for completely closing the border. Mexico wins; the remaining 49 states win; California…. well, who gives a flying flagellation about those fools, anyway.
What happens if illegals protest at an abortion clinic? Does time stand still? Does the earth rotate in the opposite direction?
Some attacked the TNG. They are going to get the book thrown at them.
“. . . federal laws and policies on granting access and asylum status for immigrants” *at a port of entry*.
Anything else is *illegal* immigration. That is why countries have ports of *entry*.
That the Left keeps evading that fact, and allowing a bullrush at the borders, is one reason why the Left has caused Americans to sour on immigration.
Even migrants entering between ports of entry are permitted by law to claim asylum. This is discussed in the opinion.
“. . . claim asylum . . .”
Asylum is not supposed to be a catchall for hundreds of thousands of immigrants. It is supposed to be a very limited, emergency case. It is supposed to be based on verifiable fear of persecution.
Nope, legally they have to claim asylum at the nearest border nation. So most of them have zero legal right.
Mexico already emptied it’s criminal pit in the USA years ago.
Also, the Mexican cartels have effective governmental control of the northern Mexican states and are running the invasion. This constitutes an organized force.
Finally, it’s becoming clear that third countries like Iran and China are intentionally sending people across, along with other state government actors intentionally releasing incarcerated individuals into the US according to a presidential candidate leading in national polls.
I would vote as a circuit judge to send it back to trial to determine whether any intercepted individuals have testimony to any of this. One admitted to being a bomb maker according to reports.
It is a MAGA lie to say the border is open. Biden’s policies are not that much different then what has been standard over the last 30 years. The issue is that there are more people trying to get in. Now, I would love an open border. Then anyone who wants in just goes to a port of entry and presents ID and is allowed in. Only criminals would be turned back. Immigrants are great and are a great benefit to the US.
Also, states have zero authority to control who enters or exits their state. And that is how it should be.
If it were not an open border, why would Texas be deploying the NG?
Biden’s policies are radically different than all previous presidents. Even under Obama, the border was more secure. But now we have a illegal immigration crisis. Biden claims Republicans are blocking his power to do something about it. But it was never a problem for all the previous president admins at this level magnitude.
Yes. You would support letting illegals in to kill nursing students like Laken Riley.
Or, an illegal who raped a 14 year old girl who was mentally incapacitated.
https://thepostmillennial.com/illegal-immigrant-arrested-in-alabama-for-rape-of-mentally-incapacitated-14-year-old-girl
Immigrants are great and are a great benefit to the US. — Sammy
So you (and the left narrative) claim without proof.
Simply put, illegal immigrants claiming political asylum are actually economic refugees fleeing countries dominated and immiserated by the western banking cartel. Under this administration they are not only able to claim welfare benefits by simply walking across the border, but also issued work permits which dramatically increases the labor pool for lower-skilled jobs where they compete with US citizens — the proper economic term for these illegal immigrants is “threat labor”.
Illegal immigration is used by US corporations to prevent and reduce wage increases at the lower end of the scale while simultaneously (and hypocritically) claiming that no Americans are willing to do those jobs (because of those low wages).
The only person lying here is you.
I want to narrow the category of “illegal immigrant” only to criminal. Everyone else should be able to immigrate freely and legally. They would be able to enter the US and get a job and become productive members of society.
We did not have immigration laws until the late 1800s.
But by definition they are all illegal criminals.
There is a process to apply for entry into the US. Millions do it, correctly, every year.
These people do not. That makes them illegal criminals.
They do not become productive members of society. They are parasites on American society, and the taxpayers.
They come in, take peoples homes, attempt to kidnap and kill nursing students, they rape. They attack police. They rob.
We did not have immigration laws until the late 1800s. — Sammy
What you “want” is the continued domination of other nations (and the US) by the western banking cartel…
What I want is for the US government to withdraw all intelligence, military and police personnel from all foreign countries and stop dominating those countries political systems for the benefit of the western banking cartel. Allowing those nations to regain their political sovereignty would give their citizens the ability to determine their own fate(s) financially and economically — allowing them to get jobs and become productive members of society within their own countries.
Sammy, how much extra money are you willing to pay to support this illegal immigration?
Jails
Schools
Welfare
Medical Care
Etc.
There are costs associated with the Biden policies. Overdose deaths from drugs probably exceed the last stated 100,000 mark, most of them young. How would you deal with a grandchild who died from a drug overdose?
Immigration is good; there is no doubt about that, but we have a right to protect society from drugs, criminals, freeloaders, etc. We also need to be able to assimilate those immigrants who enter. How many immigrants would you permit? I’ll bet one billion people wouldn’t mind coming to the US. Would you take all of them in? How many immigrants per year is good for the US? Are you happy that some countries emptied their jails into the United States?
Should your Medicare and welfare be reduced because of illegal immigrants? The money has to come from somewhere.
Try looking further than your nose. My wife, grandparents, and extended family were primarily immigrants. We came legally to benefit America, not illegally, which you suggest is reasonable. Many waited long periods to get here, and some settled elsewhere, unable to enter. America became great because it dealt with things intelligently or better than others. Permitting a flood of immigrants like Biden is doing is not intelligent.
S. Meyer,
Speaking of freeloaders, Migrant influencer Leonel Moreno mocks US taxpayers who ‘work like slaves’ after urging fellow illegals to become squatters in American homes
https://nypost.com/2024/03/28/us-news/migrant-influencer-leonel-moreno-mocks-us-taxpayers-who-work-like-slaves/
There is a significant difference between immigrants like your family and mine who came to this country legally and most of the illegals invading as of late: They are freeloaders. Even long time Green Card holders, who did it legally, have said the same. And these new illegals drive down wages for everyone.
And then there are the ones who are straight up criminals. The ones who murder, rape, rob, steal etc.
Experts Warn Mass Migration Threatens US Food Security
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/experts-warn-mass-migration-threatens-us-food-security-5606928?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge&src_src=partner&src_cmp=ZeroHedge
“Dr. Michael Vickers has been a veterinarian for about 50 years and served on the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC),
The threat to the food supply is already apparent from the past cases of tuberculosis (TB) transmitted from illegal immigrants to dairy cows in Texas, he said.
Concerns are growing that it’s only a matter of time before U.S. agriculture experiences a fresh disaster on a grand scale, Dr. Vickers said.
“These people are just destroying our country. And our food supply is going to be a real critical issue,” he told The Epoch Times.
In recent years, thousands of Texas cattle have been slaughtered after being infected with drug-resistant TB through contact with illegal aliens who end up working in dairies, Dr. Vickers said.”
Sammy, you willing to give up or having to pay substantially more for a burger for an illegal?
“. . . countries dominated and immiserated by the western banking cartel.”
So banks make money by making people poor?
“. . . they compete with US citizens . . .”
They compete with those who, for the most part, don’t want those jobs?
Logic is always the casualty of conspiracy theories. And I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as the “right” to a job.
Why is it that xenophobes always focus on low-skilled immigrants? While ignoring shining examples like Musk?
Why is that leftists always ignore economics and forthright arguments…?
@Sammy ((Maybe his real name is USNAVY)::
You say: “Biden’s policies are not that much different then what has been standard over the last 30 years.” – Sorry but YOU ARE WRONG
___________________________
Immigration Chaos History Lesson for President Biden:
According to news reports, the Biden administration is considering housing Haitian migrants at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. has been used as a migrant detention facility several times in the past.
As a policy matter, there are suboptimal options, bad options, and terrible options. But given the Biden administration’s blatant abuse of mass parole for Haitian migrants in the last three years, it would be imprudent to import Haitians to the 45-square-mile Navy base in southern Cuba as there is a strong likelihood that many, if not most, would end up in the United States.
But the way our country has responded in the past to mercurial flows of Haitians off the island directly affects the volume of Haitians who attempt to flee the island for the United States.
We have a long and complicated history of responding to Haitians attempting to come to the United States.
1- Cuban President Fidel Castro announced in 1980 that he would allow any Cuban who wanted to leave Cuba to do so, reversing his previous prohibition on leaving the communist dictatorship.
– As a result of Castro’s edict, over 1,700 boats laden with people departed from the Cuban port of Mariel and headed north to Florida.
– Some 125,000 Cubans and approximately 25,000 Haitians entered the United States during the so-called Mariel boatlift.
2- On June 20, President Jimmy Carter declared a state of emergency and established the Cuban-Haitian Entrant Program, or CHEP.
– As the Supreme Court recounted in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., “On September 23, 1981, the United States and the Republic of Haiti
entered into an agreement authorizing the United States Coast Guard to intercept vessels engaged in the illegal transportation of undocumented
aliens to our shores.”
3- In 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued Presidential Proclamation 4865. This was directed at the “ongoing migration of persons to the United States in violation of our laws,” which he called “a serious national problem detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
A-) Those arrivals, Reagan’s proclamation read,
– had “severely strained the law enforcement resources of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and have threatened the welfare and safety of communities in that region.”
b-) As a result, Reagan signed Executive Order 12324, ordering the suspension of migrants coming to the United States by sea.
– He also ordered the U.S. Coast Guard to enforce the suspension by interdicting any vessel in international waters carrying migrants and returning the vessel and its occupants “to the country from which it came.”
C-) According to a 2011 Congressional Research Service report, the Reagan administration established an agreement with Haiti
– to interdict (i.e., intercept and search) suspected Haitian vessels that departed from Haiti and were bound for the United States.
– Most Haitians fleeing the country were considered economic migrants.
D-) From 1981 through 1990, according to the Congressional Research Service,
– “22,940 Haitians were interdicted at sea. Of this number … 11 Haitians qualified for asylum in the United States.”
4- A coup deposed Haiti’s first democratically elected leader in September of 1991.
A -) U.S. officials debated whether Haitians should be forced to return to their country. The Coast Guard suspended repatriations for a period of several weeks.
B-) President George H.W. Bush worked with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
– to persuade countries in the region to take a few hundred Haitians scooped up by the Coast Guard.
C-) As described in the Sale Supreme Court case, “during the six months after October 1991, the Coast Guard interdicted over 34,000 Haitians.”
D-) The Department of Defense set up temporary processing and screening facilities at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay,
– which only had a capacity of approximately 12,500 persons.
E-) The migrant flows from the island continued. In the first three weeks in May 1992 alone,
– the Coast Guard intercepted 127 rickety vessels carrying 10,497 illegal aliens, causing the Navy to determine that it could no longer accept aliens
at Guantanamo.
5- This left the United States between a rock and a hard place. Bush had to choose between “allowing Haitians into the United States for the screening process or repatriating them without giving them any opportunity to establish their qualifications as refugees.”
A-) Bush chose the second option and issued Executive Order 12807,
– which revoked Reagan’s executive order and replaced it with a similar order suspending the entry of illegal aliens coming by sea and repatriating
those interdicted beyond the territorial sea of the United States.
6- Upon taking office, President Bill Clinton did not modify Bush’s executive order.
A-) The Supreme Court held in the Sale decision that neither Section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 nor Article 33 of the United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees applied
– to actions taken by the U.S. Coast Guard in international waters.
B-). The holding in Sale has not been overruled, which means that Biden could, with the stroke of a pen, order the U.S.
– Coast Guard to interdict vessels filled with Haitians outside the territorial waters of the United States (12 nautical miles) and return them to Haiti or
other countries in the region willing to accept them.
7- The United States has been more than generous in its approach to Haitians fleeing their home country. In the past few years alone, the Biden administration has adopted policies that have made it significantly easier for thousands of Haitians to enter America and remain here.
A-) In 2022, the Biden administration resumed the Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program, which was first established in 2014.
– This program allows “eligible U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to apply for parole for their family members in Haiti.” Further, it “enables
family members who are approved for parole to come to the United States before their immigrant visa priority dates become current.”
B-) Additionally, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas extended and redesignated
– Temporary Protection Status for Haiti, allowing current recipients to continue receiving its benefits through Aug. 3 upon re-registering.
C-) The redesignation allows Haitian nationals “who have been residing in the United States since Nov. 2, 2022, to apply for [Temporary Protection Status] for the first time.”
– As of March 2023, over 116,500 Haitian natives are covered by Temporary Protected Status, allowing them to work in the United States without fear of deportation.
D-) Furthermore, on May 17, the Biden administration updated its review process for managing Haitian, Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan arrivals,
— stating that “The U.S. government may grant advance travel authorization to up to 30,000 noncitizens each month to seek parole ….”
E-) Under this program, 85,300 Haitians were granted parole in the United States from January to September of 2023.
“The failure at the border is a problem competency not the Constitution” writes Professor Turley…and I disagree. This isn’t about competency, this is a policy driven by the leftists in Biden’s administration. To use a trite and tired cliché, this is a feature, not a bg.
Please, allow me to explain Marxist jurisprudence: when white people settle in a territory, that’s an invasion; when terrorists invade white people for the expressed purpose of killing them, that’s progress.
I’m not defending it. That’s just how lefties roll.
In Other News: “Russia, Cuba, and Nicaragua send troops to walk across U.S. southern border during Operation Red Dawn III, while claiming asylum.”
~+~
The Russian embassy in Washington, DC proffered that troops crossing the border were not an invading army, but rather “Undocumented Migrant Expeditionary Forces”, a claim supported by the Biden Administration and most members of Congress.
Russian Ambassador Alexei de Sadeski said these undocumented migrants plan to apply for day laborer positions at various Air Force bases at Minot, ND, Great Falls, MT as well as Joint Base Lewis McChord and the Pantex Plant in Carson County TX.
“These new asylum seekers plan to become productive members of society. There is no need to send the US Special Forces team known as the Wolverines to spread disinformation.” de Sadeski said in a statement he provided to MSNBC.
The 10th Amendment plays a role. The Constitution must specifically provide or the states retain the power. Similarly, delegation of power creating federal preemption must be specifically written and, the Court could easily so rule, also specifically enforced or the states retain the power.
Such imminent Danger can be read as a new topic from invasion notwithstanding the failure to use two sentences. The Framers wanted the Constitution short and concise. English language usage would have materially lengthened the document had the Framers not periodically joined two distinct concepts within a single sentence.
There are other examples where certain words that might be modifiers are instead found to create new rights, place new limits, or in some cases expand Congressional power due to the strict verbiage diet of the Constitution.
David Eyke said: “English language usage would have materially lengthened the document had the Framers not periodically joined two distinct concepts within a single sentence”
I’m thinking of a sentence that references both the need for a militia and the right to keep and bear firearms, as another example.
This is not a “problem of competency.” The elimination of border controls is a deliberate policy. It was implemented by executive order and is maintained by the refusal to take executive action to change it. Biden has never bothered to explain why. Possible motives are:
1. Illegal voting.
2. Eventual legal voting after amnesty or when children born in US to illegal immigrants reach 18.
3. Increasing the census count in blue states for purposes of representation and funding.
4. Reducing wages of the unskilled.
5. Ideological commitment to “equity.”
If forced to explain, Biden would become even more unpopular. So he never will.
Daniel, I commented after you but I hadn’t read your comment yet. We agree, this isn’t a factor of competency, this is POLICY.
hullbobby and Daniel: Add me, makes three. (And many more)
In numerous prior posts here, I have mentioned the alternative motive(s) for Biden and Democrats to enhance immigration, both legal and illegal.
I’m feeling a little more ‘legal’ today.
I specifically remember when SCOTUS’s Massachusetts v. EPA acknowledged states’ standing to sue the federal government for malfeasance/nonfeasance of the federal administrative state due to the state’s “stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests” as a state, and that it was entitled to “special solicitude in a standing analysis.” The Fifth Circuit later cited this very language when ruling in favor of TX (and 20-something other states) when the states challenged enhanced DACA/DAPA under Obama.
I was hoping that the Fifth Circuit would again find “solicitude” to favor TX’s position in this present controversy. But at least it heard (and addressed) the appeal on the merits rather than dismissing under “preeemption.”
One other motivation may be to allow incrreased legal voting by illegal immigrants in state and local elections in blue states.
Daniel,
Well said and great comment.
The illegals are sucking up billions of dollars in taxpayer funded food, housing and medical care. As it is, Medicare is footing the bill for millions as illegals use the ER as their primary care.
Democrats would rather bankrupt those programs for illegals rather than citizens all for those 5 things you list.
“4. Reducing wages of the unskilled.”
Daniel, if the wages fall, who benefits? The rich benefit from cheap labor.
I wonder if the young Marxist revolutionaries of the Democratic party bother to think more than one level deep.
S. Meyer,
Didnt Tyson food just lay off or close a plant putting a whole bunch of people out of a job, but Tyson said they would like to hire some 40,000 illegals to do the same job at a lower cost?
Marxists are totally dependent on 20% to do the actual work while the other 80% just pretend to do work. Then when the whole thing fails, they blame the 20%.
“Didnt Tyson food just lay off or close a plant”
Shucks, Upstate, it is hard to keep count. Someone else did and this is their list of successes with Build Back Better.
Walmart is closing 23 stores in 8 states (all blue).
Target is closing 9 stores in 4 states (all blue).
Walgreens is closing 900 stores (mostly blue)
Bed bath and beyond is closing its remaining 360 stores.
Lowes has closed 50 stores.
Macy’s is closing 150 stores (mainly blue)
Starbucks has closed 61 stores (mainly blue)
Home Depot is closing 15 stores
Dollar Tree is closing 1,000 stores
Foot Locker is closing 400 stores
Gap is closing 350 stores
Party City is closing 24 stores (mainly blue)
Big Lots is closing stores in Cali and Colorado
Burger King is closing 400 stores
Best Buy is closing 20 stores
Boston Market is closing 27 stores
Kmart only has 2 stores left
Sears closed all but 22 stores
Regal Cinemas has closed 429 movie theaters
Kroger grocery chain has closed 413 stores
US Bank is closing 23 branches
Wells Fargo is closing over 60 branches
Capital One is closing 50 branches
Bank of America is closing 20 branches
Yikes!
Citation?
Prairie, as I said, this was sent to me, but I know some of it to be correct, and the rest seem correct. If you wish to confirm the accuracy, go ahead. Shall we prove that what Joe Biden said is true? Almost everything he said about the economy is a lie and practically the opposite of the truth.
S. Meyer,
I agree it sounds worrisomely accurate. I will try to track it down myself (I was hoping you had an easy link or two). 🙂 It is the sort of thing I want to share with people who still seem to be in the dark. Thank you for sharing!
You are welcome, Prairie. I don’t frequently save such data, but it is available. The problem is that however bad those numbers might seem, things are a lot worse.
Snopes says there are some inaccuracies and some outdated information. But, googling ‘stores closing 2024’ brings up quite a few concerning articles from established news sources, so, even if that Facebook post wasn’t totally right, I think, sadly, there are some concerning trends towards store closures (I say this cautiously, concerned there could be disinformation somehow in play).
To what degree some store closures are normal, is unclear to me, too.
Daniel said: “Biden… Ideological commitment…”
Sorry, that constitutes a clear oxymoron. And subjecting Biden to hyperbaric pressure will not effect a cure…
This is an invasion just irregular troops. Competency has nothing to do with it. It is an organized conspiracy of the present administration to flood the US with illegals, amnesty them and then give them the power of the vote. Ie-New York city giving non citizens the right to vote (struck down by the the state court as unconstitutional (state of New York constitution) and D.C. also giving non citizens the right to vote, including personnel of embassies. This is a power grab, pure and simple. If the courts cannot discern the distinction or the similarity then that right devolves on the people. It would seem to me that irregular non uniformed but otherwise armed individuals crossing the border are an invasion as well as others from hostile nations, terror organizations, cartels carrying in lethal drugs that devastate and kill hundreds of thousands of American citizens, are an invasion. Just like the riots of 2020 were an insurrection but they were performed by the correct political side so nothing was done despite many deaths and billions of dollars of damage.
On the other hand the riot of 1/6/2021 was an “insurrection”, easily repaired and 1 unarmed person was shot and killed by a rogue policeman. Yet the perpetrators of that riot have basically all been citizens and held for long months and sentenced to incredible sentences. With a committee that had secret meetings with contradictory information hidden away behind passwords and totally stage managed. Robespierre would have been proud. Che would have clapped. Beria would have filled the prisons (oh wait a minute, the DC courts and the FBI are doing that)
When the people have had enough, where are they going to turn their anger: on the corrupt administration that despises them, the news media that berates them and insults their intelligence and hard work, the elites that only want their stock market portfolios to go up, irrespective of the damage it does to those who work for a living and struggle day to day with the economic malfeasance of this administration.
This administration is turning the country into a powder keg.. Anger that is not dealt with appropriately leads to worse things, especially when citizens see common sense ignored and their families suffer and then they start to think, “I have nothing to lose, why not?”. I think I may want to go out and build a shelter today. it’s good for tornados political or otherwise.
GEB,
Well spoken!
GEB,
Well said and great comment!
just like the Titanic, you can only take on so much water before the ship goes down. The illegal invasion is the needle that will break the camels back. When you have millions of uneducated, no skill people who can’t speak our language flooding our cities the fact that we are paying for everything they need with a national debt. approaching 33 trillion dollars we are reaching the point of no return.
Anonymous, the leftists like NY’s Adams and MI’s Whitmore are giving money to illegals. How will this stop the invasion?
HullBobby,
NY governor Hochul is proposing to spend $2.4 billion in addition to the $1.9 billion spent in 2023.
While I understand the decision, I agree. Apparently, one judge does as well. When Biden opened the southern border when he came into office, he opened the door, and I call it an invasion. Today, Biden fights to keep the door open, which he unlocked, one he has the authority to close with a pen. He argues to close it, but on his terms, with concessions from Congress. Biden has a duty to protect the country and can do so without Congress. yet he has the audacity to blame it.
*DISAGREE
The president of Mexico recently established required conditions in which he would stop the invasion at our border. If he can stop the invasion, then he is the cause of the invasion. By setting conditions, this is an admission that his actions/inactions is an act of war. The president of Mexico is likely colluding with the Biden administration. Colluding with a foreign country to do harm to the USA is treason.
I have said before, and it is becoming more evident as time passes, that there looks to be no solution to our present national, cultural, or societal state of division utilizing our first three boxes provided to us as a means of change; that being the soap box (media/education industries), the ballot box ( our tainted election process at this point), and the jury box ( just refer to the latest events involving so many – letitia james, fanny willis, the 5th circuit and lastly that miseducated DEI admffirmative action radical Supreme jackson). That leaves only one box left to save this nation. I doubt we have enough patriots and brave citizens to utilize whatever means necessary to save us.
so you can’t defend your home either…just let the squatters just waltz in?
We need to jail EVERY SINGLE person helping Illegals! NGO, DOJ, Governors, Mayors, mayorkas, Biden, etc
Your logic is correct, but the current social situation with hordes brainwashed into following the siren calls of “free” everything has overwhelmed those of us still yearning for the nation originated by our founding fathers and the principles that led them to the revolution that freed us from tyranny. I doubt that, short of another civil war, we can prevail via our current infested government and media/education industries.
I don’t know why my comment above was entered under Anonymous other than I posted it from my phone rather than my PC.
we need to start JAILING Judges who are anti-America
That would require a conservative preponderance of judges and elected officials – of that we do not have at this time. The first 3 boxes of our weapons against tyranny (the soap box, the ballot box and the jury box) have been so infested with prog/left America-hating wokesters that they are no longer available for our use in determining the future of this nation. That leaves us, at this time, with only one box left if we are to save the nation as it was envisioned by our founding fathers.
Why do you think the Biden administration is so dead-set on eliminating the southern border?
This is no competency problem. This is orchestrated, purposeful white genocide in action.
It’s why radical leftist judges and politicians are FOR giving illegals the right to vote, the right to own a gun, and squatter’s rights. They are importing a foreign army of invaders.
At the top of the genocide list: White male Christian conservative patriots.
Enemies foreign and domestic. Sh*t’s about to get real in America.