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.
It’s another invasion – a conquest and occupation of a country – BEFORE the opening of hostilities, as is the case in America now.
Modern Americans sure know how to lose – Americans give up their country without even fighting the war.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“What the —- have you dastardly milquetoast bleeding-heart liberals done with our country?”
– The American Founders
Another caravan of several thousand heading for the open border because Joe Biden told them to, and Mexico is helping them:
https://twitter.com/Oscarelblue/status/1772301665137541226
Jonathan: This comment is directed at all the loyal followers of DJT who are donating to his legal defense fund. Ever wonder what the lawyers are doing with the hard earned dollars you give–maybe every month? Alina Habba is grateful because her law firm has earned at least $3.5 million in legal fees representing DJT–like the two E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuits Alina lost badly because of her incompetence, costing DJT almost $90 million.
But Alina is grateful for another reason. The Daily Mail has a headline today: “”Inside glamorous Trump lawyer Alina Habba’s lavish 40th Birthday celebration in St. Barts–where she gifted her pals with Dior accessories and stayed in a private villa at a luxury resort [Eden Rock Hotel]”. The nightly rate at Eden Rock is $2,277! Check out the article because it has a lot of photos of Alina and her “pals” at the St. Barts resort.
So Mr. & Mrs. Magadonian out there. You don’t have to wonder where your money is going. It’s going to pay for Alina’s lavish life style. Don’t you wish you could be there with her? Sure beats the Holiday Inn or Motel6!
Another bunch of BS coming from another communist. Alina no more lost the case than I did. The crooked judge would not let supporting evidence be presented to the jury. Read a little and fact check before running your ####ing mouth with MSNBC talking points.
Glen David Christensen: Which case are you referring to–E. Jean Carroll No. 1 or No. 2? In the one in January Alina was admonished several times by Judge Kaplan because she didn’t know how to introduce evidence. Read the court record. At one point in the trial Habba sent a letter to the Judge accusing him of failing to disclose the fact that he and Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan [no relation] once worked at the same law firm–accusing the judge of giving “preferential treatment” and a conflict of interest. In reply, Roberta Kaplan pointed out that while they did work at the same law firm their tenures overlapped by less than two years and she never worked directly with Kaplan who was a senior partner at the firm at the time. So their was never a “mentor-mentee” relationship as Habba falsely claim. In a follow up letter Alina admitted her spurious claim stating: “Since Ms. Kaplan has now denied that there was ever a mentor-mentee relationship between herself and Your Honor, this issue has seemingly been resolved”. Only one of Habba’s many mistakes at the trial.
Seems this is another bunch of BS coming from another fascist!
The most ridiculous case in the history of incoherent and hysterical Feminaziism. E. Jean Carroll never filed a rape or assault complaint, never provided an accurate date, never had anyone arrested or charged, never had any police record, never had a rape kit administered, never had any witnesses, never had any security video inside or outside Bergdorf Goodman, never had a sales attendant inside Bergdorf Goodman, never had any evidence and never had any case within the statute of limitations, it/that/she/her/hag did have a corrupt judge and court.
Money well spent to save America!!! You should take an honest look at the destruction you and those of the same ilk are reigning down on our once Great America…
Hey DM (rhymes with BM), now tell us how much Abbie Lowell is making off of Hunter and Kevin Morris.
Then the perfect incompetent from “Willy’S Lover” can overbill and earn $250 p/h (from taxpayers’ money) and happily spend it on successive, vacations “EXPENSIVE ON HIS LEVEL” with his Boss!!!
But Alina cannot go on a trip WITH THE MONEY SHE HONESTLY EARNS FROM THE SWEAT OF HER FRONT” (not from taxpayers’ money) AND SPEND IT THE WAY IT COME OUT OF THEIR OVARIES? And by the way, Alina earns a minimum average of US$1,500 dollars p/h!.
Finally a piece of advice: Envy is not good, envy kills the soul and poisons it
Christians, Jews, and many gentiles acknowledge the Biblical Ten Commandments of Moses from millennia ago.
Americans support the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the Founders but not the Naturalization Acts of the Founders?
That immigration law was never legally or legislatively abrogated; it was simply erased by Lincoln and Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” after the barbaric, unconstitutional, and liberal application of brutal kinetic military power, the senseless destruction of the country and the deaths of a million Americans.
Abraham Lincoln said he wanted to abolish absolutely reprehensible slavery, not the law of the American Founders.
Also, with reference to the variability of the definition of invasion, Karl Marx invaded and conquered America through his fellow traveler and proxy, Abraham Lincoln, having never set foot on U.S. soil and ultimately incrementally implementing the Communist Manifesto in this once-free nation.
Karl Marx’s was a non-invasion invasion not dissimilar to the current invasion of Texas and the rest of the United States by Mexico, Haiti, Africa, Central and South America et al.
Oh, and, of course, Americans reject the Constitution and Bill of Rights as they embrace central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering (sarc/on).
Did America fight World War’s One and Two to be free, or did it fight those wars only to be invaded, vanquished, and stripped of its population, having it replaced.
Every person in the world is an American-In-Waiting, waiting to immigrate and claim their extravagant and precious “free stuff” and “free status.”
Xi Jinping loves the erasure of America and globalization because globalization IS communism.
Karl Marx, Abraham Lincoln and Xi Jinping are loving it.
Right, comrades?
In Other News: “AOC Warns Congress That If Legislators Do Not Stop The Florida Governor from Transporting Illegals to New York City, Manhattan Island Will ‘Tip Over and Capsize.'”
~+~
Angered by Florida transporting illegal aliens to New York, AOC warned of dire consequences related to overloading the island that will cause a catastrophic event…culminating with the island tipping over and capsizing from the weight of all the undocumented migrants.
A fellow squad member suggested that deploying several batallions of Marines from Guam to SODO might balance the load or that rigging giant chains to The Bronx or New Jersey would hold the island taught. Yet she later retracted her suggestions as the former being too militant and the latter because chains are associated with racism and slavery.
@Darren
😂😂😂
Alhysteria O’Crazio Corkheads probably thought she was talking about her homeland, Perto Riko.
He meant to say America will capsize.
It did.
Isn’t it?
Professor Turley Writes:
“Texas and other states have been reduced to passive observers as the Biden Administration maintains an effective open border.”
***
Today House Speaker Mike Johnson sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer demanding that the Senate should start planning for the impeachment trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
The Republican House voted to impeach Mayorkas on February 13. However that vote was embarrassingly narrow for Republicans; passing by just 214-213. And there is virtually no chance the Democratic-controlled Senate will convict Mayorkas.
In fact one could say this whole impeachment exercise is just another Made-For Fox News spectacle; the type of which Republicans are wired to pursue. What’s more, the ‘grounds’ for this impeachment are dubious at best, according the article below published in The Hill on February 6th.
………………………………………
Republicans dedicate 15 of their 20-page articles of impeachment to Mayorkas’s “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law,” going through numerous provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
But while Republicans have spent ample time arguing that violation of immigration laws alone is grounds for impeachment, they haven’t devoted as much time to breaking down how Mayorkas has done so.
The bulk of the GOP argument fixates on language in the law that says migrants “shall” be detained while they await removal from the country.
It’s a standard that has never been met — the U.S. didn’t have enough beds to do so even in 1996, when the statute was updated.
It would be a logistical impossibility to hold in detention every migrant who crosses the border, and no administration has done so.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4449623-legal-experts-counter-gop-claims-that-mayorkas-broke-the-law/
^^ Paid DNC troll. Ignore.
Jonathan: Guess who are about to lose their law licenses for giving DJT illegal advice?
(1) JOHN EASTMAN: Yesterday a state bar judge in CA recommended that Eastman be disbarred. That recommendation needs to be confirmed by the CASC but in Eastman’s case it will be a formality. Poor John. He’s going to lose his law license because he joined the scheme to overturn a legitimate election. He asked for a pardon from DJT for his illegal conduct. DJT through him under the bus. Now Eastman is a criminal defendant in the Fulton County RICO case as well as being an unindicted co-conspirator in Jack’s Smith’s criminal case. This is what happens when you work for DJT! He will drop you like a hot potato if you no longer serve his interests.
(2) JEFFREY CLARK: He also faces disbarment in DC. Clark is in the second day of disciplinary hearings before the 3-member Board of Responsibility. Clark’s problem is that he desperately wanted to job of AG and he was willing to do anything to get DJT to appoint him–lying about 2020 election. His colleagues in the DOJ threatened to resign if he was appointed. That’s the only reason DJT didn’t appoint him.
So Eastman and Clark join a long list of other DJT lawyers–Jenna Ellis, Ken Chesebro, Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani–who have or will lose their law licenses. The only thing a lawyer has of real value is their law license. Without it they might as well hawk Bibles on Truth Social!
But no one forced any of the above to join DJT in his quest to hold onto power. Those were all voluntary acts that deserve no sympathy from the public–or anyone on this blog. And this is why we say, in the legal community, that MAGA stands for “Make Attorneys Get Attorneys”!
Did Alan Dershowitz lose his license for trying to help Al Gore and Joe Lieberman overturn the 2000 election?
Lawfare. Pure and simple. Progressives will rue the day. Ask Harry Reid.
“…MEN…DO…WHAT THEIR POWERS DO NOT AUTHORIZE, [AND] WHAT THEY FORBID.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, is the Constitution.
The Constitution holds dominion and enjoys supremacy.
Texas is de facto being adversely, harmfully, and deleteriously invaded and is “…in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Texas may engage in war.
All acts contrary to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution must be declared void by the courts.
The 5th Circuit has deliberately, willfully, and egregiously acted high-criminally, arbitrarily, and without constitutional basis by denying, voiding, and amending the Constitution and acting not on an objective and jurisprudential basis but on a subjective, partial, and political bias.
Concurring judges must be impeached and convicted, understanding that, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
No State shall,…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 6
This Constitution,…shall be the supreme law of the land;….
_______________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, states “INVADED.”
It does not specify or require any particular form, sort, or category of invasion.
Military actions include both overt and covert methods.
The trolls are out in force today, blaming the border crisis on Republicans. If anyone wants a textbook example of gaslighting, point them to those comments.
OldManFromKS,
Oh, yes. They keep shouting Republicans are to blame.
They ignored the Washington Times article I posted about how illegals were up some 37% since Biden took office, four times more than Trump and nearly three times more than Obama.
But it is Republicans fault, when Trump clearly showed it can be done with EOs, supporting the Border Patrol and ICE all of which Biden ended or will not support those organizations.
All lies they just keep repeating over and over, and ignoring the reality of the situation.
While I truly value both of your contributions on this blog, it seems a bit ridiculous to complain about the “pigs,” when you jump into their “pen” to “wrestle” with them. Turley allows these pigs to comment on his blog, and that of course is necessary, if we value the freedom of speech. But that doesn’t mean the entire comment section needs to be a sty, which is what ends up happening.
Nicely put Olly, but today’s topic is one which a lot of people want to vent upon.
You can’t blame them for being pent-up about the degradation of their Country (USA),
and they should comment with civility.
but today’s topic is one which a lot of people want to vent upon.
It’s not just today or this topic. It’s everyday and every topic. My comment didn’t blame anyone for “being pent-up about the degradation of their Country (USA). It was precisely about their “venting” that this blog has a pig sty section that they routinely wrestle in.
Got it (know who/what your talking about) – guess you’ve got to take the good with the bad.
The bright side is that Jonathan has given us at least something to work with.
You must commend Jonathan & Team for dutifully publishing this Labor or Love consistently.
I fully agree with you.
On another note; if you don’t have the option to post comments with a unique ID, you do have the option to “sign” your comments with something unique.
OLLY
@OLLY
Yes, they can be truly vile. I fully support them being able to post too. I don’t think it’s particularly difficult to see the vileness. Agreed, but – as things get more clear in terms of what people will and will not tolerate in this country, the trolls’ missives really have devolved into pure, unfiltered salaciousness, and it’s getting very, very old. They are here really just to waste pixels everyday, nobody is buying their garbage, and I do wish we could fumigate them as the cockroaches they are. C’est la vie. I would like to keep my freedom even if it means sociopaths like them are free to pollute a blog. At least we all see them as such, and we have solidarity in that regard. May they one day be relegated back onto street corners for their ranting.
Is there not a difference between “gaslighting” and “lying?”
Dictionary
gas·light
/ˈɡasˌlīt/
verb
manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning.
“in the first episode, Karen Valentine is being gaslighted by her husband”
_________________________________________________________________________________
lie
/lī/
noun
an intentionally false statement.
“the whole thing is a pack of lies”
Similar: untruth falsehood
used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression.
“all their married life she had been living a lie”
verb
tell a lie or lies.
“why had Wesley lied about his visit to Philadelphia?”
tell an untruth
get oneself into or out of a situation by lying.
“you lied your way on to this voyage by implying you were an experienced sailor”
(of a thing) present a false impression; be deceptive.
“the camera cannot lie”
Jonathan: It was a resounding victory for immigration rights yesterday when the 5th Circuit ruled Texas SB4 is and unlawful interference with the exclusive right of the federal government to enforce and control immigration laws.
But you seem to think the “State War Clause” is an off-ramp for the 5th Circuit to give TX the right to arrest and deport immigrants because ” a state can always act in self-defense in the face of an invasion”. That’s a tortured interpretation of the SWC. What “invasion”? You endorse the position of TX that “the massive numbers coming over the border is an invasion, particularly given the role of cartel gangs in organizing the effort”. You think the SWC should be “broadly” defined to include “illegal drug imports to illegal gang activity”.
Drug cartels or gang activity along the border is not the kind of “invasion” the SWC contemplates. That Clause is referring to an armed invasion by a foreign power. Besides, drug cartels don’t bring their product across our southern border and they certainly aren’t involved in organizing the waive of a million people trying to get into the US from as far away as Africa. You give them way too much credit than they deserve. I don’t think even the conservative 5th Circuit will buy that argument!
It was a resounding victory for immigration rights
There is no such thing as “immigration rights”
You call yourself a lawyer
The American Founders established these “rights” and “restrictions” within the year of the adoption of their Constitution and Bill of Rights and three times subsequently:
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
“You [JT] endorse the position of TX . . .” “You [JT] think . . .”
How did you get his arguments so wrong?
Was that intentional, like so many of your attempts to smear JT and the Right? Or was it just garden-variety sloppy thinking?
“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.”
Perhaps a bit too neat, esteemed (sincerely!) professor?
Was early European migration to this hemisphere an invasion? How about the Visigoths’ “migration” across the Danube? Or the wanderings across Asia and into Europe of the Great Khan and his Hordes? How does the Western Left now view the Jewish State of Israel?
History’s “invaders” brought their women, children, horses, religions, language and culture. They did not ask permission. None of these great migrations were solely military in nature. In many instances, the “migrants” were evading difficult circumstances in their native lands — drought, pressure from other population, pograms, etc. — and could be described as seeking a “better life.” The Visigoths even had a legitimate grievance over Roman abuse and false promises of citizenship. Some of today’s migrants (and their advocates) claim neo-colonial exploitation and proclaim “Reconquista.”
History’s migrants took land, resources and political control. Some of the “invasions” took years, decades, even centuries, involving small groups of people. Most of the peoples indigenous to the regions “invaded” were not welcoming (at least voluntarily).
I would suggest that this brightline distinction you posit between “invasion” and “migration” does not stand up to the test of human history. One might argue that it rests on Western conceit, originating in the now disintegrating Westphalian system? Let’s put it another way: how would Madison and the Founders have reacted to a mass movement into the fledgling United States representing 10% or 15% of the then US population?
And as I observed below, an invasion isn’t even necessary. Under the state war clause, imminent danger is sufficient to trigger action by the state.
Irony of ironies. If only you had been around to represent the now decimated Virginia Powhatan (Tsenacommacah) Indians due to the invading illegal immigrants from England.
Your coming is not for trade, but to invade my people and possess my country…Having seen the death of all my people thrice… I know the difference of peace and war better than any other Country. [If he fought the English, Powhatan predicted], he would be so haunted by Smith that he can neither rest eat nor sleep, but his tired men must watch, and if a twig but break, every one cry, there comes Captain John Smith; then he must fly he know not whether, and thus with miserable fear end his miserable life
– Chief Powhatan
Vaughan, A.T., 1978. “Expulsion of the Salvages”: English Policy and the Virginia Massacre of 1622. The William and Mary Quarterly: A Magazine of Early American History, pp.57-84.
It’s time to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security. It has been proven that we were safer without it.
Eliminate the KGB/Gestapo/FBI/CIA?
The communist American Deep Deep State “Swamp” Regime will NEVER allow free Americans in the Land of the Free to do that.
I’m very sorry, comrade citizen.
Total BS Mr. Turley! Pragmatism concerning the enforcement of our constitution is exactly why our country is in such a mess.
Would you have us believe that our forefathers would allow millions of military age men to enter our country illegally? Further believing that when our federal government refuses to stop the invasion that the forefathers did not allow the states to protect themselves?
Our forefathers fought the greatest power in the world to free this nation and would do the same to stop this invasion at our southern border. The forefathers gave us everything we needed in our founding documents to protect ourselves from both foreign and domestic invaders and tyrants.
It is naïve to believe that because those crossing the borders don’t have weapons in their hands now that they are not a organized assault on our nation. Your theory has been debunked repeatedly. Reports show that the Federal Government, UN and NGO’s are using Americans tax dollars to facilitate this invasion. Therefore, it is organized. Our government has placed entities outside the United States to facilitate those who have left their country to find economic advantages in America, to illegally fly into the country. Government admits they have done so too hide the numbers of illegal aliens entering the country. Last year there was more than 320,000 that were illegally flown into the country by the Biden administration, If we can believe this administration at his word.
Texas and every other state in the union has the constitutional right according to Article I section 10 clause 4 to defend themselves against invasion. It does not say anything about an army or being armed. Anyone with common sense understands that, facilitating millions upon millions of military aged illegal aliens flood into the country is a national security threat. This invasion endangers the lives of every American. The willful refusal on the part of the Biden administration to follow immigration law and the Constitution leaves no other option, then to rely upon the constitution for relief. That relief is given in article 1 section 10 clause 4.
In a recent article you described how Democrats are destroying democracy to save democracy. The first things that should be noted is we are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. Our forefathers took great measures to ensure we were not a democracy, knowing that democracies always end in tyranny. Democrats are destroying our Constitutional Republic because they desire dictatorship.
As for our Constitution, and the rule of law. A stance must be taken. Pragmatism or or Textualism. Pragmatism works actively against the Constitution and its Article VI requirements. Whereas a Textualism supports the Constitution as required in Article VI, and is the lawful way that all three branches of government are required to operate in both the federal and the states.
• Article VI clause 2; “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound, thereby, anything in the constitution, or laws of any state to the contrary, notwithstanding.”
• Article 6 Clause 3; “The senators and representatives, before mentioned, and the members of the several states, legislatures, and all the executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support This Constitution;”
There is not an excuse for the misinterpretation of Article VI clause 2 and 3, it’s deliberate. Our Constitution clearly requires Textualism.
Follow Our Constitution!
It’s The Law!
Claiming asylum? I don’t think so. I grew up in a border state and have lived in others, and since NAFTA, no, they are coming here to make money. They send money home, they buy property in their home countries, they often go back to visit wherever they are supposedly ‘fleeing’ on the weekend. It’s a scam, and it’s one that generationally, people now just expect to be able to exploit, and I tell you this from the trenches. It is largely a big flipping lie, and the dems know it. No other country on earth espouses their madness, quite literally no other country.
That said, I do wish we would reexamine our criteria for legal immigration – there are regular folks who might not be doctors or business people that would absolutely contribute to our society, and they should have the option to come. But once again, rather than sanity, we see secrecy and illegality from the democratic party to preserve their own elitism. It is impossible to take the likes of the squad seriously on issues like this. Bussing people to rich coastal cities was the most brilliant move for this issue ever conceived, those folks previously really had no option due to the disconnection of distance to see what the reality is. The reactions in those places, particularly Martha’s Vinyard, have been telling, and for them to presume to lecture the rest of us is preposterous.
Yes Sir, You speak the Facts and Truth. – Especially the Nicaraguans, they have been coming and going as they please for years (over a decade).
They have no regard for the Immigration Rules like filling for a work permit, permanent residency, or green card. They throw their trash on the ground with complete disregard to the place they are standing in, almost as to say FU America. It’s pathetic. They are growing in numbers and organizing network (grey crime), most buy Cars with 6 month of insurance from 3rd hand lots and skip out of the insurance & payments soon after that.
They send money home, it ultimately end up in the coffers of Daniel Ortega, who brilliantly ruled that some of the Nicaraguans cannot return to Nicaragua after defecting to the US. Forced into exile they come here and send money ‘home’, It’s like a Cash Funding Machine for Ortega’s Nicaragua.
The ‘refusenicaraguans’ (sic: a play on the word refusenik & nicaraguan) have invaded Costa Rica, a country roughly the size of ≈ West Virginia or Denmark – a true Republic. We fought them in the Contra War, which was waged between the FSLN-led government of Nicaragua and the United States–backed Contras from 1981 to 1990, to give them what Costa Rica has, but No they fought us. So what really pisses me off is, now they are here illegally; invading, begging, and expropriating all they can and sending it back home. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden should be brought up on treason charges and discharge.
@Anonymous
I was born and raised in New Mexico, and I am talking over 30 years of this nonsense at this point. This is not remotely new, and it’s interesting: back in the days following the Bracero program, I didn’t go to school with ANY kids from Mexico or Latin America, let alone Haiti or the Middle East. None. We had the Spanish, the tribes, a very small number of African Americans, and the Anglos, and that was pretty much it. This all became a thing after NAFTA and was *severely* exacerbated under Obama. People on the East Coast and in middle America never got to see or experience any of this before very recently, and it turns out they don’t like it either. The leadership of places like NYC can back the *bleep* off. Some of us have been dealing with this for a very, very long time, and it was bound to come to a head eventually. Biden absolutely espoused this virtually on day one, it was by design to run unfettered until the upcoming election, make no mistake. Our dems are pure, aristocratic evil. They do not give a whit about you or me or our Constitution, or even the people in question. To think we are heartless savages because we hate crime, previously unheard of diseases, and rape is just patently absurd. It isn’t xenophobia; that is the word of a petulant and entitled (and likely white, and wealthy) university child, and I do not know why we ever decided they were the ones in possession of wisdom or sense.
Me to, 30 Years ago (1990s) fresh outta college in McAllen TX, at that time there was only Red Grape Fruit and Orange Farms.
Military Hwy was mostly row crops (Lettuces, Onions and Water Mellon). and the Mexican/Anglo population would be 65/35% respectively.
(most of the Anglo number stems from Winter Texans).
But what happened thereafter was a complete wipeout. Military Hwy and the Orchards are now Subdivisions. That’s a shame because if you saw the fertile soil that was once open, it now covered with Houses. Reynosa (Mex) basically moved to our side of the river and invited all their extended Families to join them. I not complaining about the Mexican, these were/are well minded, courteous, educated, and understanding people, and a portion better class of Americans, then Anglo Americans from the North.
Mexican Farmers moved their families (Sons & Daughters) north to escape Mexico’s Politics and Cartel regimes. They new that a diaspora was the only answer to the rising problem. I guess the same diaspora that Central & South Americans are doing now – to a degree, meaning that the bulk are motivated by the US being a place that’s: Organized, Environmentally Clean, & Safe. A fresh canvas to make a new start.
They don’t realize that they bring with them the habits and understandings that made their Country a Political and Ecological Dump.
That’s what scares me about AOC – She doesn’t have a clue as to what she has done (The Invasion), They (Migrants) didn’t come here to trash this places into the place they came from, nor make it into Their culture. They came here for the Organized, Environmentally Clean, & Safe, American-Anglo style country that we are. Having said that, I am sure to catch some grief by Others that don’t feel this way, but for the future of America, it’s what I want to believe. MAGA
@Anonymous
Well, by and large, we are talking about third world countries that aren’t accustomed to having to share with other cultures; there are not a whole lotta white OR black folks in India or Pakistan or China or Juarez. Certainly none of our tribes. I DO believe in the melting pot, and I do not believe that ‘culture’ is the reduction to a set of religious beliefs or a restaurant menu. We are deeper than that as human beings. Many people these days come with zero intention of assimilating *at all*. It’s something I would never dream of doing merely *visiting* another country, and it’s gotta evolve. I love my friends from across the globe, and we all share a common optimism as people for what we can do with our time on this rock. That is something the dems take away from everyone they encounter.
James: (OT) Why was the state named “New Mexico?” I really don’t know, but that name is not helping us now, is it, ha ha!
@lin
Originally it was called ‘New Spain’. It was renamed later by the Spanish. Again, Spain had authority over most of our territory, and most of the territory south of us, for centuries, through sheer and awful brutality, basically what we are seeing in the Middle East today. Queen Isabella was once a very powerful monarch.
Our modern ideas of these things have zero to do with the history. The indigenous people of Mexico were beat up and conquered, too. It’s a great irony that the common language there is Spanish, that is not the native tongue in Mexico. My hometown is the oldest capital in the country – going on 700 years now (though it’s barely 600+, never the less, it was formally established back then). That predates the United states and a whole lot of other stuff.
Millennials and younger are flipping morons, and our colleges are worthless. No one learns this history. The only reason I know is because when I was a kid, we took New Mexico history as a requirement in the 7th grade. My hometown was so small, people of different stripes had no choice but to get along and learn from one another, and we did. The rest of the country is experiencing this for the first time in a good long while.
PS – Meh-hee-co is a Spanish word. You find many bastardizations by the Spanish of native words and phrases throughout these regions. In NM, years ago the tribes actually posted the correct spellings and pronunciations of places on things like overpasses, and I personally think that is just fine. They didn’t tear things down; just corrected the record. Our modern radicals are fools of the highest order.
James: thanks, did not know all this.
This is why the law is not being respected by our very citizens when they disrespect the actions or inactions of our courts
With the advent of the pasteurization of meaning of phrases and words brought to us by the Democratic Union Socialists it’s not surprising that immigration has now come to mean anything they deem appropriate in their desire to flood the United States with unknowns from everywhere with no concern of their intent or worth to the greater good of the United States. These moron leftists with their fain chests protruding forward and strutting about with pride that they are the most benevolent of all, yet subjugating the immigrates to begging and the bread line due to lack of planning for the increased volumes, not to mention the impacts the increased dependent population has on numerous communities. This issue presents a clear picture of the Union Socialist and their lack of understanding of proper governance.
The United States is on the pathway to Balkanization and currently has communities that are apart and separate from the greater communities they live in.
I’ll end by quoting Teddy “Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country’.
New estimate says U.S. now has 13.7 million illegal immigrants, up 37% under Biden
“There are now 13.7 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., and 51.4 million immigrants overall — an increase of 6.4 million in three years since Mr. Biden took office, the Center for Immigration Studies reported. That averages 172,000 new immigrants each month, or roughly four times the rate in the Trump years and nearly three times the rate in the Obama years.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/28/us-now-has-137-million-illegal-immigrants-up-37-un/
They have been claiming there are 10 million illegals here for over 30 years. I believe the number is A LOT higher then the “experts” are telling us. Heck, over 5 million came in, in the last 3 years.
. . . or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
The word “or” means that an invasion is not a necessary prerequisite. It is enough if the state is in imminent danger. State officials in Texas have a better handle on the level of danger than some feds in DC, and whether delay is feasible. Doesn’t it make the most sense to defer to their findings on that question?
It is enough if the state is in imminent danger.
oldman, that really should be enough. If I called 911 because someone broke into my house, I shouldn’t have to argue with the operator over whose rights are being violated. It’s bad enough that the standing joke is when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away. But this administration is arguing they have no duty to show up.
Imagine if, instead of bombing, sanctioning, doing regime changes, etc.
We spent that time and money helping other countries (and our own).
Would there be such a problem as there is now? Would there ever be?
I remember when nearly all entities in the United States was patriotic.