- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS votes 5-4 against Texas, Biden admin can remove border razor wire
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:29 pm to tarzana
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:29 pm to tarzana
quote:
This isn't a discussion of illegal immigration, per se. What the Court reaffirmed today is that the FEDERAL govt, not states, determine immigration policy. The court today just corroborated its 2012 ruling against the state or Arizona.
No one takes you seriously on this issue, clown. If "Sanctuary Cities" are legal, then Texas has the right to police its border.
quote:
In spite of Gov Abbott's quixotic determination to protect Texas, and Texans, his actions are illegal and he needs to stop.
Talk about tone deaf.
0
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:32 pm to Fun Bunch
This decision was always expected, the only surprise is that its so close. The Supreme Court has already affirmed that states have no standing to enforce immigration laws. If the feds want the border open, its gonna be open and there's nothing the states can do about it.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:34 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
It's literally the same thing.
No, it literally is not.
Interstate borders =\= national border for any relevant purpose.
This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:34 pm to tarzana
quote:
What the Court reaffirmed today is that the FEDERAL govt, not states, determine immigration policy.
So the Federal government has to enforce its own laws on the border, right?
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:35 pm to Fun Bunch
Here’s an unwritten rule:
If you disagree with Clarence Thomas, you’re always wrong.
If you disagree with Clarence Thomas, you’re always wrong.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:35 pm to tarzana
quote:
quixotic
Apparently, takes one to know one.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:36 pm to the808bass
quote:
So the Federal government has to enforce its own laws on the border, right?
Tarzana is a troll and not worth any discussion, but the leftist argument counter to your question is that the decision to enforce or not enforce immigration laws is a matter of policy delegated to the federal government.
It’s bullshite, but that’s the crux of their argument.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:37 pm to Fun Bunch
Here’s a solution:
Move the wire 10ft away from the border. Now the filth can enter the country, but not the state. Make them sue you again.
Move the wire 10ft away from the border. Now the filth can enter the country, but not the state. Make them sue you again.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:42 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
No, it literally is not.
Interstate borders =\= national border for any relevant purpose.
Isnt the International border basically 60 miles on either side? So either way they are going through texas' borders and territory.
But in this scenario would you be okay with oklahoma stopping illegal immigrants crossing their state border? Just not okay with stopping them at the Mexican border?
States still have a right to protect themselves from invasion.
quote:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
quote:
The Invasion Clause in Article IV, Section 4 provides that “[t]he United States … shall protect each [state in this union] against invasion.” These clauses provide dual protection against invasion broadly defined. This includes defending against actions by “foreign hostility [and] ambitious or vindictive enterprises of [a state’s] more powerful neighbors.” This encompasses defense against hostile non-state actors such as cartels and gangs operating at the border and entering into Arizona’s territory. James Madison specifically cited Virginia using its militia to stop smugglers as an example of a valid exercise of the invasion power, and there is every basis to conclude this sovereign power was retained as reflected in the State Self-Defense Clause.
I would argue arizona and texas have every right to self defense.
quote:
The on-the-ground violence and lawlessness at Arizona’s border caused by cartels and gangs is extensive, well-documented, and persistent. It can satisfy the definition of “actually invaded” and “invasion” under the U.S. Constitution.
quote:
“When the original States declared their independence, they claimed the powers inherent in sovereignty—in the words of the Declaration of Independence, the authority ‘to do all ... Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.’” Murphy v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic arse’n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1475
This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:49 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Isnt the International border basically 60 miles on either side? So either way they are going through texas' borders and territory. But in this scenario would you be okay with oklahoma stopping illegal immigrants crossing their state border? Just not okay with stopping them at the Mexican border?
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t say any of that, and I agree Texas should be allowed to defend itself. I was just pointing out to the other poster that interstate borders are not the same as the federal borders for any relevant purpose in this thread. Comparing interstate borders with the federal border is just dumb because they aren’t the same thing.
This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:53 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
This type of nuance and knowledge of the judicial system is HEAVILY frowned upon here. Enjoy the downvotes for being right.
This type of nuance and knowledge of the judicial system is only implemented by one and completely ignored by the other side. This yields catastrophic negative consequences, while weak people like you completely ignore those consequences because you want to “do what’s right” and keep losing.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:54 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t say any of that, and I agree Texas should be allowed to defend itself. I was just pointing out to the other poster that interstate borders are not the same as the federal borders for any relevant purpose in this thread. Comparing interstate borders with the federal border is just dumb because they aren’t the same thing.
Im asking a legit question.
Isnt there like a buffer zone on either side land and sea?
Liek a dmz kind of zone. So about 100km in is texas state border. So they are still crossing texas' state border. Not just crossing international border.
I could be wrong, but like at what point does the fed step in and at what point do they say, nah this is texas land.
The federal government could just say all of texas is the federal border, or all of arizona is the federal border. Or do they just stop at 100 km in?
If i started walking from mexico north into texas, at what point am i in Texas and at what point am I still in no mans land? At some point you have crossed that imaginary line that is texas.
This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 4:58 pm
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:56 pm to Fun Bunch
Now we know what the vote will be in the case of Trump being disqualified.
5-4 vote and Haley gets the Republican nod and RFK, Jr. will be sworn in on 1-20-25. No Trump voters will vote for Nimrata or Biden.
5-4 vote and Haley gets the Republican nod and RFK, Jr. will be sworn in on 1-20-25. No Trump voters will vote for Nimrata or Biden.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:57 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
This decision was always expected, the only surprise is that its so close. The Supreme Court has already affirmed that states have no standing to enforce immigration laws. If the feds want the border open, its gonna be open and there's nothing the states can do about it.
And that's ^^^^ a problem.
All it takes is an illegitimate installed regime to destroy the nation through unfettered immigration.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:58 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Isnt there like a buffer zone on either side land and sea?
Depends on what context you’re talking about.
quote:
Liek a dmz kind of zone. So about 100km in is texas state border. So they are still crossing texas' state border. Not just crossing international border. I could be wrong, but like at what point does the fed step in and at what point do they say, nah this is texas land. Like the federal government could just say all of texas is the federal border.
Idk the answer there. Maritime borders involve several layers of buffer zones, exclusion zones, economic exclusive zones, etc.
land borders aren’t governed by the international laws that govern that maritime setup though.
As far as I know, there isn’t much of (or any) “buffer” along our international borders, at least not jurisdictionally. Texas law extends to Texas’ borders.
But I think that regardless, no matter where one lands on the issue ideologically, we can all agree that our international borders and interstate borders are not similarly situated. To the extent they coextensive, it seems clear to me that the border would be considered international for the purposes being discussed here.
Idk—just seems like there are lots of ways to attack this policy of the Biden administration without trying to argue that the Rio Grande and Sabine rivers should be policed the same way.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:59 pm to Bass Tiger
Trump said they would do this if he wasn’t elected, and everyone has to admit he was right!
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:59 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Interstate borders =\= national border for any relevant purpose.
A state's borders are a state's borders for all purposes.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 4:59 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
All it takes is an illegitimate installed regime to destroy the nation through unfettered immigration.
This is why the impeachment of Mayorkas matters.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 5:00 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
A state's borders are a state's borders for all purposes.
Simply just not true. I don’t understand why you’d insist on such a wrong point when it’s not necessary. The border states can’t enforce immigration policy that differs from that of the federal government.
This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 5:03 pm
Posted on 1/22/24 at 5:01 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Simply just not true. I don’t understand why you’d insist on such a wrong point when it’s not necessary.
Of course it's true. Texas has just as much of a right to defend its borders as any other state.
Page 7 of 15
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News