Top | Newest First | Oldest First
4meAndyou · F
Looks like this is escalating, and Biden is certainly a stupid fool...so there is every likelihood that he will do something stupid.
BUT...let's balance that with the fact that this is an election year, and Biden can't afford to look like a bully against his own people...who are struggling to combat the southern invasion on their own.
BUT...let's balance that with the fact that this is an election year, and Biden can't afford to look like a bully against his own people...who are struggling to combat the southern invasion on their own.
View 4 more replies »
FreestyleArt · 31-35, M
JSul3 · 70-79
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout
US Extends Lead Over China in Race for World’s Biggest Economy
US ends 2023 with a bang while China struggles with a bust
US Extends Lead Over China in Race for World’s Biggest Economy
US ends 2023 with a bang while China struggles with a bust
maskedbandit · 61-69, M
@Tetsuya Sounds good but it will not happen because our federal government is split. They had a border policy at work, I don't know how it read, but the republicans dropped it because they were not satisfied with it, and I was under the impression that it was the republican that drew it up. What changes were made for them to refuse it; I don't know. What I see, that is about to happen, is that both sides want a civil war at the expense of the American people.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@Tetsuya
The problem is that the US signed a number of treaties that encourage illegal immigration, such as merely claiming that people fear for their lives in their own countries. So, to actually correct the problem all of those treaties would have to be revoked.
"The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol are the key legal documents that form the basis of UNHCR’s work. With 149 State parties to either or both, they define the term ‘refugee’ and outline refugees’ rights and States’ legal obligations to protect them.
The core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that refugees should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This is considered customary international law."
https://www.unhcr.org/il/en/1951-refugee-convention-and-international-conventions#:~:text=The%201951%20Refugee%20Convention%20and%20its%201967%20Protocol%20are%20the,legal%20obligations%20to%20protect%20them.
Did the US sign the 1951 Refugee Convention?
"Harry Truman did not sign the 1951 Convention because he felt it infringed on U.S. sovereignty, but in 1968 Lyndon Johnson reversed course and signed the Protocol, and the Senate ratified it, binding the U.S. to its terms. The treaty's provisions were formally incorporated into U.S. law by the Refugee Act of 1980."
"Refugee Act of 1980 - =Title I: Purpose= - Declares the purposes of this Act to be to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.
Provides for up to 50,000 annual refugee admissions for fiscal years 1980 through 1982. Authorizes the President to exceed such 50,000 admissions level if, at the beginning of a fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, he determines it to be for humanitarian purposes. Provides that these admissions shall be allocated to groups of special concern to the United States."
https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/senate-bill/643#:~:text=Refugee%20Act%20of%201980%20-%20%3DTitle,resettlement%20and%20absorption%20of%20those
the easiest solution would be the federal government actually enforcing its own laws like it's supposed to
The problem is that the US signed a number of treaties that encourage illegal immigration, such as merely claiming that people fear for their lives in their own countries. So, to actually correct the problem all of those treaties would have to be revoked.
"The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol are the key legal documents that form the basis of UNHCR’s work. With 149 State parties to either or both, they define the term ‘refugee’ and outline refugees’ rights and States’ legal obligations to protect them.
The core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that refugees should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This is considered customary international law."
https://www.unhcr.org/il/en/1951-refugee-convention-and-international-conventions#:~:text=The%201951%20Refugee%20Convention%20and%20its%201967%20Protocol%20are%20the,legal%20obligations%20to%20protect%20them.
Did the US sign the 1951 Refugee Convention?
"Harry Truman did not sign the 1951 Convention because he felt it infringed on U.S. sovereignty, but in 1968 Lyndon Johnson reversed course and signed the Protocol, and the Senate ratified it, binding the U.S. to its terms. The treaty's provisions were formally incorporated into U.S. law by the Refugee Act of 1980."
"Refugee Act of 1980 - =Title I: Purpose= - Declares the purposes of this Act to be to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.
Provides for up to 50,000 annual refugee admissions for fiscal years 1980 through 1982. Authorizes the President to exceed such 50,000 admissions level if, at the beginning of a fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, he determines it to be for humanitarian purposes. Provides that these admissions shall be allocated to groups of special concern to the United States."
https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/senate-bill/643#:~:text=Refugee%20Act%20of%201980%20-%20%3DTitle,resettlement%20and%20absorption%20of%20those
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
All Biden has to do is nationalize the Texas National Guard, putting it under federal control. And then send in 4 army divisions with heavy equipment, including tanks and machine guns, and roll up the razor wire and dump it all on abbott's house. If he causes a flap send in the Marshalls with an arrest warrant for insurrection and shoot him dead on the spot if he resists.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
beckyromero · 36-40, F
SW-User
@beckyromero Ok. I may have been confused. I figured there was a Texas Military beyond the TXNG. I will checkout your link
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@SW-User
All states also have local (cities, counties) police forces, not to be confused with their National Guard.
They also have highway patrol officers and local sheriffs. Park rangers, prison guards, airport police, transit authorities, etc., etc, etc.
The "Texas Militia" (sometimes referred to as the (TXMF)) are simply the state's National Guard forces. Maybe that's the cause for confusion.
All states also have local (cities, counties) police forces, not to be confused with their National Guard.
They also have highway patrol officers and local sheriffs. Park rangers, prison guards, airport police, transit authorities, etc., etc, etc.
The "Texas Militia" (sometimes referred to as the (TXMF)) are simply the state's National Guard forces. Maybe that's the cause for confusion.
HumanEarth · 56-60, F
This message was deleted by its author.
HumanEarth · 56-60, F
Either that Biden will becomes Trump's VP
BohemianBabe · M
He actually could have local politicians fired or even locked up. Conservatards would cry and howl like mad, though. And liberals are wimpy-ass cowards when it comes to standing up to the Right.
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@BohemianBabe And yet if Trump did it, his peeps would cheer him on.
BohemianBabe · M
@LordShadowfire Yeah, they have no consistent values outside of winning at all costs.
MrBrownstone · 46-50, M
Renaci · 36-40
Arresting Abbott would be the safest. No one wants a civil war under their administration except all Republicans. They literally are sabotaging the border deal so they can push for a civil war. They want the border deal to fail, they want Biden to federalize the national guard and they want the economy to fail. They have admitted to each and every point and that they are doing to make the Democrats look bad.
But half the state Republican parties are going bankrupt. They passed only 22 bills last year. The lowest they have ever produced ever. They do not legislate any policy that common Americans care about. They have been trying to destroy social security since it was created. They have fought the ACA ever since it was created.
All they do is Hilary's emails, Russia Russia Russia, obombna, impeach Hunter Biden, trans people, LGBT+, forced birth, pro rape, protect the children but let them starve by not giving them food for the summer and definitely protect pedo Matt Gatez and Jim Jordon, Destroy education, destroy healthcare, send death throw, make bombs, foment insurrection and on and on and on with endless culture war bullshit.
Republicans do NOT want to fix things. They want to break the government so they can then say it's broken. They don't want to lead. They want a god to rule them. They beg to be oppressed.
But half the state Republican parties are going bankrupt. They passed only 22 bills last year. The lowest they have ever produced ever. They do not legislate any policy that common Americans care about. They have been trying to destroy social security since it was created. They have fought the ACA ever since it was created.
All they do is Hilary's emails, Russia Russia Russia, obombna, impeach Hunter Biden, trans people, LGBT+, forced birth, pro rape, protect the children but let them starve by not giving them food for the summer and definitely protect pedo Matt Gatez and Jim Jordon, Destroy education, destroy healthcare, send death throw, make bombs, foment insurrection and on and on and on with endless culture war bullshit.
Republicans do NOT want to fix things. They want to break the government so they can then say it's broken. They don't want to lead. They want a god to rule them. They beg to be oppressed.
SW-User
@Renaci That’s Jacket-Off Jim Jordan to you!
Patriot96 · 56-60, C
Biden can invade texas, which american military will not do. He wants to tear down barriers to protect our border which is the duty of federal govt.
Looks like fjb has his tit in a wringer🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Looks like fjb has his tit in a wringer🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Tetsuya · 56-60, M
Mr. Biden also has to contend with the Posse Comitatus Act
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Tetsuya
Military Support for Customs and Border Protection Along
the Southern Border Under the Posse Comitatus Act
The Department of Defense’s proposed use of military personnel to provide limited
assistance with respect to certain Customs and Border Protection inspection and
observation functions along the southern border of the United States is permissible
under the Posse Comitatus Act and applicable regulations.
January 19, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, restricts the use of “any
part of the Army or the Air Force” in civilian law enforcement, unless
expressly authorized by law. Consistent with these restrictions, for many
years, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) has provided assistance to the
efforts by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to stem the
illegal flow of persons and contraband across the southern land border
between the United States and Mexico. This assistance is principally
authorized by chapter 15 of title 10 of the United States Code, 10 U.S.C.
§§ 271–284, which allows DoD to provide a number of different forms of
support to civilian law enforcement. Congress endorsed DoD’s ongoing
efforts in 2015 by providing that “[t]he Secretary of Defense may provide
assistance to United States Customs and Border Protection for purposes of
increasing ongoing efforts to secure the southern land border of the United
States.” National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Pub. L.
No. 114-92, § 1059, 129 Stat. 986‒87 (2015) (“FY 2016 NDAA”).
https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1357086/download
Military Support for Customs and Border Protection Along
the Southern Border Under the Posse Comitatus Act
The Department of Defense’s proposed use of military personnel to provide limited
assistance with respect to certain Customs and Border Protection inspection and
observation functions along the southern border of the United States is permissible
under the Posse Comitatus Act and applicable regulations.
January 19, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, restricts the use of “any
part of the Army or the Air Force” in civilian law enforcement, unless
expressly authorized by law. Consistent with these restrictions, for many
years, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) has provided assistance to the
efforts by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to stem the
illegal flow of persons and contraband across the southern land border
between the United States and Mexico. This assistance is principally
authorized by chapter 15 of title 10 of the United States Code, 10 U.S.C.
§§ 271–284, which allows DoD to provide a number of different forms of
support to civilian law enforcement. Congress endorsed DoD’s ongoing
efforts in 2015 by providing that “[t]he Secretary of Defense may provide
assistance to United States Customs and Border Protection for purposes of
increasing ongoing efforts to secure the southern land border of the United
States.” National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Pub. L.
No. 114-92, § 1059, 129 Stat. 986‒87 (2015) (“FY 2016 NDAA”).
https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1357086/download
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Oh gosh! Nothing can be done for human rights.
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
SW-User
@LordShadowfire Taking their senators, representatives, and federal funding with them.
@wildbill83 Yes. It bars federal troops from acting as law enforcement unless directed by law. Biden is the law so it can easily happen.
wildbill83 · 41-45, M
easily? no
The last president that used military force against a sovereign state was Ulysses Grant, to which, many leaders and servicemembers outright refused and joined Confederacy instead
anyone obeying such an illegitimate order and/or committing treason on behalf of federal government would be ostracized by their own state (i.e. they'd have no home to return to afterwards for fear of reprisal).
Far more likely that congress & states would act in best interest of preserving the union and remove biden (forcefully if necessary) than risk another civil war...
The last president that used military force against a sovereign state was Ulysses Grant, to which, many leaders and servicemembers outright refused and joined Confederacy instead
anyone obeying such an illegitimate order and/or committing treason on behalf of federal government would be ostracized by their own state (i.e. they'd have no home to return to afterwards for fear of reprisal).
Far more likely that congress & states would act in best interest of preserving the union and remove biden (forcefully if necessary) than risk another civil war...
@wildbill83 While I would love to agree with you I never dreamed the Supreme Court would tell Texas that our boarder must be left open. It really makes me wonder if they are being threatened.