Top | Newest First | Oldest First
CactusJackManson · M
View 39 more replies »
JSul3 · 70-79
@Subsumedpat
President Trump’s top policy priority was supposedly “border security.” But government data show that he failed to improve it. Border Patrol recorded 41 percent more successful illegal entries in fiscal year 2019 than in 2016 and was on pace for 47 percent more through four months of 2020. As he left office in January, reports indicate that the numbers have reached even greater heights.
Yet despite this supposed focus, the government records show that Border Patrol was observing more immigrants sneaking into the country than when President Trump took office. In fiscal year 2016, Border Patrol agents witnessed about 100,000 successful entries. By 2018, the number had risen to nearly 128,000. In 2019, it hit 150,000. Through four months of 2020, it was on pace to hit almost 156,000.
(Cato Institute)
President Trump’s top policy priority was supposedly “border security.” But government data show that he failed to improve it. Border Patrol recorded 41 percent more successful illegal entries in fiscal year 2019 than in 2016 and was on pace for 47 percent more through four months of 2020. As he left office in January, reports indicate that the numbers have reached even greater heights.
Yet despite this supposed focus, the government records show that Border Patrol was observing more immigrants sneaking into the country than when President Trump took office. In fiscal year 2016, Border Patrol agents witnessed about 100,000 successful entries. By 2018, the number had risen to nearly 128,000. In 2019, it hit 150,000. Through four months of 2020, it was on pace to hit almost 156,000.
(Cato Institute)
JSul3 · 70-79
@sunsporter1649 Executive Orders can be challenged in court.
Congress makes the laws.
A Senate bill sits in the House, waiting....and House Party of Trump refuses to act, because their Orange Messiah tells them not to.
Congress makes the laws.
A Senate bill sits in the House, waiting....and House Party of Trump refuses to act, because their Orange Messiah tells them not to.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
JSul3 · 70-79
@sunsporter1649 The web is your library. Use it.
LamontCranston · M
This author (and the slavishly leftist poster) read an awful lot into a one sentence ruling. We do not know (literally) what the justices were thinking.
Here is a hypothetical. Clearly, the Constitution carves out areas of federal supremacy. But what if the federal government ignores its responsibility, as the Executive branch has done. Is there NO recourse? Are there no legal doctrines which might allow some relief? Does an individual state, which has general police powers and which is especially impacted by the lawless federal administration, entirely lack remedies, perhaps under the 10th Amendment? We won't know. But JSul is so damn sure, isn't he?
Here is a hypothetical. Clearly, the Constitution carves out areas of federal supremacy. But what if the federal government ignores its responsibility, as the Executive branch has done. Is there NO recourse? Are there no legal doctrines which might allow some relief? Does an individual state, which has general police powers and which is especially impacted by the lawless federal administration, entirely lack remedies, perhaps under the 10th Amendment? We won't know. But JSul is so damn sure, isn't he?
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@JSul3 Bullschiff. biden created it with the stroke of a pen, biden can fix it with the stroke of a pen
JSul3 · 70-79
@sunsporter1649 Executive Orders are not the law. EO's can be challenged in the courts....and many times they are.
Congress makes the laws and sends them to the president to sign into law or veto. With enough votes, Congress can override a president's veto.
Congress makes the laws and sends them to the president to sign into law or veto. With enough votes, Congress can override a president's veto.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@JSul3 LOL, biden created the mess with the stroke of his pen, eliminating at least 9 of President Trump's orders on border security, with a stroke of his pen he can reverse his bullschiff orders
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
Still, that clause doesn't allow the feds to ignore the law. This is particularly true when the willful disregard of the law endangers a state. States are not powerless. If the federal government wants to deposit radioactive waste all over a state, by your logic the state has to allow it.
The law is more nuanced than your interpretation.
The law is more nuanced than your interpretation.
ElwoodBlues · M
I believe that, in the minds of right-wingers, there are two separate supremacy clauses.
There's the supremacy of right-wing decisions over blue states that the right-wingers totally support.
But, the the supremacy of left-leaning decisions over red states?? Well now, they have their doubts!!
There's the supremacy of right-wing decisions over blue states that the right-wingers totally support.
But, the the supremacy of left-leaning decisions over red states?? Well now, they have their doubts!!
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
democrats set the precedent by openly defying Constitution and supreme court rulings on 2nd Amendment rights; however, whereas democrats deny it for their own selfish self interest/political aspirations, Texas is doing it in interest of national sovereignty/security, and that puts them on the favorable side of any debate about Constitutional Interpretation
And our Constitution was written for a republican government, not a direct democracy which our founding fathers had no intention of entering (see article 4,[i] The Federalist Papers[/i])
"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." - James Madison, Federalist No. 10
And our Constitution was written for a republican government, not a direct democracy which our founding fathers had no intention of entering (see article 4,[i] The Federalist Papers[/i])
"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." - James Madison, Federalist No. 10
Subsumedpat · 36-40, M
JSul3 · 70-79
@Subsumedpat Unfortunately many families are not close to a border crossing, so they cross where the can, and immediately surrender to border agents.
It is a humanitarian crisis, plain and simple.
On Monday, the supreme court voted 5-4 in favor of the federal government’s power to remove the controversial concertina wire installed along stretches of the border in Texas, at Abbott’s direction. Despite this, Abbott, a hard-right Republican, is intensifying his plans to try to fence off parts of the US border with Mexico.
Federal agents were given further confirmation this week at the supreme court that they may remove the razor wire, as the enforcement of immigration law is under federal jurisdiction. But Abbott has argued there was nothing preventing him from ordering the Texas national guard to continue laying more razor wire. The national guard is ultimately part of the US military, overseen by the US president as commander-in chief, but except in specific situations where the president explicitly takes federal control, the national guard in each state takes orders from its state governor.
Immigration matters, as confirmed in the 2012 supreme court case Arizona v United States, officially fall under the federal government – not individual states. Abbott has repeatedly invoked the invasion clause, essentially as a loophole, in the US and Texas constitutions, likening migrants to a public foreign enemy, which gives him the right to enforce border security and immigration matters, he argues.
Fatma Marouf, a law professor and the director of the immigrant rights clinic at Texas A&M University’s School of Law said Abbott’s decision to lay more wire down “seems to defy the purpose of the supreme court’s order”.
It is a humanitarian crisis, plain and simple.
On Monday, the supreme court voted 5-4 in favor of the federal government’s power to remove the controversial concertina wire installed along stretches of the border in Texas, at Abbott’s direction. Despite this, Abbott, a hard-right Republican, is intensifying his plans to try to fence off parts of the US border with Mexico.
Federal agents were given further confirmation this week at the supreme court that they may remove the razor wire, as the enforcement of immigration law is under federal jurisdiction. But Abbott has argued there was nothing preventing him from ordering the Texas national guard to continue laying more razor wire. The national guard is ultimately part of the US military, overseen by the US president as commander-in chief, but except in specific situations where the president explicitly takes federal control, the national guard in each state takes orders from its state governor.
Immigration matters, as confirmed in the 2012 supreme court case Arizona v United States, officially fall under the federal government – not individual states. Abbott has repeatedly invoked the invasion clause, essentially as a loophole, in the US and Texas constitutions, likening migrants to a public foreign enemy, which gives him the right to enforce border security and immigration matters, he argues.
Fatma Marouf, a law professor and the director of the immigrant rights clinic at Texas A&M University’s School of Law said Abbott’s decision to lay more wire down “seems to defy the purpose of the supreme court’s order”.
JSul3 · 70-79
@Subsumedpat Desperate people do desperate things.
You might do the same were you in their shoes.
You might do the same were you in their shoes.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
Military aged males are being shipped in from China and other anti American places by the thousands and thousands.
Claiming otherwise is typical of the major media lying liar coverage and calling the soft invasion of the US "some people seeking a better life" is a flat out lie.
Claiming otherwise is typical of the major media lying liar coverage and calling the soft invasion of the US "some people seeking a better life" is a flat out lie.
President Biden has been working with the Senate for legislative control of immigration and crybaby trump is furious at the Republican Senators in this bipartisan effort.
Senator Lankford (OK) got censored for working in a bipartisan manner.
How can anyone take trumpie boy as someone working for the interests of our country as he faces incarceration. That boy is desperate asf.
Senator Lankford (OK) got censored for working in a bipartisan manner.
How can anyone take trumpie boy as someone working for the interests of our country as he faces incarceration. That boy is desperate asf.
StevetheSleeve · 31-35, M
Shouldn’t you be happy the court made the right decision rather than focusing on the dissenting votes?
StevetheSleeve · 31-35, M
@JSul3 They mean nothing. The decision is what matters
JSul3 · 70-79
@StevetheSleeve What if Roberts and Barret had sided with the other conservatives?
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Biden believes we'll accept him doing nothing, that we'll accept him not adding more justices, now.
Murka is exactly what it intends to be.
Murka is exactly what it intends to be.
JSul3 · 70-79
@Roundandroundwego Exactly how does Biden add more judges?
RenFur · 70-79, M
That's because those 5 didn't earn their law degrees online.
Convivial · 26-30, F
Interesting and thank you
SatyrService · M
we agree,, and i am Very Worried