Border Patrol Praises Abbot For Seizing Control Of Border Away From Biden

[scruffy]

So much for the constitution.

BIDEN is the one BREAKING THE LAW.

He needs to be held accountable.

He needs to be impeached immediately.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Unemployment is like 3% dude. WTF are you talking about?

Yeah, Mexico has created quite the noncontributing self-serving economy within our economy haven’t they?

 

[scruffy]

And nowhere in the constitution does it say any of your excuses give Texas the ability to overrule the federal government.

So now we have a constitutional crisis and a rogue state who is using their military to usurp power from the federal government.

Excellent. You statist assholes are finally catching on.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

The national guard gets deployed all the time, it’s not to repel invasions but to assist in humanitarian crises.

Texas is attempting to enforce immigration law which is a federal law, and therefore unconstitutional. they’re preventing federal agents from doing their job, which is unconstitutional.

You can't play both sides of that fiddle.

Dem states and cities declared themselves illegal immigrant sanctuary cities, shielding and refusing to provide information about illegals in response to lawful federal requests. They hindered the fed. Now Texas is doing similar, but with a different goal.

Where does the Constitution say that the Governor of Texas can't protect the Texas border? It says the Fed has a responsibility to protect Texas, and the Fed has not been fulfilling that obligation.

This is a serious question, and so far you have not answered it. If you prefer to quote a federal law instead, go ahead. No BS opinion links, please, text of law. I would be happy to get educated by you on this.

Regards,
Jim

 

[scruffy]

Because that’s illegal discrimination.

No it isn't, you dumb fucktard.

It's ENFORCING THE LAW.

Are Republicans the party of pro-discrimination now?

What an asswipe.

 

[scruffy]

It’s pretty silly for you to want a law that makes it illegal to interfere in federal law enforcement. I think we are both well aware how illegal that is.

As for asylum law, that’s 8 USC 1158

You mean federal law NON enforcement.

 

[scruffy]

No. An invasion is when an army crosses your border to seize territory.

People fleeing violence and poverty are not an invading army.

You have no idea what they're fleeing.

Or even IF they're fleeing.

You're just spouting leftard bullshit like a good little sheeple.

 

[Marener]

So Biden is a dictator ignoring the United nations law?

What does the UN have to do with the president?

 

[Billiejeens]

Can’t be illegal because the administration is executing the law as the constitution says.

Your opinion, and the opinion of a governor, is constitutionally irrelevant.

Your opinion is stupid.

 

[Marener]

You can't play both sides of that fiddle.

Dem states and cities declared themselves illegal immigrant sanctuary cities, shielding and refusing to provide information about illegals in response to lawful federal requests. They hindered the fed. Now Texas is doing similar, but with a different goal.

Where does the Constitution say that the Governor of Texas can't protect the Texas border? It says the Fed has a responsibility to protect Texas, and the Fed has not been fulfilling that obligation.

This is a serious question, and so far you have not answered it. If you prefer to quote a federal law instead, go ahead. No BS opinion links, please, text of law. I would be happy to get educated by you on this.

Regards,
Jim

Refusing to assist is not the same as preventing from enforcing.

As an American, we have broad freedom from being compelled to do anything for the government.

But we can’t prevent them from doing their job

That’s exactly what Texas is doing.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Refusing to assist is not the same as preventing from enforcing.

Texas is not preventing enforcement. It closed one of its parks park to prevent violation of its own laws (SB4).

On December 19, 2023, the court of appeals entered an
injunction pending appeal that bars Border Patrol agents from
“damaging, destroying, or otherwise interfering with Texas’s
c[oncertina]-wire fence in the vicinity of Eagle Pass, Texas,”
except “if necessary to address any medical emergency as specified
in the [temporary restraining order]” previously issued by the
district court. Appl. App. 14a. In its decision, the court of
appeals noted that “Border Patrol agents already possess access to
both sides of the fence . . . to the river and bank by boat and
to the further-inland side of the fence by road.”

Loading…

www.supremecourt.gov

Notably, in Biden's original suit against Texas which they are piggybacking on with yesterday's filing, Biden Admin did not even argue about immigration law, they argued that Texas is blocking a river in violation of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act....

As alleged below, Defendants have built structures in the Rio Grande, a navigable
water of the United States, without the Corps’ authorization, in violation of RHA section 10, 33
U.S.C. § 403.

Loading…

storage.courtlistener.com

What a clown show this Admin is.

 

[Nostra]

You certainly can't do that in the USA either, but you're too gullible or stupid to realize it.

Where is your evidence that illegals are voting in elections. But yeah - you can walk into Canada and have instant full coverage health care, guaranteed income, relocation assistance, job training, and free education.

What kind of support do government-assisted refugees get?

ircc.canada.ca

Social Assistance Receipt Among Refugee Claimants in Canada: Evidence from Linked Administrative Data Files

www150.statcan.gc.ca

You can't vote though, any more than you can vote in the USA.

Maybe Abbott should start bussing them to your shithole country.

 

[Marener]

Texas is not preventing enforcement. It closed one of its parks park to prevent violation of its own laws (SB4).

On December 19, 2023, the court of appeals entered an
injunction pending appeal that bars Border Patrol agents from
“damaging, destroying, or otherwise interfering with Texas’s
c[oncertina]-wire fence in the vicinity of Eagle Pass, Texas,”
except “if necessary to address any medical emergency as specified
in the [temporary restraining order]” previously issued by the
district court. Appl. App. 14a. In its decision, the court of
appeals noted that “Border Patrol agents already possess access to
both sides of the fence . . . to the river and bank by boat and
to the further-inland side of the fence by road.”

Loading…

www.supremecourt.gov

Notably, in Biden's original suit against Texas which they are piggybacking on with yesterday's filing, Biden Admin did not even argue about immigration law, they argued that Texas is blocking a river in violation of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act....

As alleged below, Defendants have built structures in the Rio Grande, a navigable
water of the United States, without the Corps’ authorization, in violation of RHA section 10, 33
U.S.C. § 403.

Loading…

storage.courtlistener.com

What a clown show this Admin is.

People on US soil are allowed to apply for asylum. So yes they are preventing them from doing their job.

All you’re doing is showing Texas is violating multiple laws.

 

[Nostra]

Laws granting asylum status most assuredly are part of established immigration laws and not in conflict with the law you cited.

If you listen to what they claim they are here for it's for jobs, economic opportunity etc.....

That doesn't meet the Asylum law qualifications, Simp.

 

[Nostra]

Can’t be illegal because the administration is executing the law as the constitution says.

Your opinion, and the opinion of a governor, is constitutionally irrelevant.

Biden is not executing immigration laws at all, moron.

 

[Nostra]

It’s pretty silly for you to want a law that makes it illegal to interfere in federal law enforcement. I think we are both well aware how illegal that is.

As for asylum law, that’s 8 USC 1158

Where does it say "I want a job" is grounds for asylum, Stupid?

Who Is Eligible for Asylum or Refugee Protection in the U.S.?​

If you are from a country where you have undergone persecution, or you have a well-founded fear of being persecuted if you return to that country in the future, you may decide to seek either refugee protection from the U.S. (if you are currently overseas) or asylum (if you are currently in the United States).​

Updated by Ilona Bray, J.D., University of Washington School of Law

If you are from a country where you have undergone persecution, or you have a well-founded fear of being persecuted if you return to that country in the future, you might decide to seek either refugee protection from the U.S. (if you are currently overseas) or asylum (if you are currently in the United States).
However, the criteria for these protections are stricter than you might expect. You will need to become familiar with the legal grounds for asylum and refugee status, and potentially prepare extensive materials showing that you meet these grounds.

Basic Grounds for Asylum or Refugee Status​

Being afraid to return to your home country is not enough by itself. To establish eligibility for asylum or refugee status under U.S. law (8 U.S.C. § 1158), you must prove that you meet the definition of a refugee (under 8 U.S.C. § 1101).

In brief, this means showing that you are either the victim of past persecution or you have a well-founded fear of future persecution. In the case of past persecution, you must prove that you were persecuted in your home country or last country of residence.

The persecution must have been based on at least one of five grounds, either your:

• race
• religion
• nationality
• political opinion, or
• membership in a particular social group.

Proving this connection between the persecution and one of these five grounds is one of the most difficult parts of successfully applying for asylee or refugee status—especially because you must show that one of the five grounds was or will be a "central reason" for your persecution.

Does "gender" fit into any of these five grounds? This is an area of ongoing legal argument. People have succeeded in gaining asylum based on having been subject to cultural practices such as female genital cutting, forced marriage, domestic violence, and more, particularly in cases where the police and government compounded the problem by failing to protect the women or prosecute the perpetrators.

Who Is Eligible for Asylum or Refugee Protection in the U.S.?

Learn the basic criteria concerning fear of persecution in your home country, and how it may lead to asylum or refugee protection.

www.alllaw.com

 

[Nostra]

To texass?

EWWW!

I might get some on me.

Intelligence? You couldn't handle any of that.

 

[Nostra]

You can apply for asylum anywhere by law.

SCOTUS isn’t a legislature. They can’t change laws.

Only official ports of entry. Wading across the Rio in the middle of nowhere isn't an official port of entry, Simp.

 

[Nostra]

No. An invasion is when an army crosses your border to seize territory.

People fleeing violence and poverty are not an invading army.

Fleeing poverty isn't grounds for asylum, Dumbass.

 

[Nostra]

They can be anywhere and apply for asylum.

Link?