Does Biden have the authority to secure the border

[YoursTruly]

Simple question. I can't elaborate more on this, because there's nothing to add. Can he secure the border or not.

 

[BackAgain]

Simple question. I can't elaborate more on this, because there's nothing to add. Can he secure the border or not.

Only if he tries to use the tools and authority at his disposal.

Which so far he hasn’t even tried.

 

[Delldude]

Simple question. I can't elaborate more on this, because there's nothing to add. Can he secure the border or not.

According to Primetime, on Fox......yes, under a title 8 law enacted in 1952....

 

[shockedcanadian]

Simple question. I can't elaborate more on this, because there's nothing to add. Can he secure the border or not.

Can he, will he, must he, or does he have the obligation from his oath to do so?

 

[Oddball]

 

[Stann]

Simple question. I can't elaborate more on this, because there's nothing to add. Can he secure the border or not.

It's the US border , it's under federal control. States have boundaries or state lines with other states, they are under state control. But even there the interstates are federal. I would assume the president can shut the border down if he has good reason. I just wanted to clarify the distinction because the gov. Of a Texas is way out of line with what he is doing. Ask Wikipedia , they have all the correct answers.

 

[Stann]

Can he, will he, must he, or does he have the obligation from his oath to do so?

Since no president has been able to do this successfully , it's a matter of is it possible at all.

 

[Stryder50]

It's the US border , it's under federal control. States have boundaries or state lines with other states, they are under state control. But even there the interstates are federal. I would assume the president can shut the border down if he has good reason. I just wanted to clarify the distinction because the gov. Of a Texas is way out of line with what he is doing. Ask Wikipedia , they have all the correct answers.

Bullshit butthead!

Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor who is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, authored “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant” (3rd ed., 2015). This series is based on his forthcoming research article co-authored with Andrew T. Hyman: “The Constitution, Invasion, Immigration, and the War Powers of States” (pdf). It will appear early this year in Volume 13, Issue 1, of the British Journal of American Legal Studies.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
....
Now, the links to the series of articles. I'll do select excerpts later, but the titles and subtexts should be major clues. Especially for the many here whom don't know or understand the USA Constitution and various States Rights versus Federal.
..........
Part I

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part I​

This series summarizes state powers over immigration and military force—and particularly the power to respond to illegal border crossings.
...

Conclusion​

The Constitution’s words “invaded” and “invasion” include unauthorized mass migration into the United States or into individual states. Unauthorized mass migration therefore triggers certain government powers and duties—state as well as federal. The following installments in this series will explain what those powers and duties are.

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part I ​

This series summarizes state powers over immigration and military force—and particularly the power to respond to illegal border crossings.

www.theepochtimes.com



.........

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part II​

This part II explains federal and state responsibility in the face of invasion and introduces the topic of transnational criminal gangs.

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part II ​

This part II explains federal and state responsibility in the face of invasion and introduces the topic of transnational criminal gangs.

www.theepochtimes.com



..........

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part III​

As part of our research into state war powers, my co-author, Andrew T. Hyman, and I examined the scope of “defensive war” as the Founders understood it.

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part III ​

As part of our research into state war powers, my co-author, Andrew T. Hyman, and I examined the scope of “defensive war” as the Founders understood it.

www.theepochtimes.com



.........

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part IV​

This Part IV examines a particularly thorny problem: To what extent may the federal government interfere when states exercise their defensive war powers?

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part IV ​

This Part IV examines a particularly thorny problem: To what extent may the federal government interfere when states exercise their defensive war powers?

www.theepochtimes.com



........

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part V: About Birthright Citizenship​

This final part looks at the Constitution’s words “natural born Citizen” and the claim that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are “birthright citizens.”

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part V: About Birthright Citizenship ​

This final part looks at the Constitution’s words “natural born Citizen” and the claim that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are “birthright citizens.”

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Stryder50]

Once one has gone through the above five article/links a couple of issues become clear.

I) By not doing anything significant, or more = all that he can, to enforce National Border Security Biden as failed his oath of office as POTUS. More to the point, his actions appear to be very close to treason since he is aiding and abetting invasion by foreign powers and interests, especially "enemies of humanity", into the USA and allowing them to undermine the Nation's economy and security.

At the least these are serious grounds for impeachment. More likely they are serious grounds for charges of treason and prosecution for same.

II) The Federal Government has no Power or Right to penalize States, such as Texas, for protecting their borders against foreign invasion and engaging prosecutions for same; especially when the Federal Government has shirked it's duty and failed to do the same.

III) While "The buck stops here" at the White House/Oval Office, that doesn't absolve other Agencies and Departments of the Federal Government from failure to perform their duties in securing the National Borders and dealing firmly and authoritatively in blocking and repelling foreign invaders. Hence many at the highest levels in those agencies/departments are also guilty of dereliction of duty related to crimes and felonies of omission in performance of their office and sworn duty.

IV) Unless the Federal Executive moves quickly and extensively to correct and address these failures and crimes regarding the foreign invasion of the USA, scores of heads are on the chopping block. Some literally, all figuratively.

 

[Stryder50]

Another "border Bill" doesn't absolve anyone, especially POTUS, for failure of duty and oath to uphold and enforce existing laws on border security and immigration.

In fact, failure to obey oaths taken to defend and uphold the Constitution, and enforce existing laws regarding border protection and immigration go beyond "crimes and misdemeanors" (major serious cause for impeachment) and enter Treason in form of aiding and abetting the enemies of the USA.

Those whom support POTUS and the Federal government in these crimes are also guilty of those crimes and treasons.

 

[Stryder50]

From Part II in he above post, select excerpts;
...

Some Basic Principles​

War, borders, and foreign affairs are subjects of international law. The American Founders called international law the “law of nations.” For their background in the law of nations, the Founders relied on their own experience and on a handful of leading authors: the Dutch writer Hugo Grotius, the Swiss scholar Emer de Vattel, and others. Reading those authors today sheds light on the Constitution’s meaning and organization.

Founding-era “law of nations” books distinguished between offensive wars and defensive wars. A sovereign fought a just offensive war to seek compensation for injury or to deter an enemy from inflicting injury. (Wars for mere conquest were considered “unjust.”) A sovereign launching a just offensive war generally preceded it with a formal announcement called a declaration of war.

Sovereigns fought defensive wars to prevent injury. Examples were military responses to invasion and insurrection. Usually, a sovereign engaged in a defensive war wasn’t the first to strike. But if an invasion was imminent, a sovereign could launch a preemptive attack, and it still was considered defensive.
...

Federal War Powers​

The division between offensive and defensive warfare is baked into our Constitution. The division helps explain which military powers the Constitution granted the federal government and which military powers the states retained.

Under the Constitution, only the federal government may wage offensive war. Congress, therefore, may “declare War” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11).

The Constitution also grants the federal government power to wage defensive war. Article II, Section 3 directs the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This was the section that gave Abraham Lincoln the authority to commence military operations against the seceding Southern states.

Article IV, Section 4 says that “the United States shall ... protect each [state] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

This language means (1) the federal government is empowered—and required—to wage defensive war against invasion (a duty the Biden administration is disregarding), and (2) the federal government is empowered—and required—to wage war or undertake a police action against domestic violence, if an affected state demands that it do so.
...

State War Powers​

The Constitution didn’t transfer all sovereignty to the federal government. Some sovereignty—including some sovereign war powers—remained in the states. During the constitutional debates of 1787–1790, the Constitution’s advocates repeatedly explained this. State war power didn’t derive from the Constitution. It was part of the reservoir of sovereign authority retained by the states (“reserved”) after the document was ratified.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 limited these reserved state war powers, but also recognized them:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ... or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

Let’s flip that language to an affirmative form:

“Any state may keep troops and ships of war in time of war, ... and engage in war ... if actually invaded or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

In other words, states may wage defensive, but not offensive, war. Unlike the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789), the Constitution imposed no limit on the armies or navies a state may raise during a time of war. (The states aren’t limited to their militias.) Unlike the Articles, the Constitution laid down no requirement that the war be congressionally declared and no restriction on the nature of the invasion. The only requirements imposed by the Constitution are that there be an actual invasion or an “imminent Danger” of one.
....

‘Enemies of the Human Race’​

During the 18th century, civilized nations were often disturbed by criminal gangs that recognized no sovereigns. Legal writers called these gangs hostes humani generis—a Latin phrase meaning “enemies of the human race.”

Enemies of the human race might operate on the sea, prey on shipping, and attack port towns. If so, they were called “pirates.” But enemies of the human race also included land-based gangs of thieves, deserters, poisoners, assassins, incendiaries, and (as the legal commentator William Blackstone characterized them) “unauthorized voluntiers [sic] in violence.”

The Constitution left the states with the power to conduct war against invasions launched by enemies of the human race. It also left the states with police power to respond to their criminal acts.
...
The attitudes of the founding generation against these malefactors were remorseless. As Emer de Vattel, the Founders’ favorite international law authority, wrote:

“If the justice of each nation ought in general to be confined to the punishment of crimes committed in its own territories; we ought to except from this rule, the villains, who by the quality and habitual frequency of their crimes, violate all public security, and declare themselves the enemies of the human race. Poisoners, assassins, and incendiaries by profession, may be exterminated wherever they are seized ...”

Can you think of some “enemies of the human race” operating along our Southern border today?
...

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part II ​

This part II explains federal and state responsibility in the face of invasion and introduces the topic of transnational criminal gangs.

www.theepochtimes.com



Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor who is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, authored “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant” (3rd ed., 2015). This series is based on his forthcoming research article co-authored with Andrew T. Hyman: “The Constitution, Invasion, Immigration, and the War Powers of States.” It will appear early this year in Volume 13, Issue 1, of the British Journal of American Legal Studies.

 

[BackAgain]

It's the US border , it's under federal control. States have boundaries or state lines with other states, they are under state control. But even there the interstates are federal. I would assume the president can shut the border down if he has good reason. I just wanted to clarify the distinction because the gov. Of a Texas is way out of line with what he is doing. Ask Wikipedia , they have all the correct answers.

Fake news as reported by Stain.

 

[OKTexas]

Simple question. I can't elaborate more on this, because there's nothing to add. Can he secure the border or not.

The short answer is, YES! It's the law. If he doesn't have detention beds available, he has the legal authority to turn everyone back, whether they are claiming asylum or not. He is letting them in because he wants them in.

.

 

[Markle]

Simple question. I can't elaborate more on this, because there's nothing to add. Can he secure the border or not.

Piece of cake.

He has all the tools; all he has to do is reverse all the executive orders he signed on day one of his administration. The hate for President Trump was so virulent that Biden's handlers shoved anything of Trump's, working or not, in front of Biden to reverse.

 

[Markle]

From Part II in he above post, select excerpts;
...

Some Basic Principles​

War, borders, and foreign affairs are subjects of international law. The American Founders called international law the “law of nations.” For their background in the law of nations, the Founders relied on their own experience and on a handful of leading authors: the Dutch writer Hugo Grotius, the Swiss scholar Emer de Vattel, and others. Reading those authors today sheds light on the Constitution’s meaning and organization.

Founding-era “law of nations” books distinguished between offensive wars and defensive wars. A sovereign fought a just offensive war to seek compensation for injury or to deter an enemy from inflicting injury. (Wars for mere conquest were considered “unjust.”) A sovereign launching a just offensive war generally preceded it with a formal announcement called a declaration of war.

Sovereigns fought defensive wars to prevent injury. Examples were military responses to invasion and insurrection. Usually, a sovereign engaged in a defensive war wasn’t the first to strike. But if an invasion was imminent, a sovereign could launch a preemptive attack, and it still was considered defensive.
...

Federal War Powers​

The division between offensive and defensive warfare is baked into our Constitution. The division helps explain which military powers the Constitution granted the federal government and which military powers the states retained.

Under the Constitution, only the federal government may wage offensive war. Congress, therefore, may “declare War” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11).

The Constitution also grants the federal government power to wage defensive war. Article II, Section 3 directs the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This was the section that gave Abraham Lincoln the authority to commence military operations against the seceding Southern states.

Article IV, Section 4 says that “the United States shall ... protect each [state] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

This language means (1) the federal government is empowered—and required—to wage defensive war against invasion (a duty the Biden administration is disregarding), and (2) the federal government is empowered—and required—to wage war or undertake a police action against domestic violence, if an affected state demands that it do so.
...

State War Powers​

The Constitution didn’t transfer all sovereignty to the federal government. Some sovereignty—including some sovereign war powers—remained in the states. During the constitutional debates of 1787–1790, the Constitution’s advocates repeatedly explained this. State war power didn’t derive from the Constitution. It was part of the reservoir of sovereign authority retained by the states (“reserved”) after the document was ratified.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 limited these reserved state war powers, but also recognized them:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ... or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

Let’s flip that language to an affirmative form:

“Any state may keep troops and ships of war in time of war, ... and engage in war ... if actually invaded or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

In other words, states may wage defensive, but not offensive, war. Unlike the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789), the Constitution imposed no limit on the armies or navies a state may raise during a time of war. (The states aren’t limited to their militias.) Unlike the Articles, the Constitution laid down no requirement that the war be congressionally declared and no restriction on the nature of the invasion. The only requirements imposed by the Constitution are that there be an actual invasion or an “imminent Danger” of one.
....

‘Enemies of the Human Race’​

During the 18th century, civilized nations were often disturbed by criminal gangs that recognized no sovereigns. Legal writers called these gangs hostes humani generis—a Latin phrase meaning “enemies of the human race.”

Enemies of the human race might operate on the sea, prey on shipping, and attack port towns. If so, they were called “pirates.” But enemies of the human race also included land-based gangs of thieves, deserters, poisoners, assassins, incendiaries, and (as the legal commentator William Blackstone characterized them) “unauthorized voluntiers [sic] in violence.”

The Constitution left the states with the power to conduct war against invasions launched by enemies of the human race. It also left the states with police power to respond to their criminal acts.
...
The attitudes of the founding generation against these malefactors were remorseless. As Emer de Vattel, the Founders’ favorite international law authority, wrote:

“If the justice of each nation ought in general to be confined to the punishment of crimes committed in its own territories; we ought to except from this rule, the villains, who by the quality and habitual frequency of their crimes, violate all public security, and declare themselves the enemies of the human race. Poisoners, assassins, and incendiaries by profession, may be exterminated wherever they are seized ...”

Can you think of some “enemies of the human race” operating along our Southern border today?
...

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part II ​

This part II explains federal and state responsibility in the face of invasion and introduces the topic of transnational criminal gangs.

www.theepochtimes.com



Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor who is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, authored “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant” (3rd ed., 2015). This series is based on his forthcoming research article co-authored with Andrew T. Hyman: “The Constitution, Invasion, Immigration, and the War Powers of States.” It will appear early this year in Volume 13, Issue 1, of the British Journal of American Legal Studies.

 

[sealybobo]

Simple question. I can't elaborate more on this, because there's nothing to add. Can he secure the border or not.

Depends. Is he above the law?

I think Congress has to pass a law and he either signs or vetos.

Remember the Supreme Court said the EPA couldn’t enforce law Congress had to. Probably same here. Biden alone can’t, unless he declares an emergency etc. so I guess he has the power if he deems it an emergency. Is it? Then why is trump saying wait till 2025 and he alone can fix it?

 

[wamose]

Democrats could secure the border if they wanted to. They don't. Back to MAGA.

 

[sealybobo]

Democrats could secure the border if they wanted to. They don't. Back to MAGA.

We never had to until corporations in America started hiring illegals to increase their profits. We have an illegal employer problem

 

[Markle]

We never had to until corporations in America started hiring illegals to increase their profits. We have an illegal employer problem

IF that is the case, why was President Trump able to have far, far fewer illegal aliens coming across the border? Why is it such a clusterheck today?

 

[sealybobo]

IF that is the case, why was President Trump able to have far, far fewer illegal aliens coming across the border? Why is it such a clusterheck today?

The numbers go up and they go down.

I'll give you one reason and you'll probably love it. Immigrants don't want to come here if Trump is president. And that's a problem. Smart ones, rich ones and ones who work hard, don't want to come to such a racist country where they will be treated like shit.

New Data Show Migrants Were More Likely to Be Released by Trump Than Biden​

Also, they were afraid they'd be put in cages?