Mexico says it will not accept migrants deported by Texas under new state law

[Independent thinker]

Well then....... There's that. Texas can arrest and try to deport them. But apparently Mexico isn't going to give them the chance.

Mexico says it will not accept migrants deported by Texas under new state law​

March 19 (UPI) -- Mexico will not accept migrants deported by Texas, its foreign ministry said after the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a controversial law that allows Texas police to arrest people suspected of crossing into the state illegally.

The foreign ministry issued the statement Tuesday, condemning Texas Senate Bill 4, which makes it a criminal offense to illegally cross in to Texas via the Texas-Mexico border. The law also requires Texas judges to order those convicted to be returned to Mexico.

Funny how they let tens of thousands of migrants cross their border every single day, heading to the US. I guess they're OK with that.

 

[Moonglow]

how many different categories do you put christians in

As many as they appear in

 

[elektra]

As many as they appear in

You dont know why you think what you think, not surprising

 

[Moonglow]

Gay people detest Christianity because by and large homosexuality is condemned in both the Hebrew scriptures and the Greek scriptures. Using that as a starting point They work hard to find other reasons why they don't like Christians.

It is not a position of me hating Christians or being gay, it's more of a position I see Christians practicing not being Christians while pretending to be a Christian.

 

[Unkotare]

No they are not upholding the laws. The Constitution gives the decisions on immigration to the Federal Government. If Texas was upholding the law, they would be continuing to work with, instead of against, those with the authority and power to do something. Maybe the Texas Representatives and Senators could have voted on the border bill.

Of you are a member of a club, and don’t want to abide by the rules, they kick you out. If you are a member of society and don’t abide by the rules they penalize you. Texas doesn’t want to abide by the rules, so kick them the hell out. Then Texas would have the power to do any old thing they wanted on immigration wouldn’t they?

If Texas wants their own laws on immigration they need to be a country and not a State. I say make it happen.

Wow, that's stupid.

 

[Moonglow]

You dont know why you think what you think, not surprising

I damn sure never needed you to tell me the who, what, when, where or how of myself. But you may pretend to be my master all yous likes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What say we only take Baha California this time?

We need to deport all the US politicians and police working with the cartels

Also I’ll never understand why Abbott hasn’t called up the National Guard to seal the border

 

[Meathead]

We need to deport all the US politicians and police working with the cartels

Also I’ll never understand why Abbott hasn’t called up the National Guard to seal the border

Doesn't Mexico have enough corrupt politicians already? Oh, you mean as a form of punishment - OK.

 

[elektra]

I damn sure never needed you to tell me the who, what, when, where or how of myself. But you may pretend to be my master all yous likes.

I just assumed when you made a statement it was based on logic.

When you reply with gibberish, that indicates you have no idea of why you said what you said.

My comments are based on what you post.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Doesn't Mexico have enough corrupt politicians already? Oh, you mean as a form of punishment - OK.

Kiev or Gitmo might be better

 

[HeyNorm]

You dont know why you think what you think, not surprising

Cults only do as they are told.

 

[justoffal]

It is not a position of me hating Christians or being gay, it's more of a position I see Christians practicing not being Christians while pretending to be a Christian.

With more than 3,000 denominations out there The variance between sets of beliefs is pretty broad. One of the basic tenets of Christianity is the admission to oneself that one is not perfect and given to sin and therefore in constant need of forgiveness.

 

[Moonglow]

With more than 3,000 denominations out there The variance between sets of beliefs is pretty broad. One of the basic tenets of Christianity is the admission to oneself but one is not perfect and given to sin and therefore needing a forgiveness constantly.

Don't forget the altruism one must display.
3000 denominations, amazing how many times you can dice up a Christ.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes, they are upholding the law, unless you can prove the laws on immigration have been repealed.

The constitution? Which section mentions immigration and that only the federal government can arrest people that break federal law.

The laws were not repealed. But the laws also give enforcement authority to a specific group don’t they? That specific group is not any town constable in the nation.

 

[SavannahMann]

Texas will take half the country with it leaving a west and east of what was formerly know as the USA.

And maybe it's time we split. You get Biden and his illegals.

I’m not talking a civil war. I am talking about a Constitutional Amendment. Let Texas be first and show us how it is done.

 

[elektra]

The laws were not repealed. But the laws also give enforcement authority to a specific group don’t they? That specific group is not any town constable in the nation.

Quote the law

And how do you accout for other federal criminals being arrested by local authorities.

 

[Meathead]

I’m not talking a civil war. I am talking about a Constitutional Amendment. Let Texas be first and show us how it is done.

Who's talking about a civil war? Just let those who want to go with Texas do so freely and see what's left.

 

[Care4all]

Yes, they are upholding the law, unless you can prove the laws on immigration have been repealed.

The constitution? Which section mentions immigration and that only the federal government can arrest people that break federal law.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-1/ALDE_00001255/

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizes Congress as having plenary power over immigration, giving it almost complete authority to decide whether foreign nationals (aliens, under governing statutes and case law) may enter or remain in the United States.1 But while Congress’s power over immigration is well established, defining its constitutional underpinnings is more difficult. The Constitution does not mention immigration, but parts of the Constitution address related subjects. The Supreme Court has sometimes relied upon Congress’s powers over naturalization (the term and conditions in which an alien becomes a U.S. citizen),2 foreign commerce,3 and, to a lesser extent, upon the Executive Branch’s implied Article II foreign affairs power,4 as sources of federal immigration power.5 While these powers continue to be cited as supporting the immigration power, since the late nineteenth century, the Supreme Court has described the power as flowing from the Constitution’s establishment of a federal government.6 The United States government possesses all the powers incident to a sovereign, including unqualified authority over the Nation’s borders and the ability to determine whether foreign nationals may come within its territory.7 The Supreme Court has generally assigned the constitutional power to regulate immigration to Congress, with executive authority mainly derived from congressional delegations of authority.8
In exercising its power over immigration, Congress can make laws concerning aliens that would be unconstitutional if applied to citizens.9 The Supreme Court has interpreted that power to apply with most force to the admission and exclusion of nonresident aliens abroad seeking to enter the United States.10 The Court has further upheld laws excluding aliens from entry on the basis of ethnicity,11 gender and legitimacy,12 and political belief.13 It has also upheld an Executive Branch exclusion policy, premised on a broad statutory delegation of authority, that some evidence suggested was motivated by religious animus.14 But the immigration power has proven less than absolute when directed at aliens already physically present within the United States.15 Even so, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence reflects that Congress retains broad power to regulate immigration and that the Court will accord substantial deference to the government’s immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Topics​

• Immigration and Naturalization

Footnotes​

The footnotes has the links to the Supreme court cases and rulings at the link posted!!!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Just shove em back across the border.

 

[Meathead]

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-1/ALDE_00001255/

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizes Congress as having plenary power over immigration, giving it almost complete authority to decide whether foreign nationals (aliens, under governing statutes and case law) may enter or remain in the United States.1 But while Congress’s power over immigration is well established, defining its constitutional underpinnings is more difficult. The Constitution does not mention immigration, but parts of the Constitution address related subjects. The Supreme Court has sometimes relied upon Congress’s powers over naturalization (the term and conditions in which an alien becomes a U.S. citizen),2 foreign commerce,3 and, to a lesser extent, upon the Executive Branch’s implied Article II foreign affairs power,4 as sources of federal immigration power.5 While these powers continue to be cited as supporting the immigration power, since the late nineteenth century, the Supreme Court has described the power as flowing from the Constitution’s establishment of a federal government.6 The United States government possesses all the powers incident to a sovereign, including unqualified authority over the Nation’s borders and the ability to determine whether foreign nationals may come within its territory.7 The Supreme Court has generally assigned the constitutional power to regulate immigration to Congress, with executive authority mainly derived from congressional delegations of authority.8
In exercising its power over immigration, Congress can make laws concerning aliens that would be unconstitutional if applied to citizens.9 The Supreme Court has interpreted that power to apply with most force to the admission and exclusion of nonresident aliens abroad seeking to enter the United States.10 The Court has further upheld laws excluding aliens from entry on the basis of ethnicity,11 gender and legitimacy,12 and political belief.13 It has also upheld an Executive Branch exclusion policy, premised on a broad statutory delegation of authority, that some evidence suggested was motivated by religious animus.14 But the immigration power has proven less than absolute when directed at aliens already physically present within the United States.15 Even so, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence reflects that Congress retains broad power to regulate immigration and that the Court will accord substantial deference to the government’s immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Topics​

• Immigration and Naturalization

Footnotes​

The footnotes has the links to the Supreme court cases and rulings at the link posted!!!

The problem here is that the current supreme court has made a decision and that decision allows one state to arrest and deport illegals.