Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Under our laws, you must present yourself at a border check point to claim asylum. It does not state that you must be allowed into the country. Every person coming over at any other point is an illegal invader and can be returned to Mexico.
Right, The Hill is seriously leftwing. I read it daily because it IS focused on politics, but it's pretty tedious left propaganda too often.^^^This is the publication that just endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in 2024.
I like the British solution, send them all to Rwanda --- in our case, fly all illegals to Honduras or Guatemala. As soon as they are caught. That would stop it, after all. Why can't government be effective?? It was, under Trump.Bus them. Bus them to Ohio and then Ohio can bus them to Texas and then Texas can bus them to Virginia where Virginia can bus to Texas.
Or Texas can pass mandatory e-verify and most will leave on their own.
I like the British solution, send them all to Rwanda --- in our case, fly all illegals to Honduras or Guatemala. As soon as they are caught.
So many people are now talking about this. Here, certainly, but also mention of a possible Hillary re-run in news articles, a steady drip. The Dems just don't have a deep bench! Apart from the hopeless Biden and Harris, who have they got? Gavin Newsom is clearly running, and what a bad start he just made. And the rest ---- something very wrong with them, for the most part, a fake Mexican who is actually Irish, another who is openly homosexual --- they really just don't have anyone plausible to run.If so you can expect Hillary to become the Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.
Not yet, true, but the courts cleared it. Still, with today's collapse of the Johnson government, who knows if that sensible measure will survive.That isn't happening there.
The invasion of Texas is confirmed to be "real" by Texas JudgeIt is an invasion, and they should take appropriate action to stop it.
At this point I have to agree with you. Perhaps some unknown will emerge or perhaps Michelle Obama will change her mind and decide to run.So many people are now talking about this. Here, certainly, but also mention of a possible Hillary re-run in news articles, a steady drip. The Dems just don't have a deep bench! Apart from the hopeless Biden and Harris, who have they got? Gavin Newsom is clearly running, and what a bad start he just made. And the rest ---- something very wrong with them, for the most part, a fake Mexican who is actually Irish, another who is openly homosexual --- they really just don't have anyone plausible to run.
So it has to be Hillary.
I don't operate the system. As I said, I imagine the result would be you are charged with the misdemeanor and order deported.
I imagine that the illegals know that those in charge, ie Biden and his administration, are just going though the motions of pretending to protect America.
2016 Obama's last year. 73,081 granted asylum.
2019 Trump was president and last year before Covid. 92,623 granted asylum.
Why would Trump do that if they all are lying?
Report to Congress on Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021 - United States Department of State
Well done. YOu pivoted from not being able to even grasp the idea of a lying asylum seeker to immediately assuming that they are ALL lying, in seconds.
Excellent use of the false dichotomy logical fallacy.
Meanwhile in the real world, yeah. Tell me, are you proud to be an American?
I am. I am not so proud of many we put in charge though.
Yeah. Very convincing the way you said "yes" But IMMEDIATELY felt a need to qualify it. ANd throw some shit at our leaders.
Ask me if I am proud to be an American.
Biden doesn't make the determination.
TheHill is an Opinion Site..
SEE: Why Texas cannot declare an ‘invasion’ at the border
Well, isn’t this special? The Hill confidently asserts “There are legal and practical reasons why states cannot take immigration matters into their own hands. It is well-settled law that immigration enforcement is the jurisdiction of the federal government.”
The truth is, our federal constitution delegates to Congress a limited power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, and nowhere in the federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear.
The allowance to establish a uniform rule of naturalization is nothing more than providing the steps by which a foreign national may become a citizen of the United States. It is not a delegation of a power by which a State, and people therein, have surrendered their inalienable and preexisting right to self-defense, and that would include the preexisting power to protect against an invasion of its borders by foreign nationals.
In fact it is expressly stated in our federal Constitution that:
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
So, there is a specific exception clearly indicating a state may act on its own if invaded, or imminent danger exists as will not admit of delay.
Surely this wording preserves the preexisting power of a state and people therein, to defend against an invasion and/or other such “imminent danger”, and especially so if the federal government neglects and actually refused to be obedient to the terms of the Constitution and its guarantee that the federal government “shall” protect each of the States against “Invasion”.
The fact is, Congress cannot by legislative acts delegate enforceable powers to itself which the States have not expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution. And, nowhere in the federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear. And so, The Hill’s assertion that Texas cannot declare an “invasion” at its border and protect itself from said invasion, is an assertion not substantiated by the text of the Constitution nor its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
And with reference to the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization, our very own Supreme Court summarized this limited power as follows: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” PASSENGER CASES, 48 U. S. 283 (1849)
Finally, a review of the CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 confirms the delegated power to establish a rule of naturalization is very limited indeed and most certainly does not include an all-encompassing power over “immigration” nor a power to prohibit the various states from protecting against invasions.
.
JWK
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
