415
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The Department of Homeland Security had directed the state to stop blocking the U.S. Border Patrol’s access to roughly 2½ miles of the U.S.-Mexico border

Texas is refusing to comply with a cease-and-desist letter from the Biden administration over actions by the state that have impeded U.S. Border Patrol agents from accessing part of the border with Mexico.

In a letter to the Department of Homeland Security, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton rejected the Biden administration’s request for the state to “cease and desist” its takeover of Shelby Park, an epicenter of southwest border illegal immigration in Eagle Pass.

"Because the facts and law side with Texas, the State will continue utilizing its constitutional authority to defend her territory, and I will continue defending those lawful efforts in court," Paxton wrote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 86 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

What's the issue? Get a ton of federal agents, march on the border, arrest all obstructing Texas shitheads and beat them down with the book. Make examples out of them.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 18 points 2 years ago

That will likely result in bloodshed. I think it's inevitable at this point unless Biden decides to completely roll over.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 44 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

There's not going to be any bloodshed. Texas National Guard soldiers want to go home safely every night, just like everyone else. I think the main issue is the border patrol doesn't want a conflict.

Biden could nationalize the Texas Guard troops at the fence. Then give them a direct order to open the gate. If they don't, dishonorable discharge for disobeying a direct order from the President. No pension, no nothing. They will open the gate.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

What happens after that? Does he de-nationalize them once the issue is sorted, or has Texas now lost full control permanently?

edit: I seem to have hit some nerve with a legitimate question? 7 downvotes???? I don't know how biden nationalizing the state guard works and what happens after.

[-] wanderingmagus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Same policy as with Southern states after the Civil War.

[-] skulblaka@startrek.website 9 points 2 years ago

I would argue that Texas has already done enough to be stripped of control permanently.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

The reason people are downvoting you is because your question is "So what does Biden do with his authority after exercising his authority? Not exercise it more or exercise it forever?"

You think you have a gotcha, but really you just sound ignorant and angry.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

WTF? There's no gotcha there.

I seriously have no idea what happens after he does it. There's 0 anger in my question just trying to understand what it actually means.

It solves the immediate problem, but whats the aftermath.

Edit: And please do tell what kind of options beside eventually giving control back, or keeping control exist? I seriously don't know.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The National Guard is the "militia" that you hear about in the Constitution and such. Basically militias were brought up during the Revolutionary War and are what actually fought most of the battles. Those people wanted to ensure that militias would always be a thing so that in the future, oppression wouldn't occur.

In normal times, a governor is the head of a militia. But ultimately, the militias are part of the US military and always under the president. There are going to be laws and situations that Congress has spelled out over the years that say when this can or cannot happen, for how long it can last, etc.

In brief: during an emergency, the president or governor calls up the reservists. Think natural disasters and such. When the emergency is over, they go back home and back to their normal jobs.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

This doesn't seem the same though?

In this case it's the state national guard interfering with federal business. They themselves are the emergency.

If he nationalizes them to resolve the situation (letting the border guard patrol the area) the moment he ends his control, Texas would just start up the interference again?

Is the outcome that he nationalizes it, and they remain under his control until a federal court orders Texas to comply, at which point he returns control to Texas?

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

You’d surely have a court order by that point preventing it from happening again. Courts can bring in marshals I’d think.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Ah, that makes sense then. I think the marshals as the last step if needed helps close the loop. Thanks!

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

The same thing happens as with desegregation. The national guard eventually goes home as the operation is considered complete. Sure the governor could reactivate them and try to understand everything, but that's not really realistic.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

We already handled the “what are you going to do if we don’t follow the law” question here once, they must have just taken that part out of their history books.

I'm fine with bloodshed. SWAT the fuckers in their beds.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Read the wiki article on the standoff in Waco, TX, which happened under Clinton. It would be a larger version of that.

this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
415 points (98.6% liked)

News

35714 readers
677 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS