236

Supreme Court allows Biden administration to remove razor wire on US-Mexico border in 5-4 vote (www.cnn.com)

submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Supreme Court is allowing US Border Patrol agents to remove razor wire deployed by Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott’s security initiative at the US-Mexico border while the state’s legal challenge to the practice plays out.

The vote was 5-4.

The justices’ order is a major victory for President Joe Biden in his ongoing dispute with Abbott over border policy, which had become especially fraught in recent days after three migrants drowned in a section of the Rio Grande that state officials have blocked agents’ access to, prompting the administration to further press for the high court’s intervention.

A federal appeals court last month ordered the Border Patrol agents to stop removing razor wire along a small stretch of the Rio Grande while court proceedings continue, and the Justice Department asked the justices earlier this month to step in on an emergency basis to wipe away that order, which they did on Monday.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said they would have denied the federal request.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I don't agree with Abbotts position here. Border Patrol has the legal responsibility to patrol the national border - and unfortunately, they've extended that range to 200 miles inland, which is fucking bonkers.

I am sympathetic to Texans wanting to things done their way, as it's their state but it's a national border. If Texas wanted to patrol their border with Oklahoma, I would consider that their prerogative, just as I think it's Cali's prerogative to do so with Az.

Im sus of Paxton or Abbott actually wanting to solve any issues here tho. This feels like more grandstanding and politicking, throwing fodder to the media controversy machine. If Texans were set on securing the border to the manner they see fit, why don't they fall back, idk fifty fucking feet and defend that line?

Seems like that would allow BP to do what they need to do, and if there's just a "second wall" behind, that would allow Texas to do what it wants to do. Fucking Constantinople had 3 sets of walls that stood unpenetrable for 1000 years, its not like multiple walls is historically unheard of.

But, I'm not convinced Republicans want a solution towards immigration. I think they just want the theatrics so they can point at something when you ask why nothing's getting done (a placation I traditionally ascribe to democrats; for example DC renaming a street BLM Boulevard instead of addressing any of the raised issues)

[-] baronvonj@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

But, I'm not convinced Republicans want a solution towards immigration.

They don't. Neither the House GOP in general

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics/johnson-immigration-deal-house-senate/index.html

Or even just the ones from Texas

https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/house-republican-says-he-wont-accept-a-border-deal-because-it-may-help-biden-politically/articleshow/106552804.cms

They just want to rage bait to stay in office.

[-] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Trump weakened the border with his ICE policies.

Abbot deterred Asylum Seekers but likely forced dishonest peoples to just enter somewhere else.

The GOP don't give a fuck about keeping America safe, they just need to do enough song and dance to make it seem like we're being invaded by brown people, and then their supporters will hoot and holler hurrah.

this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024

236 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19170 readers

5442 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News