Jump to content

Only In Texas....


Murph

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 762
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

8 hours ago, Burncycle360 said:

What was the supreme court's rationale for their decision?

Not finding primary sources on their opinions / statements, just finding media interpretations of "they're on our side this time so they're good!" or vice versa.

Apparently it is a pretty thin decision with little supporting rationale.  

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/court-allows-border-patrol-to-cut-texas-razor-wire-along-rio-grande/

I just checked the Supreme Court site and no order has been published which is odd, which means they voted, and did not write anything.  Sort of cowardly IMHO.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

So 25 states with their own militaries are backing Texas in a totally avoidable border crisis? 

What a great president Biden has proven to be!

BIden could have prevented this by simply doing his job and securing the border.  But he wanted this, and now there are rumors he (or his family) is getting $$$ from the cartels for allowing this.  That is a bit of stretch, but the man has been bought by multiple countries to date, so it is possible, if not probable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Murph said:

Apparently it is a pretty thin decision with little supporting rationale.  

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/court-allows-border-patrol-to-cut-texas-razor-wire-along-rio-grande/

I just checked the Supreme Court site and no order has been published which is odd, which means they voted, and did not write anything.  Sort of cowardly IMHO.  

 

My understanding is that it's a very thin order merely allowing the feds to cut the wire to access people in danger. It does NOT preclude Texas putting up the wire in the first place. Something that has NOT been very well or clearly stated by those wanting an open border. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rmgill said:

My understanding is that it's a very thin order merely allowing the feds to cut the wire to access people in danger. It does NOT preclude Texas putting up the wire in the first place. Something that has NOT been very well or clearly stated by those wanting an open border. 

Yes, but the NPCs will never understand it, since they have to keep "The Narrative" alive.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Burncycle360 said:

What was the supreme court's rationale for their decision?

Not finding primary sources on their opinions / statements, just finding media interpretations of "they're on our side this time so they're good!" or vice versa.

The court gave no reasons for their decision.  

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012224zr_fd9g.pdf

It would seem they accepted the Administration's position that law rather clearly gives the Border Patrol full access to the border which includes being able to dismantle fences in their way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Murph said:

BIden could have prevented this by simply doing his job and securing the border.  But he wanted this, and now there are rumors he (or his family) is getting $$$ from the cartels for allowing this.  That is a bit of stretch, but the man has been bought by multiple countries to date, so it is possible, if not probable.  

Not sure Biden is taking any bribes right now - his favorite launder mat Hunter is out of commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt Biden's lawyers would let him or his family members take any monies directly. That said, there are nigh-infinite options for laundering.

I recently read of a case in Texas wherein doctors were getting kickbacks from some services provider (may have been a lab), via a creative dodge. The services provider created and funded an investment holding firm or similar vehicle, doctors invested some nominal amount, services provider dumped millions into the investment vehicle which then paid out massive returns to the participating docs. Worked great, for awhile. But tax guys never sleep.

That sort of dodge could very well work for the Biden syndicate, as no one at the federal level would dare to look too closely at any of the Biden's tax returns or financial holdings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2024 at 3:36 PM, glenn239 said:

Not sure Biden is taking any bribes right now - his favorite launder mat Hunter is out of commission.

Is he? He's still getting Hundreds of thousands of dollars for his art. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/02/05/hunter-biden-art-investigation-republican/11170330002/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2024 at 1:44 AM, Burncycle360 said:

What was the supreme court's rationale for their decision?

Not finding primary sources on their opinions / statements, just finding media interpretations of "they're on our side this time so they're good!" or vice versa.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2024 at 1:36 PM, Roman Alymov said:

Is it a special "border zone" in USA (like in Russia) or territory along the border is not of some special legal status?

I do not know what are "special'"border zone(s)'' in Russia are, but, as far as I know,  no to the second part of your answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rick said:

I do not know what are "special'"border zone(s)'' in Russia are,

Yandex-translation from https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пограничная_зона

"A border zone is a piece of terrain in the form of a strip of land along the border of a state and territory where the free movement of people and their economic activities are restricted. According to the legislation, it serves the interests of creating the necessary conditions for the protection of the state border. The border zone should not be confused with protected natural areas (reserves and national parks), where public access is restricted or closed, as well as autonomous entities, where special permission may be required.

The practice of introducing border zones exists both in some developed countries and in some third world countries.

Currently, many European countries have abolished the practice of restricting access to the state border for both their own citizens and foreigners, which is directly related to the existence of a long-term visa-free regime between these countries. A very narrow border zone remains in Cyprus, along the demarcation line separating the Greek and Turkish communities of the island. There is a border zone in Finland on the border with Russia, which, according to Finnish law, can extend up to 4 km from the border line by water (in the Gulf of Finland this corresponds to reality) and up to 3 km by land (in practice, the size of the border zone on land varies from 0.4 to 2.5 km).

The border zone in some states is equipped with engineering structures."

11 hours ago, Rick said:

, as far as I know,  no to the second part of your answer. 

Thank you! So the land, for example, 10 (or 50) meters from border line is regular land regulated by state (not federal) laws - so what is the problem of putting barbed wire not exactly on border but few meters away, on Texas-controlled land? It will do the same job and will not be considered border fence, just "regular security fence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Thank you! So the land, for example, 10 (or 50) meters from border line is regular land regulated by state (not federal) laws - so what is the problem of putting barbed wire not exactly on border but few meters away, on Texas-controlled land? It will do the same job and will not be considered border fence, just "regular security fence".

While hardly a specialist here, if the land adjacent to the border didn't have a special status, the Supreme Court could do fuck-all about Texas NG activities, instead it ruled that the feds can remove the barbed wire. That it didn't rule that the Texas NG isn't allowed to lay more barbed wire is another thing altogether.

From what I understand, the federal government has the obligation to secure the borders of the country and the reasoning of the state of Texas is that they basically abdicated this responsibility and due to that the state of Texas is taking it over. 

Now it looks like the Biden administration is proposing some bizarre deal that would make the federal government start expulsions... if the number of illegal migrants exceeds 5k per day (1,8 mln per year). 

Quote

The White House has agreed to new limits on asylum at the border, including the creation of an expulsion power that would allow migrants who cross the US-Mexico border illegally to be rapidly returned to Mexico if migrant encounters surpass 4,000 per day, three sources familiar with the matter said.

If encounters pass 5,000 per day, the use of the expulsion authority would become mandatory, according to the sources who requested anonymity to discuss details of the private negotiations.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/27/biden-border-deal-senate

Maybe it's just my common-sense bias, but it's fucking retarded, as the 'preferred' number of illegal immigrants should be zero by definition.

 

I'd like some USian somewhat competent in the subject to correct me if necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Maybe it's just my common-sense bias, but it's fucking retarded, as the 'preferred' number of illegal immigrants should be zero by definition.

The preferred number is context-dependent.

Back when the issue was legal (mostly) immigrants working in California's farm fields, the preferred number was 0. Democratic hero Cesar Chavez and his boys were out there with barbed-wire-wrapped baseball bats discouraging said practice.

After the DNC realized that illegals were both cheap labor and free votes, illegal immigration became more desirable than free beer and Chavez instantly became the illegal's champion.

There are some Rs in favor of illegal labor (think meat-packing plants and the like), but I think the evil populists have flushed that mindset mostly out of the party. Holdovers like Glitch McConnell are holding out, but I think flooding of the sanctuary cities and drone footage of the border are too compelling.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Yandex-translation from https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пограничная_зона

"A border zone is a piece of terrain in the form of a strip of land along the border of a state and territory where the free movement of people and their economic activities are restricted. According to the legislation, it serves the interests of creating the necessary conditions for the protection of the state border. The border zone should not be confused with protected natural areas (reserves and national parks), where public access is restricted or closed, as well as autonomous entities, where special permission may be required.

The practice of introducing border zones exists both in some developed countries and in some third world countries.

Currently, many European countries have abolished the practice of restricting access to the state border for both their own citizens and foreigners, which is directly related to the existence of a long-term visa-free regime between these countries. A very narrow border zone remains in Cyprus, along the demarcation line separating the Greek and Turkish communities of the island. There is a border zone in Finland on the border with Russia, which, according to Finnish law, can extend up to 4 km from the border line by water (in the Gulf of Finland this corresponds to reality) and up to 3 km by land (in practice, the size of the border zone on land varies from 0.4 to 2.5 km).

The border zone in some states is equipped with engineering structures."

Thank you! So the land, for example, 10 (or 50) meters from border line is regular land regulated by state (not federal) laws - so what is the problem of putting barbed wire not exactly on border but few meters away, on Texas-controlled land? It will do the same job and will not be considered border fence, just "regular security fence".

I don't have good knowledge of this, but I believe the U.S. government has the legal responsibility of establishing U.S. borders. If the U.S. government fails in this responsibility, then via various laws, the states can take action on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2024 at 4:37 PM, Roman Alymov said:

Yandex-translation from https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пограничная_зона

"A border zone is a piece of terrain in the form of a strip of land along the border of a state and territory where the free movement of people and their economic activities are restricted. According to the legislation, it serves the interests of creating the necessary conditions for the protection of the state border. The border zone should not be confused with protected natural areas (reserves and national parks), where public access is restricted or closed, as well as autonomous entities, where special permission may be required.

The practice of introducing border zones exists both in some developed countries and in some third world countries.

Currently, many European countries have abolished the practice of restricting access to the state border for both their own citizens and foreigners, which is directly related to the existence of a long-term visa-free regime between these countries. A very narrow border zone remains in Cyprus, along the demarcation line separating the Greek and Turkish communities of the island. There is a border zone in Finland on the border with Russia, which, according to Finnish law, can extend up to 4 km from the border line by water (in the Gulf of Finland this corresponds to reality) and up to 3 km by land (in practice, the size of the border zone on land varies from 0.4 to 2.5 km).

The border zone in some states is equipped with engineering structures."

Thank you! So the land, for example, 10 (or 50) meters from border line is regular land regulated by state (not federal) laws - so what is the problem of putting barbed wire not exactly on border but few meters away, on Texas-controlled land? It will do the same job and will not be considered border fence, just "regular security fence".

Sorry for the delayed response. There are no "special border" zones on the U.S. border or state borders which you described that I am aware of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are laws concerning what the Border Patrol and Customs can do within 25 miles of the border;

 

https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_border_rights.pdf

Quote

Border Patrol cannot go onto private land more than 25 miles inland of the border without a warrant or consent. Agents may enter onto private land without a warrant within 25 miles of the border. However, Border Patrol agents cannot enter a home or dwelling on private land anywhere without a warrant or consent. Border Patrol should not cause physical damage to private property.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Rick said:

I don't have good knowledge of this, but I believe the U.S. government has the legal responsibility of establishing U.S. borders. If the U.S. government fails in this responsibility, then via various laws, the states can take action on this.

Thank you, then the logical question is "Who is making the decision about U.S. government fails or not in its responsibility of establishing U.S. borders?" As far as i understand, Gov is insisting borders are ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...