Texas refuses to comply with Biden administration's cease-and-desist letter about border access
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.
Lol no they don't. Paxton knows that. Federal agents always have jurisdiction over the border
Right, I mean, literally the federal government could claim 200 miles from the border in Texas and the only thing that could stop them is a bad interpretation of the law by the Supreme Court. Which probably puts it within the realm of possibility, to be honest.
Just send in an 18 year old kid with a gun, those Texans will be petrified with fear and won’t even be able to respond. Or does that only work when it’s at a school?
Just designate the area as an "open air campus" and then you're good to go.
I'm frustrated at myself for laughing as hard as I did
I mean, they are occupying a section of the border of the entire country, and denying, through threat of violence, the federal government/military access to said border. At some point, this simply has to be read as insurrection, and put down. A country only gets to exist and enforce laws by virtue of the implied violence (physical or otherwise) that it can leverage to back it up.
Of course there are complications to this, like the thought that steamrolling these troopers would then spark a greater revolt. But when you have a state doing things like this, particularly a state that has made it abundantly clear they desire to secede and have prepared for secession, I think you need to play hardball. This could be either by forcibly bringing them back in line through state violence, or giving them what they want, in such a way that it ends up being a pyrrhic victory; imagine aggressive border protocols and removal of free travel along the Texas border, intense tariffs and duties on Texan goods, etc… honestly a Texit could be quite beneficial for the country, shifting congress balances somewhat. Add in some statehood’s for PR, Guam and DC and now you’re really cooking with gas.
Who knows though, I’m still finding it hard to believe that the Jan 6 insurrectionists weren’t mowed down in machine gun fire when they penetrated the capitol, so clearly my expectations of government reaction and what actually happens have some daylight between them.
I think having the FBI arrest the leadership is a better approach than troops killing each other.
Yeah I mean that’s fine, but you’d run the same risk there with bluff-calling and standoffs. Like clearly Texas is trying to bait the feds into either rolling over for a cheap win, or doing something that they might be able to use to spark something more significant. Not sure which is worse, but I know which one will look more weak/will incite further escalators acts on Texas’ part.
So the larger issue is that Republicans will continue pushing the goalposts until eventually a drastic action has to be taken. Better now, I think.
Basically exactly what I think also—it’s not an activity that just stops at some arbitrary point, it’s a power negotiation. They’ll push it as far as they can.
The state GOP rejected the petition to even add secession on their primary ballot, and the state Supreme Court declined to take up the pro-secession group's request to intervene.
So it's not really accurate to broadly paint the entire state as frothing at the mouth to secede. We have a sizeable number of idiots who do, but it's objective not part of the Republican state party platform, much less the general population supporting it.
I mean I’m sure plenty of Texans have no desire to succeed. But there are multiple real actions that suggest the state has it in mind: separate border enforcement forces, isolated power grid, the Texas rangers/trooper or whatever they’re called. It may all just be maneuvering/bluster, but when you see the state power structures trying to create Amon Bundy-standoffs it does make one wonder.
There also nascent secession movements elsewhere, California has a visible one.
Nah, the politicians and the populace would gain nothing by seceding. The Republicans are trying to push extreme "state's rights" on all fronts. The goal of this particular fiasco is likely to get a favorable outcome from SCOTUS and to prevent Texas from getting more blue/brown from immigrants' children. The goal of extreme "state's rights" is to ensure Republican control over the federal government (there are more red states than blue states, and if states have enough rights to do things like overriding election results, voter suppression, extreme gerrymandering, and other various ways of "rigging" elections, Republicans can ensure control over both state and federal government).
Look I agree—I doubt very much they have a real intention of seceding—it would be a shitshow—but they do do things to float the spectre of secession. But I agree it’s about extreme states rights, and leading by example, since among the red states, Texas has the largest GDP after California in country (or perhaps they’re more now, not sure depending on gas/oil stuff)
The gdp thing is the same reason that there is a marginal Californian secession movement.
Abbott does have a history of trotting out the national guard to keep the US military in place. If you don't remember, look up the Jade Helm Scare. A Russian propaganda farm pushed the idea on social media that Obama was going to take TX citizens prisoner in abandoned Walmarts that were converted to holding centers and do something with them. Abbott was so convinced this could happen, that he ordered the national guard to watch the military training g exercise nicknamed Jade Helm.
I remember that. Such a weird and excellent name for a loony military operation.
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.
That will likely result in bloodshed. I think it's inevitable at this point unless Biden decides to completely roll over.
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.
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.
Same policy as with Southern states after the Civil War.
I would argue that Texas has already done enough to be stripped of control permanently.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You’d surely have a court order by that point preventing it from happening again. Courts can bring in marshals I’d think.
Ah, that makes sense then. I think the marshals as the last step if needed helps close the loop. Thanks!
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.
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.
Read the wiki article on the standoff in Waco, TX, which happened under Clinton. It would be a larger version of that.
The only thing Ken Paxton should be defending in court is himself for securities fraud.
WTF? A cease and desist is a demand, not a "request!"
That's not even quoting Texas' fascist AG or anything; that's the article writers' own spin. Why are Julia Ainsley and Zoë Richards carrying water for fascists?
Their editors told them it makes more money, I'd guess.
Could you elaborate on the distinction between demand and request?
A request is optional. A demand is not.
I guess I get what you're saying. You're saying that it's irrelevant what the requester/demander calls it, what makes the distinction is whether or not there are stated consequences beyond the displeasure of the requester/demander.
Paxton was trying to change the narrative here, but it didn't work. He's trying to reframe it so that he feels better about it.
LOL governments don't ask you to pretty please not speed, the demand that you don't. Get it?
Just arrest all these fuckers, starting with the Texas Governor.
The governor sucks but please start with Paxton.
Invite them both to the White House. Then arrest them at the same time
Revoke all federal funding until they comply
Use their federal funding to forcibly remove them and place them in prison. Governance of national borders is not and should not be contingent on the presumed compliance of some malicious shitheads.
For fuck's sake, arrest these nimrods. At gunpoint, because God knows they aren't fucking cooperative.
"Now stop it or we'll send another sternly-worded letter!"
Arrest the guy for obstructing federal agencies. Then send another strongly worded letter to everyone else.
If they still refuse… arrest them too.
That would be nice, wouldn't it?
Dems: “Help! We sent a letter with strongest possible wording, it wasn’t effective, and we’re all out of ideas!”
How many times do conservatives have to slap Dems in the face before realizing they aren’t good faith actors?! Genocide in the Middle East, murder for fun on the southern border…what a mess.
The clear answer here is to say if Texas demands to police the boarder, all Federal boarder agents will be pulled back, and funding for boarder protection will be withheld. You can’t have it both ways.
I completely agree. If they want to, then let them. Easiest solution
Yeah, because the feds do such a bang up job of securing the border...
Anything that goes wrong there is the fault of 30 years of Republicans blocking any sort of change. Don't blame the feds, they don't have the authority to fix this problem. Congress is the only one who can.
Republicans: We need stronger border protections!
DHS: Here's increased BPD funding and facility modernization efforts.
Republicans: No. Only death.
Time to recolonize Texas, send in the settlers.
Just give it back to Mexico. When the Texans try to immigrate into the US, nudge them into the nearest river.
Wait no! Some of us want out!
God I hate our state government
Also remember Ken Paxton is a criminal
They decided the pronouns of Texas are her? Awfully progressive, didn't know the state of Texas could even have a gender?
...so arrest it.
Isn’t that insurrection? The Texas government needs to be dismantled and rebuilt.
Time for my daily comment on this situation that Biden won't do shit because the only true crime to democrats is hurting Republican feels.
Is it so hard to ask for a President that Respects the Rule Of Law? If poor people did this they would be in jail! A Politician does this and gets a sternly worded letter!
As I've said before, America should overthrow Texas
Texas politicians take orders from Saudi princes
Texas is using the national guard, Biden is the Commander and Chief, he should just order them to stand down, then court marshal anyone who refuses the lawful order.
I feel like I'm watching episodes of designated survivor with these guys
We need another Waco
everything is now a state by state issue regardless of federal anyway - medical and other insurances such as vehicle policies, what health care you are allowed to receive, wages, how the justice system works, cannabis, food assistance, etcetera
if the federal government wants it otherwise we should have a federal set of laws we all have to live by no matter the state line we cross
biden is barking up the wrong tree seeing as how he is a state's rights supporter
Keep in mind that you can add "but states rights" to any situation. Sadly, that's part of the US religion and people will defend their ability to treat their own residents horridly.
Is it really? How about we cut off ALL federal aid and services?
I can’t believe you actually said we should have fed laws. You must be a troll.
states in the end decide if they want federal aid and services such as SNAP
US lets the states decide because it has devolved into a state's right over federal country
That’s not what you said.
You said there should be federal laws. There are. Try taking pot across state lines via airplane and see if you get caught and which laws you get charged under.
depends on the state lines you cross and how that state or now city feels about it
some cities in the US are half illegal and half recreational and or medical so sometimes it is a half of the city line
the states also decide if they want to use federal or state laws when convicting not the federal government
anyone who has extensively travelled the US will see past the HOA looking veil
federal laws have devolved into something that allows states full control