Bussing illegals to the libs

[BugI02]

I've never been to dc and don't plan to go, but who picks up the bills for that town? I'm wondering if Texas ships illegals to dc if my tax money will be paying for them?

A lot of your money is paying for their care and feeding already

What would be priceless is if they start fanning out into the high income suburbs around DC in Virginia and Maryland, especially when Ken and Karen find out that they no longer have to be covid-free to get the golden ticket

The wealthy are all for aiding the less fortunate as long as it is done predominantly with other people's money and they don't actually have to see them

 

[BugI02]

Simple enough. Immigration enforcement is the purview of the federal government. Regardless of whether the person agrees to the journey or not, a state that is transporting them across state lines is literally committing interstate trafficking of illegal immigrants. The state government has no authority to do this.

1907. TITLE 8, U.S.C. 1324(A) OFFENSES​

Domestic Transporting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.

1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses

www.justice.gov

So, take a page from the sanctuary city and sanctuary state playbook, just ignore federal law and let the gov't take them to court. Fight every injunction at every level and air the dirty laundry of the whole disgusting program during the run up to the midterms

Disobey

 

[indyblue]

Simple enough. Immigration enforcement is the purview of the federal government. Regardless of whether the person agrees to the journey or not, a state that is transporting them across state lines is literally committing interstate trafficking of illegal immigrants. The state government has no authority to do this.

1907. TITLE 8, U.S.C. 1324(A) OFFENSES​

Domestic Transporting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.

1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses

www.justice.gov

So, if the state does it it is trafficking but if the fed does it it isn't? It seems like the feds are breaking the same law, Unless the feds are above the law.

These are aliens that have been caught, processed and released. How is it then trafficing once they're released by ICE? What law is the state violating that the administration isn't? I just guess legalese is above my pay-grade.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Demo don't care about " illegal " . Why should anyone else?

 

[KLB]

Since the census counts bodies not legal status, having them in a blue state helps the Ds get more seats in the house and more electoral votes.

 

[phylodog]

It's comforting to know that this administration isn't wasting any time indoctrinating illegal immigrant children with leftist ********. I'd hate to think about this operation being inefficient in destroying our country.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It's comforting to know that this administration isn't wasting any time indoctrinating illegal immigrant children with leftist ********. I'd hate to think about this operation being inefficient in destroying our country.

I'm surprised they're still permitting the use of the terms "Gentleman" and "Gentlewoman" these days. Shouldn't it just be "Gentleperson"?

 

[KG1]

I'm surprised they're still permitting the use of the terms "Gentleman" and "Gentlewoman" these days. Shouldn't it just be "Gentleperson"?

I think they should use the term "asshat" Good thing I'm not in Congress.

 

[churchmouse]

I've never been to dc and don't plan to go, but who picks up the bills for that town? I'm wondering if Texas ships illegals to dc if my tax money will be paying for them?

Everything any Gov agency does at any level they do with our money. They don't have any money but what they steal from us.

 

[JEBland]

(Half purple)

Something I don't understand is that nearly every state makes is a state offense to violate federal gun laws (incl. IN). So why can't TX just make it a state offense to violate federal immigration law? The might need to build couple of extra prisons, call it an economic development plan for Texans.

 

[Route 45]

So, if the state does it it is trafficking but if the fed does it it isn't?

Correct. The state has no authority to take government action outside of its borders. The federal government is charged with enforcement of immigration law, which is federal law. This would include the authority to transport persons involved with the immigration system across state lines.

These are aliens that have been caught, processed and released. How is it then trafficing once they're released by ICE? What law is the state violating that the administration isn't? I just guess legalese is above my pay-grade.

There could be a reasonable argument that those that have been caught, processed and released by ICE have a quasi-legal status, pending an immigration hearing. I seriously doubt that these are the illegals that are being considered for free "voluntary" bus rides to DC, though. Why would an illegal immigrant volunteer to go to DC, unless they have friends, family or some kind of initial support there? I'm a citizen, and you couldn't pay me to live in DC.

 

[phylodog]

Considering the current political status quo in D.C. as it pertains to adherence to the Constitution I don't think I'd be too terribly concerned about breaking the law as governor of a state dealing with the intentional *** ****ing the administration is delivering to my citizens on a daily basis. At some point, someone has to have the balls to stand up and give it back to the bastards.

After they drop them off the should bill the white house for the fuel.

 

[Route 45]

(Half purple)

Something I don't understand is that nearly every state makes is a state offense to violate federal gun laws (incl. IN). So why can't TX just make it a state offense to violate federal immigration law? The might need to build couple of extra prisons, call it an economic development plan for Texans.

PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution invalidates (preempts) state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law (Article VI, Cl. 2). With respect to immigration-related matters, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that:

the regulation of aliens is so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government that where it acts, and the state also acts on the same subject, the act of Congress or treaty is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it. And where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation….states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.

(Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941))

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0621.htm

 

[phylodog]

PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution invalidates (preempts) state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law (Article VI, Cl. 2). With respect to immigration-related matters, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that:

the regulation of aliens is so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government that where it acts, and the state also acts on the same subject, the act of Congress or treaty is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it. And where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation….states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.

(Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941))

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0621.htm

Uh oh, they'd better let'em all in. I say donate 15' of land this side of the border to immigrants from one end of the state to the other. On that line 15' from the border, build an electrically charged, 75' wall of intertwined razor wire dense enough that light can't penetrate, from one end of the state to the other save for a 12' wide entrance where these people can enter if the appropriate legal criteria have been met. Technically they will have been allowed into the United States as the Communists in D.C. want and the immigrants themselves can decide if they want to get in that line.

 

[JEBland]

PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution invalidates (preempts) state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law (Article VI, Cl. 2). With respect to immigration-related matters, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that:

the regulation of aliens is so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government that where it acts, and the state also acts on the same subject, the act of Congress or treaty is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it. And where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation….states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.

(Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941))

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0621.htm

So, how does one square this with sanctuary cities/states, or state laws that refer to the federal law? The statement includes "inconsistently with the purpose of Congress" but if making reference specifically to the federal law, wouldn't that by definition be consistent with the purpose of Congress? Refusal to assist the federals by arresting people is different from arresting them for breaking federal law? I don't know the details of handing them off to ICE, but it seems like the consistency with Congress could go a long way there.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution invalidates (preempts) state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law (Article VI, Cl. 2). With respect to immigration-related matters, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that:

the regulation of aliens is so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government that where it acts, and the state also acts on the same subject, the act of Congress or treaty is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it. And where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation….states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.

(Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941))

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0621.htm

So why are sanctuary cities allowed to exist?

 

[2in1evtime]

Put them on some ocean going barges, when they are full send them back south, no state borders crossed that way, the barges are only holding pens til they are returned south!!

 

[Route 45]

So why are sanctuary cities allowed to exist?

They exist because it is the federal government's job to enforce federal law, and there are not nearly enough federal agents to do so without local and state level cooperation. And states cannot be compelled to enforce federal law...like I said, they don't even have the authority to do so, except in limited situations.

 

[Route 45]

So, how does one square this with sanctuary cities/states, or state laws that refer to the federal law? The statement includes "inconsistently with the purpose of Congress" but if making reference specifically to the federal law, wouldn't that by definition be consistent with the purpose of Congress? Refusal to assist the federals by arresting people is different from arresting them for breaking federal law? I don't know the details of handing them off to ICE, but it seems like the consistency with Congress could go a long way there.

The purpose of Congress with regards to federal law, which is written and enacted by Congress, is determined by the Executive branch of the federal government through enforcement, and later through the Judiciary branch if necessary. It is not determined by opinion of state and local officials, as they have no enforcement power regarding said law.

 

[Shadow01]

If Abbot were a true patriot he would secure the border using the Texas National Guard. Invaders would be turned back by authorizing the use of deadly force to repel them. Instead he does publicity bs like this.

Busing them to "blue" areas still accomplishes the goal of the NWO of letting them in in the first place. Don't think for a second that the Federal Reserve and Treasury won't print up a few million more to bus them out of "blue" areas to a neighborhood near you.

Or invite the citizens to stand post with every legal firearm they have.