Biden/Abbott feud makes no sense … but raises serious constitutional issues
Politics and public policy are not founded on common sense – or even the clarity of language. We see that playing out in the border feud between President Biden and Texas Governor Greg Abbott.
If common sense applied, Biden and Abbott would be working together to end the massive illegal crossing of the southern border by folks from more than 40 nations – including adversarial nations. It would seem that they both would have an interest and an official obligation to stop the crisis being caused by the tsunami of migrants entering America. It should not be a difficult problem to resolve – if you really wanted to resolve it.
It makes no sense that the governor of Texas – a state heavily impacted by the unfettered flow of migrants – should be feuding with the federal government because it is doing virtually nothing to stop the flow. Even worse, the Biden administration is doing everything possible to prevent the Abbott from taking action to stop or reduce the number of illegal border crossings. In fact, Biden and the Democrats seem to be resisting efforts to stem the human tide at the border.
That makes no sense – common or otherwise. But it is consistent with Biden’s and the Democrats open door policy. They not only show no interest in ebbing the flow of illegal migrants, but are actually encouraging them to cross the border by (1) not stopping them – signaling the border is open, (2) establishing so-called sanctuary communities in which local authorities thwart federal law with impunity, (3) refuse to cooperate with Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efforts to round up and deport illegal aliens – including criminals (and moves to actually defund ICE), and (4) offering a range of benefits – housing, schooling, healthcare, welfare, driver’s licenses and voting rights – at an enormous costs to local, state and federal taxpayers.
Biden & Co. have immigration proposals they say will alleviate the crisis at the border, but there is a catch. Democrat plans focus on funding more judges and support staff to FACILITATE the matriculation off illegal border crossers into America on a permanent basis – even though some 85 percent of those crossing are not eligible for asylum.
Democrats also want to send billions – possibly trillions — of dollars in foreign aid to a number of nations in which the economy or the culture is driving people out. In other words, America should solve their internal problems of other countries as a means of reducing the number of illegal border crossers without addressing our problem – an open border.
Of course, that will never work. To think we can address the economic and social problems of dozens of nations with American taxpayer money is … ridiculous. Unless you do not sincerely want to address the problem. Then you wave that proposal as a distraction from doing the real job.
Biden’s and the Democrats’ plans show little interest in actually securing the border or stopping the flow. That is why Congress has not been able to pass immigration legislation. Republicans want security and the focus of legislation to first be on enforcement of the border to PREVENT illegal border crossers … period.
And that is what Abbott wants to do. BUT … Biden says that handling the border is exclusively the constitutional responsibility of the federal government – even if Biden and the federal government are not obeying the constitutional requirement to secure the border.
The Biden position is irrational. He claims that only the federal government has the CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to defend the border even as he refuses to use his CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY to … enforce federal immigration laws and defend the border.
Abbott has called out Biden in a statement. He said, “The Executive Branch of the United States has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting States, including immigration laws on the books right now. President Biden has refused to enforce those laws and has even violated them.” Abbott is relying on a state’s “right to self-defense,” which he claims supersedes federal laws.
You know what that means. The Supreme Court is going to have to step into the immigration controversy to provide a constitutional standard. It will not be the first time. Back in 1876 – in Chy Lung v. Freeman – the high Court declared that states cannot determine the qualifications for the admission of foreign nationals. In Arizona v. United States in 2012, the Court ruled that federal law pre-empted Arizona immigration laws.
In a recent emergency decision, the Supreme Court – in a five to four decision – enabled the federal government to remove barriers that Texas had installed to ebb the flow of illegal border crossers. It is no small irony that the Biden administration was exerting it constitutional right to manage the admission of foreign nationals even as it is refusing to do so.
All three of those Court decisions were based on the power to establish qualifications for admission. The Biden/Abbott feud is not over qualification. That is already established in federal law. It is all about enforcing the federal law. The question is: Can a state enforce a federal law if the federal Department of Justice and other federal agencies refuse to do so? Can the federal government refuse to enforce federal law when local communities violate it with sanctuary laws and refusal to cooperate with ICE? And can the federal government order ICE to not enforce federal law. And there are other questions to be resolved.
There is another issue that will need a Supreme Court clarification. And that is the right of private owners to protect their property. Can migrants be arrested for trespassing? Can owners of private property forcible removed migrants– even at gun point. The Abbott administration is already promising to provide free razor wire to private property owners. Can the feds remove that, too.
Abbott’s position is not an effort to nullify federal law, as some contend, but to push back against the federal government essentially nullifying its own laws.
It is possible that the Supreme Court will decide in Biden’s favor in terms of which sovereign has the power over the border based on earlier interpretation and court cases, but it would require the Court to totally ignore a situation in which a President is disregarding the constitutional mandate to protect the border. What do you do when a President goes rogue on his responsibility – and oath to uphold the Constitution? (I know there will be hair-burning reaction from the whataboutism-Trump crowd. But this is NOT about Trump. It is about Biden, Abbott, the Supreme Court, the Constitution, defending the border and common sense. Stay on subject.)
Regardless of the interpretations of the Constitution, the optics of federal officers cutting and removing barriers (pictured above) that are holding back illegal border crossers in the middle of a massive crisis is not good for Biden administration – especially in an election year. It makes it difficult … no impossible … to contend that Biden does not have an open border policy in defiance of the Constitution and the law.
There is a simple solution. Obey the law and close the border from illegal crossings. And Biden is doing neither.
So, there ‘tis.
We are hours away fr9m seeing the bipartisan Senate bill. IF we can’t compromise on that, there is a good chance we get nothing in front of the election; Trump is calling the shots on your side and he needs the border as is to be elected. Johnson and Trump oppose the bill that they have not read. Johnson who has not read the bill says it’s DOA in the House.
Sens. Chris Murphy, James Lankford and Kyrsten Sinema have taken the lead for months on crafiting this thing which will roll out Fri to Sunday probably.
Given the newly vocal Trump, Mitch is saying it will now be tough in the Senate.
The House passee a bill to deport immigrants with a DUI, now there’s progress.
It was the Trump SCOTUS that said “Abbott, tear down that wall of razor wire.”
Give me a break, legislate. Read, compromise, pass some law. Don’t blame Biden for you not doing your job.
The law says no entry to our country without the permission and proper documentation. Instead of fueds, and people blowing their tops, why not enforce the laws already on the books? Is that so hard? It seems that the damned government picks and chooses what to enforce. Townhall daily news reported that leftists plan to attack conservatives in church and the homes if trump wins. I’m not recognizing my country anymore. Stay armed and stay alert. I believe that the mass of illegals coming here to help overthrow the country. Not proven yet but it’s likely.
Harold-perhaps you should check the laws before you start writing trash about laws not being followed. The people coming across the border are ‘asylum seekers’ and there is no law to prevent their entry-no law to legitimately allow the federal government to close the border. Until republicans allow the bill currently in the senate to pass, there will be no such law. Your writing suggests you are a devotee of right wing propaganda-suggest you start educating yourself before showing your foolishness in the future..
Mike f … I is illegal to just cross the border. That is why they are called illegal aliens. The can apply for asylum, once they are across, but more than 80 percent of them are not eligible. Million have entered and not followed up on asylum — including more than 500,000 got aways. They are all illegal. They are supposed to request asylum form home or from the first border they cross. With your level of knowledge, I would not go around telling others to get educated.
Larry, your total ignorance is still showing. Immigrants can cross the border and request asylum from the first federal (note-not Texas, but lawful) agent they meet. The fact that you and others on the right call them “illegal” does not make it so. More BS from Larry (but what do those of us that know better expect?)
Mike F, you are correct on the process. And asylees have pretty good track records for turning up at court once you parse out communincation and paperwork issues.
But one reason this happens is they have a choice: wait forever in crime-infest Mexican border towns to get through a port of entry OR risk the border. Knowing full well they can claim asylum once they touch US soil.
Republican House bill HR2 ends that, only allows port of entry, but does not provide additional court resources or additional ports of entry to break the bottleneck. There may be quotas involved, IMO, that might be a better way to go.
“Million have entered and not followed up on asylum — including more than 500,000 got aways” are estimates which go all over the board. An 11 year review by AIC showed “83% of immigrants attend their immigration court hearings, and those who fail to appear in court often did not receive notice or faced hardship in getting to court.”
The report draws on government data from 2,797,437 immigration court removal proceedings held between 2008 to 2018.”
Since Horist does not mention a time factor for the gotways, cannot know what he means, but the number 600,000 for fiscal 2023 — sept to sept — is the latest yearly number. It’s big and it’s Homeland Security’s number. And it’s the same number as FY2022, but in FY21, Trump’s last year — it was 400K. I do not think the majority of these folks forgot to ask for asylum.
Again, these are Homeland Security numbers so I gather about as sound as they get.
The claim is often made that illegals are a drain on our economy by stealing benefits. The claim is also made that our economy demands illegals to take the jobs Americans no longer can take. The first is not quite true the way “they” say it; the second could be fixed by raising the minimum wage to the point where Americans will take the jobs. Same people see welfare Mom’s with caddies, lobster, and large screen tvs, all paid for by welfare and having babies.
Horist says Democrats are: “offering a range of benefits – housing, schooling, healthcare, welfare, driver’s licenses and voting rights – at an enormous costs to local, state and federal taxpayers.” This is a bullshit conservative myth that Horist offers no evidence, no proof, he’s just pulling on your emotional heartstrings and financial frustration fears. Trope. Where’s the proof, the numbers, the State’s doing this identified. Nada from Horist. Just the urban myth that illegals are eating our cheese.
Undocumented immigrants, including DACA’s, cannot gain access to most federal public benefits, including means-tested benefits such as SNAP (food stamps), regular Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for health care subsidies under ObamaCare and are prohibited from purchasing unsubsidized health coverage on ACA exchanges. They do have access to public education and school meals. For medical, they MAY access emergency services, State and Hospital dependent.
AP reported on 10/23 “People who enter the U.S. illegally are not eligible for federal cash assistance, with the exception of certain Cubans and Haitians, immigration experts told The Associated Press. Refugees and people granted asylum, as well as some other humanitarian migrants, are entitled to certain public benefits, including cash assistance related to their initial resettlement.” IOW, you must be granted asylum to gain limited access to some programs, specifically TANF and Refugee Cash Assistance. Mothers with kids under five can also access SNAP, that’s food for kids.
According to CBS, “Unauthorized migrants aren’t eligible for many types of federal aid, although some states have extended social service programs to include them. Migrants without documentation are also often fearful of claiming benefits because they don’t want to risk deportation or legal problems, said Tanya Broder, senior staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center (NILC).” “That means unauthorized migrants can’t receive benefits from programs including food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (or welfare), and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, among other federal aid.” “However, there are some federal programs that these migrants may qualify for, although they are limited. They include emergency Medicaid, which pays for the medical costs of unauthorized migrants in the case of a medical emergency. School meal programs are available to all children, regardless of their immigration status.”
School, that’s the big one. Based on a 1982 SCOTUS decision, the States must provide schooling, therefore meal programs for all children in the US. This does represent an unfair burden by some States and IMO, either ended or covered by the Federal Budget. States should not be on the hook for Federal failures to secure the border. And for all you professing political polarization of the SCOTUS until Trump… The 1982 courts was 5:4 Dems/Repubs with a 5:4 vote on this. Surprise: Sandra voted nay. Blackmun, a Republican voted yea. The issue came down to —- are they human? Apparently, they are.
According to the National Immigration Forum (NIH), “Twenty-six states make immigrants eligible for state-funded benefit programs. Most of these states either offer assistance to families or provide access to healthcare to otherwise uninsured immigrants. Examples of these programs are New York’s Safety Net Assistance, California’s CalFresh Food Assistance Program, and California’s Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants,” however, often this is legal immigrants and adjudicated asylees, not undocumented like CalFresh offers.
*https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Immigrants-and-Public-Benefits-FINALupdated.pdf” They summarize all. Because NIH is an immigration advocacy group, this pdf is an instruction book for immigrants of all status, ie. NIH is providing direction. Horist has his trope.
Here’s a summary of NY where it does not look beneficial to be undocumented: *https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/articles/james-l-seward/what-benefits-can-illegal-aliens-receive* In CA, there’s a Calfresh food program that doesn’t allow undocumented to feed.
There tis it: undocumented have little access to Federal programs and sketchy access to State programs, however, they do get emergency services, moms/kids can get some food, not even SNAP, only WIC and everyone can go to school, get lunch programs. While 26 States do offer some access, I have not found any detail to how much that even means. Don’t let the Horist’s pick at your emotions without providing evidence. It’s his personal benefit plan on how to make a buck.
Next I will look at where the benefits are going so Horist can attack them instead. Also, will provide input as to what benefits illegals contribute to but never see any return whatsoever. It’s a barn-burner…..
Seriously, numerically, the only thing need fixing here is schooling, and IMO, if we can’t get rid on them, better to educate them (I say the same thing about Republicans, but can’t get them to stay in school — just kidding). IMO, if schooling continues, we should fund it as a nation, by the guys who do that, the Federal government, and not the States. It’s not TX or CA’s fault for being close to the border and having vibrant economies. But Horist is wrong, no one is stealing your welfare cheese.
How can Horist mention all this bullshit and forget E-Verify? E-Verify provides the realizable hope to end all illegals from working. PERIOD.
Hope in that it does not work as structured, but has proven to work perfectly in practice. Realizable in that like hacking, once a loophole is discovered, we will need to patch it up, and move forward. Everyone knows that the main reason illegals come is to work, not to rape, bring in drugs, traffic small children, terrorist, and become disease carriers. Work. E-verify ends the ability to fulfill that addiction, cold turkey. In AZ, the first state with a mandate, E-verify caused AZ to lose close to 20% of its illegal population upon announcement. Overnight. Then, both businesses and immigrants found loopholes, the population stabilized, they spread the news and Mississippi’s population did not change when implementing E-Verify. But E-Verify worked, overnight, so fix the loopholes, make it national, end illegals from working and they will leave or become legal to stay.
You may say, I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. What Horist missed is that the national use of E-Verify is a fucking Republican idea. In his zeal as a Trumplicant zealot, with a prime directive from his Fuhrer to destroy Biden, he does not know what’s going on in his own party. Or he is just stupid since I have noted it in almost every Horist-does-illegals spewage.
Chuck Grassley, Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), John Thune (R-S.D.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) all co-sponsor the bill that needs some Democrats in the fold. It’s a good bill that would only be made better if we committed funds to fix the loopholes too. It’s E-verify that Horist once again omits that will fix the coming-here-to-work-illegally and send these people home. Is that cast of characters good enough vetting for even a Trumper?
Horist would not tell you this. It took a Democrat.
Note: this could be so severe that we will need to monitor because poor people, suddenly out of work, not able to find work, can get desperate and make bad choices. Plus, like hackers, once we close the loopholes, other may be found. In the end though, we can do this and it’s already proven to work. The illegals left just hearing about it.
*https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/senators-introduce-legislation-to-mandate-e-verify-for-all-employers*
Then they should be documented and come here legally. Why not? The democrats also scream about voter ID, more gun freedom, gender bullshit, which is none of their business. And now this. The migrants coming here illegally and trying to bully us into letting them in and the rerarded son of a bitch in the White House is enabling them.
Frank Stetson … Another loooong expression of your profound ignorance. E-Verify is in the Republican House Bill that was sent to the Senate more than a year and a half ago — and Schumer buried it. More on HR2 in an upcoming commentary. Read and learn. In the meantime, your latest contribution gets you and “F”.
Why are you such an ass Horist? You never metioned E-Verify in this article and why would I know it was in the doomed House bill, and why is that important IF they can’t get a bill that the Senate will look at. The Grassely bill looks focused with a chance of passing, or at least getting heard.
You must know I do not know everything and when I claim it is not in your article: IT WASNT. Why be such a dick about it?
Two types of laws to write: laws that pass and laws that prove a point.
HR2 is DOA and will never pass Democrats. Nor should it IMO, it’s an affront to Dems. The House could tell this by the House vote, or they could call Schumer for a meet. Two R’s voted nay with all the D’s and the rest of the R’s said yea in the House. So, it’s not made to pass, it’s made to make a point.
The bill is poison to Democrats; however the E-Verify part should have been broken out and passed. Although, the bill calls for a “verification system modelled on E-Verify” which are weasel-words for “time for a big budget to do-over.” I guess since e-verify results show issues, they choose to weasel-word rather than plain-speak and say “make e-verify work as the law of the land.” Period. I think this part has a chance AND is the best hope to diminish illegals working in America. If they don’t come, you don’t need no stinking wall.
They wanted draconian restrictions on asylum and that all asylees be incarcerated before adjudication. They would buy new jails but not new courts….. I believe they could get some here, even a quota, but this shit sucks.
They wanted to re-launch the wall but this time sans any environment requirements. Yeah, that’s an icebreaker for Democrats. They responded by reading Hillary’s speeches out loud, like squeaky chalk on the chalkboard.
They wanted to end many protections for children, re-establish long-term family detentions, more jails please.
Missing are any pathways to citizenship, no way to replace undocumented workers in critical industries like FOOD, while restricting asylum claims to ONLY allowed at ports of entry but they would not expand ports of entry (the main reason people try border jumping – ironically cruel, ain’t it).
Many Republicans are saying HR2 or nothing; be careful what you ask for. Two actally voted against it, farm states probably. Anyone with half a brain would recognize how few Dems could support from this bill. Like shooving someone into a wall. But here’s the really fucked up part; the Dems have never been more amenable to more restrictions at the border. If the Republicans could learn how to change from “my way or the highway,” they had much they could have compromised on this bill which is DEAD as written with little room for compromise.
I would recommend starting with the Senate bill, see what you can skinny in from HR2, you know my pick, and let’s pass some law.
Feel better, Horist? Any other PBP story on it here? Can’t wait to see your support piece.
Dan, they come for work and trust me, Republicans hire them too. Of course they should come legally. BUT — if you hand out work to people who need work, do you really expect a 2,000 mile rural border to stop them OR that you could fortify 2,000 miles to thwart them? At what cost? Because you need the workers to survive too.
Point is, you don’t build a wall to keep the mice from your cheese IF you can just remove the cheese instead. E-Verify takes the cheese away from illegals. Problem solved so just get it done and quit bitching about. Tell the Republicans sponsoring the bill to pick up some Democrats and push this bill through.
The Constitution is THE SUPREME DOCUMENT. PERIOD!
You either follow it or get impeached, PERIOD!
There are 0ver 10 million reasons to impeach Biden, and they are all
walking around in this country.
Just reading the Constitution, Abbott is correct, but remember Obama had his illegal flights
flying in Illegals all through the nights when he was in office.
Nothing has changed except they no longer run under the cover of darkness.
Obama and Biden should be both brought up on Treason charges.
Treason would be correct as we have war ships defending them selves near Gaza.
If Abbott follows the laws, he should be vindicated!
If the House could impeach Biden, it would be done. You own the House. So impeach or stfu.
It makes SENSE to A COMMIE Leftist who are trying to DESTROY the U.S. . . . Since they have NO common SENSE!
And you have Horist sense, neigh, less than that. You obey thy Fuhrer’s lies and babbles, engage in his personal squabbles, absolve him from any legal battles, and demean any who differ and he slowly unravels.
50m of your money in legal fees
88m to carroll
Big fine plus loss of business in ny in mid feb right now.
He’s starting to sweat a lot in public. Sounds weird, like an angry doll whee you pull the string to hear pre-recorded nonsense and threats.
How many dicktators for a day have you witnessed in all of history?
Larry-The bullshit just never stops with you and your fellow r’s. There is nothing in current immigration laws that allows the federal government to block entry at the border. There is an allowance for that in the bipartisan bill that has been negotiated in the senate-the same bill that the idiot who is leading your party off a cliff has told his flock not to support. Unlike his predecessor, Biden chooses to follow the laws of the land, not make arbitrary decisions such as separating children from their parents at the border so they won’t want to come-then not keeping track of what child went with what adult-truly disgusting behavior on that idiots part. You folks love the Supreme Court (with its extreme right hand bend) until they simply state the obvious which is to follow the constitution governor of Texas-abbot is the one who should be impeached, but we can’t hope for that since the Texas legislature let their corrupt attorney general off the hook after he actually was impeached
I am not for illegal immigration, against whatever open borders even means, and the thought that some have that Democrats are for this because it creates future Democrats is ludicrous. Or stop the “look how many Latino’s joined the Republicans” stories……
For asylum seekers, Biden and the US, follow the 1967 Protocol signed by 146 member nations. This, and the previous Refugee Convention, guide nations with the following rules: *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees* Part of Title 42, invoked by Trump, does nothing regarding repeat offenders so 33% of the traffic Horist bemoans is due to the revolving door of repeat offenders protected by the law Trump used.
Horist claims that “even though some 85 percent of those crossing are not eligible for asylum” seems pure bullshit. I cannot confirm it and Horist does not source things often. He just likes to scream “you’re an idiot, everyone knows it.”
“Democrats also want to send billions – possibly trillions — of dollars in foreign aid to a number of nations in which the economy or the culture is driving people out” which is the supply side on the immigrant supply/deman curve which could work, but I tend to agree with Horist that it won’t. Bad idea, no effective way to implement that the money is well spent. But Horist mentions no specific Democrats, no specific funding programs, no specific funding proposal. Just his word and this Democrat does not want to send billions and trillions down a rat hole.
Nor will “just have them claim asylum in their home country,” where we might open centers up with signs saying “kill all who enter,” because identifying you are leaving because the dictator sucks always goes over well. Maybe they can use the internet? Nope, that does not work either. I guess we could pay Mexico to keep them there, because asking Mexico to do that is not working either. Still cheaper than a wall probably.
“Republicans want security and the focus of legislation to first be on enforcement of the border to PREVENT illegal border crossers … period” but can’t pass any new immigration bills to do that because now it’s an election year. So you kvetch that the DOA House Bill should pass when it’s DOA and you want to block the Senate bipartisan version that you have not read because it is not the House Bill, when does this merrygoround stop?
Horist says Biden does nothing and “ the federal government because it is doing virtually nothing to stop the flow; here’s what Biden did and what he asked for as of 9/23: *https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/09/20/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-takes-new-actions-increase-border* So, bite me.
He also claims “establishing so-called sanctuary communities in which local authorities thwart federal law with impunity” which is a lie. Sanctuary cities, amongst other things, do not use local funds to do the Federal job of enforcing immigration laws. It’s as much about budget as anything so, yes, they do not use local tax dollars and local resources to do the work of ICE. It’s an idea that one would think Republicans would favor except that Democrats came up with in out of necessity. Heck, Abbott wants to toss the Federal Government out and do the job himself. DeSantis is willing to be outsourced and do the job for you.
Then he spews that the sanctuary cities are “offering a range of benefits – housing, schooling, healthcare, welfare, driver’s licenses and voting rights – at an enormous costs to local, state and federal taxpayers” again, bullshit. First, education is the law of the land as written by the SCOTUS in 1982, so it’s not the cities. Illegals do not have ready access to Federal Programs, no access to State Programs in most states, some limited access in others, and often just access to emergency services. It’s hard to delineate the details and certainly Horist does not, nor does he provide any statistics either. Just the claim. I will detail more on the specifics later, perhaps.
Bottom line: same old spews, no new news. It’s an election year, this is the big one against Biden, Republicans will leverage that through words, like Horists, little facts, like Hoirst, and no actions, like passing the Bipartisan Immigration Bill that no one has read, but Republicans say it’s DOA in the House because of Johnson, and struggling in the Senate because Trump needs it to fail to be elected.
But stop with the urban myths, tropes, and such — let’s see some facts.