Texas v Potomac Regime: Governor Abbott works around SCROTUS order


Posted On: Friday - January 26th 2024 8:19PM MST
In Topics:   Immigration Stupidity  Liberty/Libertarianism  Zhou Bai Dien

Texas begs to differ with Bai Dien and the Regime:



Peak Stupidity did not use this title format of ours* for the first handful of posts about the growing resistance by Texas against the Regime regarding the latter's instigation of this border invasion surge. It fits, but to refer the reader to the start of our coverage, let me link to Is this how it starts? and Is the biggest American story of the 21st Century developing?, both from last July, Texas v Feds - still the BIGGEST story? from September, and Female Conservative SCROTUS splits, border wire hernia continues from this Monday.

I go to VDare to get the reporting and explanations of all things immigration-related. That includes this invasion surge, but I am very glad to see that this story has gotten bigger, as both sides have pushed harder. Texas has made an effort in at least one critical place (Eagle Pass) to guard their (and our) southern border, and the Regime has made an effort to to destroy these defenses, even getting supported by 5 traitors of the SCROTUS.

To follow up on Monday's post, let me again link the reader to a few of the excellent VDare writers' reports on the politics and actions going on in or around Eagle Pass, Texas, along with the State House and the Regime (White) House. Washington Watcher II's post from yesterday says, and asks: Texas Does What’s Necessary On The Border. Will Biden Blink?.

It's a good summary of the events up to now. Mr. "Watcher II" does have a few words about Judge Barrett too. Here's one point he made about that vacating (vacation?) decision from a few days back:
But SCOTUS left a loophole. Its ruling doesn’t order Texas to remove the razor wire—but instead just says the Feds can remove it.
I wouldn't call it a loophole, exactly. SCROTUS simply ruled that a lower court (5th Circuit) injunction AGAINST the Feds' sabotaging of Texans' defense efforts was void. I'll mention this again in the context of another VDare writer's article.

That'd be Biden Finally Admits Border Not Secure, SCOTUS Endorses Open Borders, Texas Should Continue To Fight by writer Federale. That first point in his title is another post for us. How has this statement of Bai Dien's not been noticed much? It basically admits that he's been lying his ass off for 3 years. Anyway, as to Federale's writing about Texas v Potomac Regime, he also gets to the same point about the SCROTUS ruling, here:
Representative Chip Roy advised Governor Greg Abbott to ignore the decision, which is good advice, but technically there is nothing for the State of Texas to ignore. The decision is in favor of the USBP destroying fencing. The decision did not prohibit Texas from continuing to build border barriers and fencing...
That's a good point by both of them, and it's the reason our title reads this way. Otherwise, it would have read "resists". Additionally, Federale offers some physical suggestions regarding the shipping containers and the wire. I especially like this part:
Texas State Troopers, Guardsmen, and militia could also follow around Border Patrol Agents (BPA) with concertina wire bundles and immediately deploy that wire as the USBP are cutting other wire. Texas could even box in with concertina wire those BPAs doing the wire cutting, forcing them to cut wire to get out. Such actions would likely result in BPAs just giving up in frustration. Or just a riot line of Guardsmen and Troopers with shields blocking the road or path the USBP is using to get to points where they have or will cut the concertina wire? The possibilities of petty harassment and interference are boundless. Just a little imagination and initiative are required.
Yes, petty harassment, or not-so-petty, it's all good. This goes back to my thinking of the next steps, when Fed Border Patrol saboteurs start getting arrested on various charges. More Feds will come to Texas or to the site out of Austin. That's when you take other harassment steps that include tire-slashing, roadblocks, and so forth. Another big weapon is bureaucracy. (One can learn from the Chinese on that.)

More suggestions by Federale are in another article of his, Border Fight Between Texas And The Biden Regime Goes To The Next Level.
However, Texas is making a mistake by not arresting and charging illegal aliens who bring minors with them. Instead of releasing them to the USBP, they should be charged with child endangerment or abuse, as well as the illegal entry statute.

The Texas statute also has a strange provision exempting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) from prosecution, but at the same time does not exempt the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) and other executive action programs. Both DACA and DAPA have been declared illegal and unconstitutional, so there is no reason to exempt those illegal aliens.
See these people know the ins and outs of the immigration system, for what it's worth. They know how it's being abused, meaning they know how to stop that.

That brings us to a favorite writer, Former Agent. From his handle, we know he's got some experience. His latest post on this story is A Former Border Patrol Agent On The Mexican Standoff At The Border. He's got a more general suggestion at the end of his post:
Years ago, one of my colleagues proposed a plan he called “Mexico One.” His idea was that illegal aliens from all over the world (Africa, China, Brazil) enter the United States from Mexico. Afterwards, we send the deportees back by air to their individual home countries. Why do we do that? If it comes out of Mexico, it should go back into Mexico. Hence, Mexico One, the primary destination of anyone coming out of our great ally’s country.

We would save millions of dollars in deportation flights, and we would make Mexico feel the pain of immigration. I bet Mexico would crack down very rapidly on sending us the world’s huddled masses yearning for free stuff.
Yep, per deportee, operating buses is much cheaper than operating airplanes.

Finally, away from VDare for a change, I read/viewed a Gateway Pundit post Governor Greg Abbott to Tucker: We are ‘Prepared’ for Conflict with Biden Regime Over Border – 10 States have Sent their National Guards to Defend Texas Against Invasion that features a short Tucker Carlson phone interview of Texas Governor Greg Abbott. As usual, I will ask for help from illustrious Peak Stupidity commenter Adam Smith, as I can't get the video directly from YT, Rumble, or BC. Thank you yet again, Adam! Mr. Smith has also provided an extended video here. The extended part has more of Tucker's opinion on why this is all happening along with some info. on the Take Our Border Back trucker convoys, headed (last I read) to 3 places on/near the border.



If you recall, while down at the border some months ago, Tucker Carlson ripped Governor Abbott a new one on part of this border issue - I can't remember the details, but I agreed with Tucker. Here, Mr. Carlson is polite and respectful and Gov. Abbott sounds pretty steadfast. When Tucker gets to the big question of what happens next if the Feds don't stand down, the Governor demurs. I don't think he wants to get into that just yet ...

Why, yes, I guess it IS weird for States to resist the Feral Government.



It's great to see that Governors of a half the other States in America are supporting Governor Abbott, Texas, and American sovereignty! 10 of them so far are reported to be sending guardsmen to Texas. This is getting to be a big story, as I've said. FEDERALISM, bitchez!!


PS: All that said about Texas and the Governor there, I will go back to VDare yet again to note that John Derbyshire throws a little cold water on anyone all hot and bothered by Greg Abbott. He is showing some backbone when it comes to a massive invasion of his State and the nation. However, he doesn't seem to be against Population Replacement, you know, when done "correctly": Abbott Opposes ILLEGALS At Texas Border —But Recruits LEGAL Immigrants In India. That's not a whole lot better in the long run...


* Taken long ago from the kids' entertainment of in our post Nat-Geo and the once great Royal Scientific Societies - Part 2. Oh, and that one's got another Al Stewart song, for the die-hard fans.

************************************
[UPDATED. 01/27:]. As usual, Adam Smith put the Carlson/Abbott video on his channel. Inserted here, along with a link to a longer clip.
************************************

Comments:
Hail
Sunday - January 28th 2024 5:27AM MST
PS

J1234 wrote: "The founders of the US were very concerned about the wrong type of people coming here."

The first immigration law in the USA, one year after the Constitution was ratified and in effect, famously (?) limited the right to immigration (citizenship) to "free White persons of good moral character."
Hail
Sunday - January 28th 2024 5:25AM MST
PS

"I'm not entirely clear why people think that what is happening in Texas is the first step toward secession. I guess because soldiers are involved. To me it just seems like a typical election-year stunt to try to make the Democrats look bad and generate headlines." -- John B. Morgan
J1234
Saturday - January 27th 2024 7:22PM MST
PS-

Hello everyone. Our moderator said:

"I don't agree, however, that the Founders of this country would not see the massive influx coming into this country from all sources an invasion."

I'd agree with your disagreement. The invasion into Britain by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes is another example. It might've looked like a mass migration at first (tradition says they were initially invited as mercenaries) but as the migrants grew in number their outlook changed. Viewed retrospectively over the centuries, it's hard to see their actions and movements as anything other than an invasion.

Good point, Alarmist. The founders of the US were very concerned about the wrong type of people coming here. Those concerns are viewed today in a highly critical and unrealistic light, but their concerns were legitimate. They didn't want all the volatility of the world pouring into the new USA.

The Alarmist
Saturday - January 27th 2024 1:58PM MST
PS

The Founding Fathers, bein men of the Enlightenment and Neoclassicism, would have immediately made the connecting of our invading hordes to those Goths who wandered into or were invited into the Roman Empire in search of plunder, and they’d immediately connect the dots to this being an invasion.

Aside from that, the Founders were men of the States. They would never have allowed matters to go this far down the toilet, and the militias would have been repulsing people with hostile fire decades ago.
MBlanc46
Saturday - January 27th 2024 12:46PM MST
PS Yes, the courts should have just stayed out of it. Just declined to hear the request for an injunction. Sotto voce, at least, they should have said, “This is a political problem, you guys sort it out”. As far as the framers are concerned, they could not have conceived what’s happening at the Texas border. (And Arizona and California.) Population movements on the scale that we’re seeing in Europe and North America were beyond the technology of the 18th century. Guatemalans, for example, could not possibly have trekked from Guatemala to El Paso. It’s unlikely that Guatemalans had ever of Texas. We speak of the “Barbarian invasions” of the Roman Empire, but those took centuries, and were only invasions by an extension of the word “invasion”.
Moderator
Saturday - January 27th 2024 11:34AM MST
PS: Mr. Blanc, I agree with your general principles on what the courts are for. Why did the SCROTUS even bother with this one? That court was under political pressure to "vacate" an injunction made by a lower court. That lower court could have stayed out of it to, as I think you'd agree. OTOH, this is all the ctrl-left does, use the courts to legislate, often reversing legislation painstakingly pushed by the people and/or the legislature.

I don't agree, however, that the Founders of this country would not see the massive influx coming into this country from all sources and invasion. I will grant you that the slower trickle of 1/2 to 1 million a year did not have the appearance of an invasion. This really does now.

Anyway, good discussion, but gotta post one quicky and then get back to an off-the-web project. Have a good weekend.
Moderator
Saturday - January 27th 2024 11:30AM MST
PS: I gotta say, Alarmist, that 16 years ago, Biden was pretty on the ball. I mean, still a left-wing evil liar, but he was more there. He made that gaffe, but he did a pretty good job in coming back from that and avoiding much embarrassment.

Adam, thanks for the 2 videos. I embedded the first and linked to the second. OK, I see regarding Article I/10.
MBlanc46
Saturday - January 27th 2024 10:41AM MST
PS AE: You might think that this is an invasion. And I might think that this is an invastion (under a very broad definition of “invasion”). But you have to be way out in the penumbras and emanations to think that the Framers would have considered this an invasion when they were writing the Constitution. I tend to be a strict constructionist, and I think that a good case can be made for voiding the injunction. I’m also usually happy to see the Court keep out of things that are more political than legal. The legislators (not bureaucrats) should be making the laws and the executive should be enforcing them. And the legislature should be impeaching the executive when it doesn’t enforce them. But legislature and executive have abrogated their duties. It’s not up to the courts to resolve this. It’s up to us.
Adam Smith
Saturday - January 27th 2024 10:14AM MST
PS: Good afternoon, everyone,

And good afternoon, Mr. Moderator!

While I was uploading the “Tucker Carlson interviews Greg Abbott” video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=misjLLpypPs

I noticed this longer version on Tucker Carlson's youtube channel...
(In case anyone would like to watch it.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shkBKszYpZ8

“Then he mentions Article I, Section 10, but I'm not sure what part he's invoking there.”

He's invoking clause 3...

“No State shall... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/Border_Statement_1.24.2024.pdf
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-10/

I'm happy to see Greg Abbott standing up against the Biden regime.

Happy Saturday! ☮️
Moderator
Saturday - January 27th 2024 5:43AM MST
PS: Mr. Blanc, go to about 3 1/2 minutes into the video on the tweet on the Gateway pundit page. Gov. Abbott brings up US Constitution Article IV, Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion..."

Then he mentions Article I, Section 10, but I'm not sure what part he's invoking there.
The Alarmist
Friday - January 26th 2024 10:43PM MST
PS

I should have watched this first to get a better parody in that last comment:

https://youtu.be/Rkr-lePr7jA?si=-z7SClvThsw7056T
The Alarmist
Friday - January 26th 2024 10:39PM MST
PS

To paraphrase an actual Bai Dien speech about a guy in a wheelchair,
"Gregg Abbott deserves a round of applause. Go ahead and stand up, Gregg! .... Oh, he can't stand up, God bless him. Everyone, stand up and give Gregg a round of applause."

🕉
MBlanc46
Friday - January 26th 2024 10:13PM MST
PS I shouldn’t think that either side can afford to have shots fired or blood shed. That fact, if it is a fact, suggests that Abbott will eventually have to back down. He really has stirred things up, though. I don’t look at any corporate media, so I don’t know how, or even whether, they are covering the story. But it sure has gotten our side stirred up. Re the SC: The job of the Court is to follow the Constitution, regardless of whether so doing leads to outcomes that we favor.
WHAT SAY YOU? : (PLEASE NOTE: You must type capital PS as the 1st TWO characters in your comment body - for spam avoidance - or the comment will be lost!)
YOUR NAME
Comments