Skip to comments.Texas Governor Rick Perry orders border surge
Posted on 06/19/2014 5:57:41 AM PDT by MamaTexan
The responsibility for securing the border rests exclusively on the federal government. The federal governments failure to secure the border has created an incentive for families to send their children on a dangerous, and sometimes fatal, journey. Until the federal government fulfills its duty, it falls on the State of Texas to address those obligations
Just mobilize your National Guard and do it... this is now an invasion
Cut libtard programs to pay for it
Send Petraeus or Odierno down there now to head it up!!
No, an invasion is an army. These are people, so it's up the civil law of the State to deal with them.
Perry is doing the right thing.
Me too. They lie.
Petraeus is for “immigration reform”, LOL.
1. Used the coast guard to escort them and point them back to Cuba
2. Went to Congress and they gave him the power to empower the state governors, that in case of a mass migration they can "authorize every sheriff, every police department in AZ and TX, to utilize their state police, take custody of these individuals, give them short term assistance, and start loading up their national guard planes and fly them back home...
....none of this turning them loose crap...
....word will circulate within 24 hours...."there ain't no free lunch."
I’m thinking the Perry 2016 committee is hoping, praying, that Obama will oppose this actively and force a very public stand off and feud.
Only in our standardized version of what constitutes 'symmetrical' conflicts. More and more hostilities here and abroad are no longer one army simply pitted against another, as in WW II, but 'asymmetrical' actions utilizing non-conventional means and technically what are called 'non state actors'.
This invasion falls into this latter category.
I agree. But, can't Obama nationalize the guard, call it an emergency, and then order them to stand down and do nothing? Oh, he'd dress it up in rhetoric, but that's how he might respond, because once the States start to ignore him, the jig is up.
So you disagree with Article 4, Section 4?
Section 4 Republican Government
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Any bets that the feds come in and stop Perry? Obama’s going to start a civil war.
Glad to know I’m not alone. :-)
I don't believe he and holder can
Has this ever happened before anywheres in this country?
And I'm thinking kudos to them if that's true. Bring it on!
Until you give me proof otherwise, I'll continue to consider it an invasion.
US Constitution Section 10 paragraph 3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
“... unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Both conditions apply here.
Sorry, that should be NOT to consider it an invasion.
Good luck to you.
CWII is coming anyway, and this is as good a reason as any I've seen, so let the chips fall wherever they will. This wave of criminals coming in and demanding services needs to come to a screeching halt, and NOW. The only way that happens is if there are dire consequences (up to and including death) instead of rewards for this criminal behavior.
I encourage this lame-duck Texas administration to do the right thing, and put an end to the invasion.
Not at all.
It may not be amiss further to observe, that every pretext for intermeddling with the domestic concerns of any state, under colour of protecting it against domestic violence is taken away, by that part of the provision which renders an application from the legislative, or executive authority of the state endangered, necessary to be made to the federal government, before it's interference can be at all proper.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (Annotated), 1803
At the same time it is properly provided, in order that such interference may not wantonly or arbitrarily take place; that it shall only be on the request of the state authorities: otherwise the self-government of the state might be encroached upon at the pleasure of the Union, and a small state might fear or feel the effects of a combination of larger states against it under colour of constitutional authority;
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, 1825
. (snip) The right of interposition must depend upon the special circumstances of the case. It is not susceptible of precise limitations, and is extremely delicate in the application. It must be submitted to the guidance of eminent discretion, and controlled by the principles of justice and sound policy. It would clearly be a violation of the law of nations to invite subjects to revolt who were under actual obedience, however just their complaints; or to endeavor to produce discontents, violence, and rebellion in neighboring states, and, under color of a generous assistance, to consummate projects of ambition and dominion.
James Kent , Commentaries on American Law, 1826
§ 1819. It may not be amiss further to observe, (in the language of another commentator,) that every pretext for intermeddling with the domestic concerns of any state, under colour of protecting it against domestic violence, is taken away by that part of the provision, which renders an application from the legislative, or executive authority of the state endangered, necessary to be made to the federal government, before it's interference can be at all proper.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
On Application of the Legislature means the STATE authority must request assistance NOT that the federal authority can take action because IT feels it necessary.
So the question becomes...
Do YOU have a problem with it?
I thought a lot of these kids were actually coming across by bus.
They were then being processed by the border patrol, put up in temporary housing and sent on via bus to various cities in the interior.
Some people have never learned to be careful what they wish for. :-)
FOX just mentioned it and is about to give a news report.
All I know is the federal government is aiding and abetting criminal activity. From my understanding, this new 'law' means once someone on our side takes responsibility for a (cough) 'minor', they become our responsibility.
That's the purpose of the feds taking (or forcing the states to take) these people into custody and then moving them to another location.
God bless Texas!
Did not the SCOTUS say it was Fed’s job?
How long can these Illegal Alien Invading “children” survive without food, water and clean diapers?
That used to get one banned.
Perry’s not my first choice, even from the state of Texas, but it would be hard to not support him if he forces a mano a mano stand off with Mr. Hope and Change.
Have lived here a long time, how did I miss knowing about a “Texas Guard”. Enlighten please.
Im thinking the Perry 2016 committee is hoping, praying, that Obama will oppose this actively and force a very public stand off and feud.
Nah I doubt theyre praying that...
after 5 years of a do-nothing-for-Americans guy in the White House they know that we are only interested in a guy who is willing and able to get things done...for OUR good..
The last thing Perry wants is to appear weak and helpless...
and unable or unwilling to protect the American citizens he would swear to protect...
Since the the Founders did not include the terms 'border' or 'security' in the Constitution, it doesn't matter what SCOTUS said.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
The State has every Right to take any action it feels necessary to protect it's People, and there is no Constitutionally authorized federal authority to prevent it from doing so.
We'll ask them once they come back from having a smoke. :-P
I don’t trust Rick Perry as far as I could throw the nearest Merck sales rep. But he is absolutely going to vault to the top of the GOP POTUS pack with this move.
Agree completely, this would be a total lose/lose scenario for the dems and the bamster.
It's something I'd love to see. Faster, please.
It sickens me that this has gone on so long. People have been screaming about it for decades, so there's no logical reason for it to have gotten to this point.
Yes, he can (assuming Perry uses the National Guard rather than state-exclusive resources).
But doing so will only serve to highlight the abject failure of his Administration in this matter ... reinforcing the perception of abject failure of his Administration in all other matters.
You are not.
Verbiage. Just sayin......
LOL! In some ways, neither do I. I've watched him like a hawk.
I will give him this though - you poke him hard enough when he gets out of line, and he WILL listen.
That's more than I can say for a lot more of 'em.
I'm typing this, here in Texas, about 5 meters from where I was born. I've lived here a long time, too. Like all my life. ;)
It would be nice, but heaven forbid the funds would probably get caught up in the 'commerce clause' trap and give the feds an excuse to intervene.
With so much focus on the Constitution lately, sadly Constitutional interpretation is growing similar to Bible interpretation.