3 year old dies on bus in another failure of Abbott's bullshit handling of migrants.

Every Texan should be ashamed of this fascist piece of shit.

Or maybe they shouldn't come. Plenty of places to find a good life.

And people die every day all around the world in all different places and under all different circumstances
Maybe it was another of Bidens failures?

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Or maybe they shouldn't come. Plenty of places to find a good life.

Unless you are a native American that applies to your ancestors too.

Tut tut tut, the natives traveled here from somewhere else. Just like everybody.

quote:

Originally posted by 300shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Or maybe they shouldn't come. Plenty of places to find a good life.

Unless you are a native American that applies to your ancestors too.

Dumbest post of the day.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Or maybe they shouldn't come. Plenty of places to find a good life.

Yep. They shouldn't break the law, damned terrible consequence for their criminal action.

No empathy from these losers. As psychopathic as their Great leader.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Or maybe they shouldn't come. Plenty of places to find a good life.

Yep. They shouldn't break the law, damned terrible consequence for their criminal action.

But, you're on board for accepting the death of the three year old. All good? These folks trying to come here to make a better life for the three year old but she dies because we don't want her here. Good policy?

It's wrong. And, you know it Jim.

They die because they try to come in illegally and get into bad situations as a result often with tragic results. Perhaps if we had a Congress and an administration which made clear legal immigration is the only immigration and all those caught trying to enter illegally are immediately turned around we could reduce these events. Why is this a problem?

The problem is the Texas state government or its actors does not have the authority to place these physical barriers people are dying on.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Tut tut tut, the natives traveled here from somewhere else. Just like everybody.

Then don't bitch about the current crop.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The problem is the Texas state government or its actors does not have the authority to place these physical barriers people are dying on.

That is yet to be determined by the courts…

Child died in Illinois after they became ill and were transported to medical care. Somebody dies on a cruise ship every day. What is your freaking point! Shit happens. People die every day for a number of reasons. No cause of death reported yet. Why not wait for a definitive COD? Maybe the kid died from being raped by coyotes. Maybe they were sick before they left their home country. Who knows? Some of you folks are idiots and should never serve on a jury.

https://abc13.com/migrant-chil...border%20last%20year.

What about the Americans that are killed by the illegals? Have any sympathy for them?

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The problem is the Texas state government or its actors does not have the authority to place these physical barriers people are dying on.

That is yet to be determined by the courts…

No, the S. act has already ruled numerous times, I have posted those cars, a state csnnot regulate migration at the border. That is the authority of the Fed Government.

Mow, maybe this S. Ct., majority Will overturn about 100 years of precedent.

Fold doe all the time is true, but it is the why that maters in legal analysis. Getting sick on a cruise ship might make a ship operation civilly liable. It kind of all depends.

Illegal migrants may kill a U.S. Citizen. If they do, arrested, and are tried. Assuming, guilt is found sentenced.

The bottom line is Texas is attempting to regulate the border and river in violation of Federal prerogative. That unconstitutional usurpation, under current caselaw, is seeing people die upon those physical barriers that exemplify the State’s usurpation.

Texas is not a power unto itself at the border.

From Arizona v United States:

The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. See Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10 (1982); see generally S. Legomsky & C. Rodríguez, Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy 115–132 (5th ed. 2009). This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Nat- uralization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inher- ent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations, see Toll, supra, at 10 (citing United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 318 (1936)).

 The federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled. Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws. See, e.g., Brief for Argentina et al. as Amici Curiae; see also Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 588–589 (1952). Perceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad. See Brief for Madeleine K. Albright et al. as Amici Curiae 24–30.

 It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States. See Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275, 279–280 (1876); see also The Federalist No. 3, p. 39 (C. Rossiter ed. 2003) (J. Jay) (observing that federal power would be necessary in part because “bordering States . . . under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury” might take action that would undermine foreign relations). This Court has reaffirmed that “[o]ne of the most important and delicate of all international relationships . . . has to do with the protection of the just rights of a country’s own nationals when those nationals are in another country.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 64 (1941).

 Federal governance of immigration and alien status is extensive and complex. Congress has specified catego- ries of aliens who may not be admitted to the United States. See 8 U. S. C. §1182. Unlawful entry and unlawful reentry into the country are federal offenses. §§1325, 1326. Once here, aliens are required to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status on their person. See §§1301–1306. Failure to do so is a federal misdemeanor. §§1304(e), 1306(a). Federal law also authorizes States to deny noncitizens a range of public benefits, §1622; and it imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a.

 Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. See §1227. Re- moval is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. See Brief for Former Commissioners of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service as Amici Curiae 8–13 (hereinafter Brief for Former INS Commissioners). Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal. See §1229a(c)(4); see also, e.g., §§1158 (asylum), 1229b (cancellation of removal), 1229c (voluntary departure).

One can take those citations and track the evolution of the principle supremacy concerning the border and immigration.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Tut tut tut, the natives traveled here from somewhere else. Just like everybody.

So why are you stopping these ones?

Here is some more authority for the rule The Federal Government has exclusive authority over migration and aliens:

Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320, 343 (1909); the plenary power of Congress as to the admission of aliens and the complete and absolute power of Congress over the subject of immigration.

see also Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531 (1954); Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government.

However, that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government.

Plenary means completely or full. As in the Federal Government had complete authority. Texas has no authority over the border.

Only Congress can pass a law to put these barriers in place.

Now, maybe the S. Ct. will choose to overrule over 109 years of precedent. I know two will vote to do do.

States put up navigation barriers on waterways within their borders all the time...

As long as they are not actually trying to have an immigration policy there (picking and choosing who can stay) and are not blocking traffic across borders at official crossings, is this really an immigration issue, or is it an internal movement issue?

Without an autopsy, we don't know the cause of death.

But it looks bad, at least, for the child to die while under the custody and control of the State of Texas.

Than Obo killed a 7 and 8 yr old when he was president.

Yeah, that looked bad too.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
States put up navigation barriers on waterways within their borders all the time...

As long as they are not actually trying to have an immigration policy there (picking and choosing who can stay) and are not blocking traffic across borders at official crossings, is this really an immigration issue, or is it an internal movement issue?

That is the point within their borders. The border with Mexico is not Texas’ border. It is the Federal border. The policy is limiting who can enter the border. That belongs to the Federal Government. Texas has no authority.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The problem is the Texas state government or its actors does not have the authority to place these physical barriers people are dying on.

Obfuscation. That is not the problem. Everything flows from immigration policy and how it is enforced or not enforced. So, why is a legal immigration process too much to ask and why should ALL illegal immigrants be turned away however and wherever found in OUR country?

Again, per the above Supreme Court precedent Texas, as a state, cannot have an immigration enforcement policy.

As for arrest of illegals, the S. Ct., has already told Texas this year Texas cannot make the Feds arrest.

This is what Federalism means. The state has strike in some areas. The Feds have stroke in others.

Take it up w your Congressman or Senator. Who is R, I am sure will tell you what you want to her, take your donation, and do nothing as they have done.

Let us not forget the 2016-2018 Congress had a R House, a R Filibuster proof Senate, and President Trump to sign any legislation they wants. Of course, despite campaign promises did nothing.

If it’s a settled legal fact, why is there now a lawsuit between Texas and the feds??

Because Texas jerks violating the precedent hoping a new majority will break or overturn the precedent like Dobbs did to Plan Parenthood.

It is grandstanding by the Governor and trying to create a test case.

And it may well work….

Should not, but might. Did not work this year, when Texas sued to force migrant policy.

I do believe Texas is emboldened by the Dobbs decision.

Let us see if Justice Alito cares about over 100 years of controlling precedent. I do not know how it will break because if this Court’s reckless disregard for precedent.

Now if Congress wants to pass a law requiring these barriers signed into law by a president or through override of a veto, so be it. That would be currently constitutional. Folks could then decide how they feel about it at the ballot box. The inverse is also true. Congress could debate and fail to pass legislation concerning these barriers. The people could then express their opinion at the failure thereof on an election.

quote:

reckless disregard for precedent.

I would say arrogant disregard of precedent.