Monday, February 26, 2024

irli press release: white house sues to stop texas from fighting cartels at the border

By Two Colleagues
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 at 08:26:08 p.m. est

Re: irli press release: white house sues to stop texas from fighting cartels at the border

Related: Last Friday, I had a letter in a local paper, which mentioned a provision in the now-derailed Lankford-McConnell-Schumer border deal that would have ended Texas resistance to open borders.  2nd letter at link: 


Here's your answer

The author of "Why block this bill?" (letter, Feb. 16) asks why most Republicans voted against a Ukraine war funding bill that included "many things they want" on border security.

Dan Stein, long-time president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), supplies the answer in one sentence:

"The Senate plan is nothing more than a capitulation to mass illegal immigration, rather than a credible plan to regain control of our borders and immigration system."

For details, see Stein's Feb. 9 press release.

But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton highlights a provision in the deal that Stein does not mention: The Ukraine-border deal would mandate "that legal challenges to these provisions be heard by the highly partisan Washington, D.C. courts."

Texas is offering serious resistance to the Biden-Mayorkas border agenda. Most recently in the news: its barbed-wire barriers. The Ukraine-Border deal would have squelched that. Legal challenges to the federal government on immigration would have to be heard by "highly partisan Washington, D. C. courts."

Currently, state attorneys general can "sue the federal government in fair venues."

What's an unfair venue? D.C. voted 92% for Biden in 2020, 5.4% for Trump.


SOURCES:

1) "Senate Immigration Package is Not a Credible or Serious Solution to the Biden Border Crisis," February 5, 2024


KEY EXCERPT (summary sentence at end of press release):
"The Senate plan is nothing more than a capitulation to mass illegal immigration, rather than a credible plan to regain control of our borders and immigration system," Stein charged.  "We urge the full Senate to reject the Working Group's proposal and the House to remain steadfast in its insistence that aid to our allies, in their efforts to protect their security, be contingent on real policy changes to secure our own borders and protect the security of the United States," Stein concluded.

2) Attorney General Ken Paxton @KenPaxtonTX
KEY EXCERPT:
"The Biden-Senate immigration bill is complete disaster. The open borders policies it enshrines would destroy our country . . . .  this bill that gives Biden and Mayorkas everything they want does something far more sinister. It requires that legal challenges to these provisions be heard by the highly partisan Washington, D.C. courts. They know exactly what they are doing: Texas has been able to create major slowdowns to Biden's open borders doctrine because our Constitutional system allows us to sue the federal government in fair venues. What Biden, Mayorkas, and the Senate uniparty in the swamp want to do is PREVENT the Texas AG and all other state AGs from acting as a check on the federal government's tyrannical abuses of power . . ."   Feb 5, 2024

3) DC: 2020 PRESIDENTIAL VOTING RESULTS
Biden 92.1% 317,323
Trump 5.4% 18,586
[Scroll down and click right arrow key]:




 




The Immigration Reform Law Institute is an offshoot of FAIR. 

February 26, 2024

For Immediate Release

White House Sues to Stop Texas from

Fighting Cartels at the Border

IRLI shows full Fifth Circuit Texas's war on the cartels should be free from judicial interference

WASHINGTON—On Friday, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) filed a brief in the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, in a case that, for the first time in history, puts at issue a constitutional provision that allows states to go to war if they have been invaded.

 

A state of war exists in Texas. The enemy are Mexican cartels that control the Mexican side of the border and run massive numbers of foreign nationals, and massive quantities of drugs and other contraband, into Texas and other states. Governor Greg Abbott declared the war under Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution, which states that, "without the Consent of Congress," states may not "engage in War" unless they have been "actually invaded." Steps Abbott has taken to wage this war to date include placing floating barriers in the Rio Grande to block invaders, and people who fund the cartels, from entering the state.

 

The Biden Administration responded by suing to stop Abbott. It sought and got a preliminary injunction from a district court ordering Abbott to remove the barriers, on the basis that he has put them there in violation of a federal law, the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899. IRLI had filed a brief in the case defending Texas's right to self-defense, but the district court, while discussing IRLI's brief at length, woefully mischaracterized both it and Section 10.

Texas appealed the district court's interference with its war effort to the Fifth Circuit, and a three-judge panel of that court held that the floating barriers violated the Rivers and Harbors Act, though it remanded the war issue to the district court.

 

At this point, the full Fifth Circuit granted review of the case en banc. This action vacated the panel's decision, leaving the full court to decide the case afresh.

 

IRLI's en banc brief has two parts. First, it shows that the issues of whether Texas has validly declared war and whether its chosen means of waging war are appropriate are both non-justiciable political questions, meaning they should not be decided by courts, but by the political branches of government—here, Governor Abbott. Then IRLI shows that Texas's valid exercise of its power of self-defense, which flows directly from the Constitution, overrides any conflicting federal laws for the duration of the conflict.

 

In its brief, IRLI also explains how Texas's war on the cartels—a heavily-armed, foreign criminal organization—relates to the state's placement of floating barriers. In a word, the barriers, and other efforts by Texas to secure its border, are a war strategy to prevent or deter the entry of foreign nationals from around the world who pay the cartels to smuggle them into the country, and thereby at once to prevent the criminal acts of the cartels, reduce their material support, and diminish the human flood in which they conceal their further criminal activities, such as drug smuggling.

 

"War should not be decided in courtrooms, and the Constitution gives states direct power to declare and make war if invaded," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "We assume Texas is just getting started—and the judiciary is not the appropriate branch to second-guess how it defends itself. We hope the court rules this Biden Administration lawsuit non-justiciable and orders it dismissed on that basis, leaving Texas free to turn back an invasion the federal government has invited and scarcely opposed."

 

The case is United States v. Abbott, No. 23-50632 (Fifth Circuit).



TwitterLinkedIn


 

 


Posted by at

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

SCOTUS has always been anti-White(since the 50s at least).When the time comes,7-2 against Texas.

--GRA

Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 12:09:00 AM EST
Anonymous said...

DC: 2020 PRESIDENTIAL VOTING RESULTS
Biden 92.1% 317,323
Trump 5.4% 18,586


How could a Trump supporter of what ever sort ever expect to get a fair trial in DC. They could not.

Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 3:23:00 PM EST

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)