64 Times the Biden Administration Intentionally Undermined Border Security

a reply to: FlyersFan

It says nothing about 'friendly aliens'. It just says the government is supposed to repel invasions.

Who defines invasions? Not you. Not Speaker Johnson. Not Gov Abbott. Friendly aliens, coming to America seeking refuge, trying to escape violence, slavery, and threats of death are not enemy combatants.

Pretty sure this was linked in one of these threads already:

Under the U.S. Constitution, an invasion must involve both physical ingress into a state (entry) and the intent by the invader to act as an enemy to that state (enmity).

www.texaspolicy.com...

Even "Texas" knows this isn't an invasion.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Treason can be added to the impeachment inquiry articles. Easiest to prove too.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Many hardened criminals are entering with the newly minted criminals who broke the law coming in unauthorized to start their US residence.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Right, except "friendly aliens" are not enemy combatants.

I suppose you're privy to some proof that every single one of them are "friendly aliens" and not some terrorist with evil intentions? Please share that proof with us on ATS.

Not to change the subject, but what's that old expression? "Blowing Smoke?"

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Friendly aliens, coming to America seeking refuge, trying to escape violence, slavery, and threats of death are not enemy combatants.

- You made up the term 'friendly aliens'. It is no where in Article I, Section 8.

- People coming here illegally are almost always NOT fulfilling the requirements to come here for asylum. Very few fit the requirement. Almost all come here for financial reasons. And that's not a good enough reason to skip coming through the legal process - says the law.

Justice.Gov - Asylum decision and Filing Rates
Granted Asylum Rate - 12.54%

Justice.Gov - Asylum Process
Granted Asylum Rate - 12%

Even "Texas" knows this isn't an invasion.

Nope.

Another Texas county Declares Invasion Bringing Total to 52

Texas Governor Officially Declares Invasion At Border

Texas Invokes Constitutional Invasion Clause

"I invoked the Invasion Clauses of the U.S. & Texas Constitutions to fully authorize Texas to take unprecedented measures to defend our state against an invasion,"

The "invasion clause" referenced by Abbott refers to Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states the U.S. "shall guarantee every state in this Union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion."

The Texas Constitution's Article 4, Section 7 also states that the governor, as commander in chief of military forces, "shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions."

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Many hardened criminals are entering with the newly minted criminals who broke the law coming in unauthorized to start their US residence.

I remember the USA giving asylum, in Hawaii, to Ferdinand and Emelda Marcos and most recently, exiled Brazilian President Bolsonaro is staying in Florida, on some kind of VISA!

a reply to: Station27

According to US law, everyone who claims asylum has a right to their case adjudicated in immigration court, by an immigration judge.

a reply to: FlyersFan

You made up the term 'friendly aliens'. It is no where in Article I, Section 8.

Section 8 also never mentions "illegal aliens". The aliens that you speak of are from countries that the US is friendly with, not at war with.

It doesn't matter if a bunch of right-wing, red states' governors are in the basket with Gregg Abbott, or if most immigrants claiming asylum won't qualify, and/or get rejected. The law says these people have a right to have their cases adjudicated in US immigrations courts, by a US immigration judge.

Congress can change the laws. Treaties can be adjusted.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
According to US law, everyone who claims asylum has a right to their case adjudicated in immigration court, by an immigration judge.

Will you be providing the proof of your statement above, and that I asked for, and will it be coming soon, or....? You never seem to answer anybody's questions. Just some gobbledegook that is a non-answer. Why do you waste our time like that?

a reply to: Station27

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), foreign nationals (aliens, as termed in immigration law)1 who are present in the United States, or who arrive in the United States at a port of entry (POE) or between POEs, may apply for asylum irrespective of their immigration status.2 Individuals who reside unlawfully in the United States, who arrive in the United States at a POE and are inadmissible, or who cross illegally into the United States between POEs may be charged with an immigration violation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and placed in removal proceedings in immigration court. In these instances, individuals may apply for asylum as a defense against removal, referred to as defensive asylum, during their proceedings. By contrast, individuals seeking asylum in the United States who are not in removal proceedings may apply for affirmative asylum with DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

crsreports.congress.gov...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Section 8 also never mentions "illegal aliens". The aliens that you speak of are from countries that the US is friendly with, not at war with.

Doesn't matter. They are INVADERS.
Definition of invasion includes - An intrusion or encroachment.

It doesn't matter if a bunch of right-wing, red states' governors are in the basket with Gregg Abbott, or if most immigrants claiming asylum won't qualify, and/or get rejected.

Yeah .. it matters very much. At least half the states agree ... INVASION.
And, as the OP shows, it's being aided by the federal gov't instead of the federal gov't repelling it.
The US Constitution Contract is BROKEN.

a reply to: FlyersFan

You say invaders and others say asylum seekers/immigrants.
I see people being used as political fodder. And it sucks because I am sure they are aware of that going on. But they don't care because most just want a better life.
Now maybe if they collectively stood up and fought back then they could collectively be shot.
I see they problem they face. I would rather suck it up and make the long journey and risk it then to have absolutely no doubt about being expired early by staying.

a reply to: Allaroundya4k

They need to use the LEGAL process to come here.
They are jumping line by coming in illegally.
They don't have a right to be here. It's a privilege.
And this country can't handle the invasion.
It's financially breaking us.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Yeah .. it matters very much. At least half the states agree ... INVASION.Yeah .. it matters very much. At least half the states agree ... INVASION.

No, it doesn't matter. States can't declare war. Migrants can't be shot for trespassing.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

It says nothing about 'friendly aliens'. It just says the government is supposed to repel invasions.

Who defines invasions? Not you. Not Speaker Johnson. Not Gov Abbott. Friendly aliens, coming to America seeking refuge, trying to escape violence, slavery, and threats of death are not enemy combatants.

Pretty sure this was linked in one of these threads already:

Under the U.S. Constitution, an invasion must involve both physical ingress into a state (entry) and the intent by the invader to act as an enemy to that state (enmity).

www.texaspolicy.com...

Even "Texas" knows this isn't an invasion.

Yet you define "insurrection" quite often.......

Hilarious.

Oh, and the answer to your question is 15 and 18.

You're welcome.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
No, it doesn't matter. States can't declare war. Migrants can't be shot for trespassing.

Yeah it matters very much. Those states declare it's an INVASION. Those states declare that the federal government, who they are in contract with, has broken the contract. Broken contract means that those states can defend themselves from the invaders and don't have to depend on the federal government which is actually helping the invaders instead of repelling them.

yeah .. IT MATTERS what they declare officially.

a reply to: FlyersFan

They are jumping line by coming in illegally.

Some of them are coming between border check points and then seek out border patrol, to turn themselves in. Tens of thousands of them are lined up at legal border check points, asking for asylum. Border agents can't turn them away because they think they probably won't even show up for their court date.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Irrelevant. They are jumping the line and coming in illegally. They should apply for entrance through legal channels. That's what it's there for. The vast majority have no legitimate claim on asylum and are just LINE JUMPING. It breaks the country and it isn't fair to the people who actually do things the right way to come here.

a reply to: FlyersFan

yeah .. IT MATTERS what they declare officially.

Why does it matter, and to whom? States can't declare war, or start murdering migrants, pretending they're enemy combatants, or intern them as Prisoners of War.

a reply to: FlyersFan

They are jumping the line and coming in illegally.

Still, Not an act of war or terrorism.

a reply to: JinMI

h, and the answer to your question is 15 and 18.

You must show your work, if you want credit.