Since there is an invasion at the southern border should not the military or at the very least the national Guard be deployed to repel it?Why hasnt Abbott deployed the Texas guard yet or has he?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Invasion
- Thread starter mvphilly
- Start date
No, he hasn't. Thats the same question Tucker Carlson asked Abbott. Abbott's response was "It's more complicated than that."
No it isn't, unless you're owned by and are part of the swamp.
Arizona is in a similar situation. At least Ducey was trying to build a wall with shipping containers. Till the feds made the state take it down. Now it’s a shitshow.
Fuck the Feds. Who do they think they are, the HOA?
I might be wrong but I believe it’s a state vs federal thing.
The federal govt is head of boarder security, so the state cannot get in the way. Even if the state calls for emergency action the feds still have authority because the boarder is their jurisdiction.
Something along those lines
The federal govt is head of boarder security, so the state cannot get in the way. Even if the state calls for emergency action the feds still have authority because the boarder is their jurisdiction.
Something along those lines
AFAIK it is beyond the authority of a governor to deploy the national guard for border protection without fed approval.
The governor can deploy the national guard without fed interference for law enforcement and emergency response like storms, fires ...
The governor can deploy the national guard without fed interference for law enforcement and emergency response like storms, fires ...
~8 million military aged males of unknown origin. Plus a few wimmin and chilren.
Mayorkas sits in front of congress and says "the border is closed".
Nobody does a thing.
Definitely time for a sternly worded letter.
Mayorkas sits in front of congress and says "the border is closed".
Nobody does a thing.
Definitely time for a sternly worded letter.
"~8 million military aged males of unknown origin. Plus a few wimmin and chilren."
Thats an emergency.
Article 1 Section 10 paragraph 3. US Constitution:
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.
Pretty clear to me States have the power to call up the National Guard or State Militia to stop an invasion. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE CONSTITUTION. They're just bought off.
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.
Pretty clear to me States have the power to call up the National Guard or State Militia to stop an invasion. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE CONSTITUTION. They're just bought off.
I don't disagree but lots of things I disagree with aren't interpreted the way I like in court or politics ... "arms" and "shall not be infringed" for a couple
In that context "invaded" probably means an armed force.
Well, if doesn’t help that we have some big time developers building something like a 75k person, expected to grow to 200k in short order, city for them somewhere near the border in Texas. Yep you read that right.
Huge 'illegal immigrant' town shoots up in Texas
Texas developer William 'Trey' Harris has been accused of creating a massive illegal migrant town by selling off land to migrants without conducting any background checks.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Last edited:
Good one, I haven’t thought of that comparison before. So they’re a retarded Karen infested HOA?
Keeping that one for later use.
fifyWell, if doesn’t help that we have some big time traitors building something like a 75k person, expected to grow to 200k in short order, city for them somewhere near the border in Texas. Yep you read that right.
Huge 'illegal immigrant' town shoots up in Texas
Texas developer William 'Trey' Harris has been accused of creating a massive illegal migrant town by selling off land to migrants without conducting any background checks.www.dailymail.co.uk
Jail them, seize their assets, sell it all, put the proceeds toward more wall
That is one of the meanings, but the Constitution doesn't specify 'armed':
Invasion - The Britannica Dictionary
1 the act of entering a place in an attempt to take control of it
2 the act of entering a place in large numbers especially in a way that is harmful or unwanted
We definitely have #2 happening. No one could honestly argue that what's going on at the border is not an "Invasion". But that's why the media refers to what's happening at the border as a "humanitarian crisis".
Most legal stuff usually tries to focus on one meaning, not any old meaning you want to use today and not the new definitions the commiecrats keep trying to use.
The origin of the word invade means to "enter in a hostile manner" from Latin invadere "to go, come, or get into; enter violently, penetrate into as an enemy, assail, assault, make an attack on,"
For definitions as applicable in the context of the Constitution you'd have to look it up in a dictionary from around 1699 not the latest up to date gender bending version of Webster's or Britannica. What did the word mean when the document was penned not what does it mean today or tomorrow.
Even if you only go back as far as 1828 the primary meaning and most meanings of "invade" are clearly hostile, the one that doesn't "isn't used".
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Invade
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Invade
INVA'DE, verb transitive [Latin invado; in and vado, to go.]
1. To enter a country, as an army with hostile intentions; to enter as an enemy, with a view to conquest or plunder; to attack. The French armies invaded Holland in 1795. They invaded Russia and perished.
2. To attack; to assail; to assault.
There shall be seditions among men and invading one another. 2 Esdras.
3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate. The king invaded the rights and privileges of the people, and the people invaded the prerogatives of the king.
4. To go into; a Latinism. [Not used.]
5. To fall on; to attack; to seize; as a disease.
Last edited:
This is WWIII kids. It has been since November 63 at least…
So tell me how and why these people are now known as "asylum seekers"We went from illegal aliens,to immigrants to asylum seekers.Do they think it makes it easier when they are butt fucking us with this crap?
Si, as I understand it they are there as "support" to interfere with "criminal" behavior ... smuggling drugs, weapons, yada yada ...
I see no solution. I’m going to up my self awareness and my protection measures. All one has to do is look at Europe to see what happens and what’s coming. Prepare while you can!
And now we have a libtard cunt governor due to a combination of fraud and McCain voters who hated Trump.
-Covert attacks on the infrastructure
-Martial law
Seizure of weapons
-Seizure of assets.
-Civil war
-World war
-Massive suffering
-The end of time
-Fuck Joe biden
Now it is.
Update- it seems between Tucker Carlson and folks like us calling out Greg Abbott, he reversed his direction and put his wheels in motion in regards to the NG.
This might get interesting.
Yup. And what they're doing is against the law, the one they're being paid to enforce, with your tax dollars.
But don't worry, they'd never turn on American citizens.
So we have the federal US Border Patrol and the state Texas National Guard both with opposing orders and objectives.
Which group will be victorious?
Will Abbott attempt to expel the US Border Patrol and replace them with state border agents to enforce the border of Texas against invasion?
Last edited:
The Feds will threaten to withhold money and Abbott will fold. If his heart was in it he would have called in the NG before half of Mexico and Honduras poured in.
A great Prophet once said, "buy more ammo."
Abbott on Twitter: I officially declared an invasion at our border because of Biden's policies.
We deployed the Texas National Guard, DPS & local law enforcement.
We are building a border wall, razor wire & marine barriers.
We are also repelling migrants.
We deployed the Texas National Guard, DPS & local law enforcement.
We are building a border wall, razor wire & marine barriers.
We are also repelling migrants.
If the US were to remove the incentives and deny ANY public services to anyone but American Citizens, you'd see a mass migration in the other direction. Putting the guard on the border with orders to fire one warning shot would help with the rest.
Who cares how the courts interpret anything.
Deploy the Guard. The courts can issue writs as they please. They can also be ignored when you, not they, have the firepower.
"Don't mess with Texas," LOLWell, if doesn’t help that we have some big time developers building something like a 75k person, expected to grow to 200k in short order, city for them somewhere near the border in Texas. Yep you read that right.
Huge 'illegal immigrant' town shoots up in Texas
Texas developer William 'Trey' Harris has been accused of creating a massive illegal migrant town by selling off land to migrants without conducting any background checks.www.dailymail.co.uk
I saw that. Below Austin on IH35 there's Buda and Kyle which have their sprawling, illegal alien trailer park villiages.
They also have the Catholic Church there which is nothing more than an illegal alien consulate, providing everything from pre-nadal connections, legal advise and all the ways to game the system for maximum free benefits.
The 'problem' with using the NG is Biden can just Federalize it and order it to stand down. (A La Eisenhower and little rock). That's the whole Fed vs State thing. Its a giant game of chicken between Texas and the Feds to see who blinks first. Abbot can't antagonize Biden too much before NG gets federalized and Biden can't overstep without losing face/power.
Doesn't matter what they call them now. They are and always will be illegal aliens.
The commies always change the definition of criminal or immoral things to normalize and desensitize people to the reality of those things.
This is the destruction of white western countries by population replacement. By the political class criminals .
Who pretend to represent the actual citizens of western countries. They are traitors .
The solution isn’t to hire more professional statists as they serve and protect evil men in power and are the major contributors to the issues in the first place as they threaten violence to keep good men from taking action. There are more than enough of the brainless and spineless men that seek out gov’t jobs to eek out a despicable existence already at the border aiding the invasion.
Decriminalizing the defense of the border so real Americans can repel the invasion without repercussions from statists in local, state, and federal gov’t would be an option. Of course this won’t happen considering everything is going just as Abbott and Biden’s handlers planned. Gov’t doesn’t fix problems. Gov’t is the creator of problems. It would take men ignoring gov’t while protecting one another if/when necessary to fix the current state of affairs. This would be the solution to ALL the problems intentionally put on real Americans by those that “serve” gov’t.
-
The original Rangers that made the Ranger legend was in his early 20's. Sam Walker who, along with Sam Colt, came up with the Walker Colt, was twenty-two.
The Rangers were a well armed, mounted militia back then. And a well armed militia is what is needed now. Not a bunch of old men in 5 star Beaver cowboy hats and handmade boots.
Shit. Have you seen your typical current Texas Ranger?
The original Rangers that made the Ranger legend was in his early 20's. Sam Walker who, along with Sam Colt, came up with the Walker Colt, was twenty-two.
The Rangers were a well armed, mounted militia back then. And a well armed militia is what is needed now. Not a bunch of old men in 5 star Beaver cowboy hats and handmade boots.
I guess if a man has to be ruled by the most corrupt and vile people among them with the help of brainwashed non thinkers who would take orders from them for a paycheck, the least this criminal organization could do is protect the borders. How is that working out?
If it was not apparent the government was "shipping" them for nefarious reasons or if it was plausible they *might* be fleeing government persecution then yes. But, AFAIK, they would need to request and be granted or considered for "asylum" at the port of entry or the border to stay for any length time beyond what it takes to deport them.
If Russia was in fact "shipping" unarmed people out of their country then it might be considered a case of exile with forcible deportation. Being banished or exiled *might* be considered a valid basis for requesting "asylum". AFAIK, if someone requests asylum there is at least a minimum process that by law must be executed and during that time the person(s) requesting asylum are allowed in until a determination is made.
No, it is not an "invasion" in the international or country or sovereign state sense of the word. This is just one of many examples of the meanings of English words have changed over the centuries/decades allowing people to erroneously conflate multiple concepts into one.
In legal "jargon" it is trespass and/or breaking and entering. All covered by a completely different set of laws. Unless you are Kevin Baugh maybe. Your house is not a country even though it may be covered by a "Castle Doctrine", the nomenclature of which could make it very difficult for some people to understand and separate from international laws.
If you are incapable of thinking about these things without conflating them together I suggest attempting to think about one at a time until you get a grasp on at least one of them.
Again, I personally don't disagree.
Do not interpret any understanding I may have, however feeble, of law as sympathy for the cause or allegiance to the Fuhrer and his agenda or any agreement in any way that the laws are just.
As far as I'm personally concerned anyone crossing the border illegally is a criminal, a felon, a spy, an enemy combatant and they can apply for admission from the other side of the border or get deported or shot.
They could set up about 75 yards inland.
I like it but FED jurisdiction is currently a "100 mile border zone" ... do you have any idea how many U.S. cities and citizens lie within this zone?
I’m not arguing with you at all. I think we are on the same page. My point being government is the problem therefore will not be the solution. Anything that cesspool of shit will do certainly will be against the interest of the tax slave.
This illustration is misleading. The whole map would need to be colored orange and labeled “the constitution-free zone” to be accurate.I like it but FED jurisdiction is currently a "100 mile border zone" ... do you have any idea how many U.S. cities and citizens lie within this zone?
Given the number of rights currently compromised for the sake of "security" or the "good of all" I find this acceptable.
Similar threads
