Does Biden have the authority to secure the border

[BlindBoo]

View attachment 895668

Thanks to the Great Obama it was.

 

[BlindBoo]

Funny how quickly you change your position when faced with facts.

This is what you claimed:

Did Benedict Donald ever completely close the border before the Covid crisis? Didn't Biden keep most of Title 42 until the middle of last year?

 

[BackAgain]

That ruling simply didn't close the border like the Neo-GOP are clamoring for.

I don’t believe anyone has ever claimed that ruling closed the border.

 

[Stryder50]

If that were really the case, then there are many here on both sides of the political spectrum.

Others will notice that not all things/concepts can reduce to a few sentences that the feeble minded might grasp. Technical manuals are a prime example.

Your post sounds like something made-up to satisfy those who never passed beyond the 8th grade.

 

[Delldude]

Did Benedict Donald ever completely close the border before the Covid crisis? Didn't Biden keep most of Title 42 until the middle of last year?

Twisting and dodging again.....bu-bu-bu-bu-bu-but.

 

[BlindBoo]

I don’t believe anyone has ever claimed that ruling closed the border.

Neither did I. Closing the border is the Neo-GOP demand for passing a foreign military aid package. The Senate Bill gives the President that ability and the President has vowed to use it. Don't you think closing the border will make us more secure?

 

[Delldude]

Don't you think closing the border will make us more secure?

If so, why hasn't Biden done it.

 

[BackAgain]

Neither did I. Closing the border is the Neo-GOP demand for passing a foreign military aid package. The Senate Bill gives the President that ability and the President has vowed to use it. Don't you think closing the border will make us more secure?

Nonsense. The President is seeking this bill (whatever it may contain) for other reasons. But the Fact Is that he already has (and has had) the authority and the ability he now claims he needs.

Fuck the bullshit charlatan “proposed” Senate bill. Close the fucking borders to illegals NOW. It’s not just the smart thing to do, it’s also already legally required.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nonsense. The President is seeking this bill (whatever it may contain) for other reasons. But the Fact Is that he already has (and has had) the authority and the ability he now claims he needs.

Fuck the bullshit charlatan “proposed” Senate bill. Close the fucking borders to illegals NOW. It’s not just the smart thing to do, it’s also already legally required.

It's not the President's demand. He wants military aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. That aid has bipartisan support. It's the Neo-GOP who is demanding that that aid be tied to closing the border and making the border secure.

 

[BackAgain]

It's not the President's demand. He wants military aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. That aid has bipartisan support. It's the Neo-GOP who is demanding that that aid be tied to closing the border and making the border secure.

Nope. The President wants that other unrelated shit. That’s true. But none of that needs to be tied to closing the border. Potato doesn’t need any more authority than he already has.

He is simply being dishonest.

 

[BlindBoo]

But none of that needs to be tied to closing the border.

Except for the Speaker of the House's demand that they be tied together, they don't, you're right. Bring up separate bills/votes for each.

 

[imawhosure]

Depends. Is he above the law?

I think Congress has to pass a law and he either signs or vetos.

Remember the Supreme Court said the EPA couldn’t enforce law Congress had to. Probably same here. Biden alone can’t, unless he declares an emergency etc. so I guess he has the power if he deems it an emergency. Is it? Then why is trump saying wait till 2025 and he alone can fix it?

Nope, wrong answer! The laws have been/already in place. The fact is to allow what is happening today is illegal. Nothing has changed in the laws as far as illegal immigration since Bill Clinton was in, and he and Hillary both (don't believe me? Look it up) demanded illegal immigration cease.

Also, what has changed since even Trump was in office? Why, Joe Bidens EOs.

The fact is------------>the laws of the land can only be changed by congress. This is why for years I have suggested that Democrats should NOT put this decision on Democratic Presidents. What they should do is------------------>if they want what is currently happening with no backlash, just write a bill, pass it, and make it all legal.

They won't do it! Know why? The last time they tried it which was either during Bush or Clinton, they got MILLIONS of calls in DC from voters, it was turned down because of that, and those legislators that supported from BOTH sides got removed in the next election for congress. If you do not believe it, feel free to look that up too!

This is exactly why anybody opposed in congress to massive illegal immigration, should NEVER cut a deal The laws are already on the books to stop this, so why water them down? To expect them to enforce new laws.............which they may think the old laws are to harsh........and yet won't put a bill in congress to change the laws putting themselves on the line, is just dumb politics!

 

[Rawley]

Simple question. I can't elaborate more on this, because there's nothing to add. Can he secure the border or not.

Yes he does. Title 8. The one used by Obama and Trump.

Biden chooses not to exercise this authority, for partisan political reasons.

 

[Rawley]

Except for the Speaker of the House's demand that they be tied together, they don't, you're right. Bring up separate bills/votes for each.

?? The House has already.

 

[sealybobo]

Nope, wrong answer! The laws have been/already in place. The fact is to allow what is happening today is illegal. Nothing has changed in the laws as far as illegal immigration since Bill Clinton was in, and he and Hillary both (don't believe me? Look it up) demanded illegal immigration cease.

Also, what has changed since even Trump was in office? Why, Joe Bidens EOs.

The fact is------------>the laws of the land can only be changed by congress. This is why for years I have suggested that Democrats should NOT put this decision on Democratic Presidents. What they should do is------------------>if they want what is currently happening with no backlash, just write a bill, pass it, and make it all legal.

They won't do it! Know why? The last time they tried it which was either during Bush or Clinton, they got MILLIONS of calls in DC from voters, it was turned down because of that, and those legislators that supported from BOTH sides got removed in the next election for congress. If you do not believe it, feel free to look that up too!

This is exactly why anybody opposed in congress to massive illegal immigration, should NEVER cut a deal The laws are already on the books to stop this, so why water them down? To expect them to enforce new laws.............which they may think the old laws are to harsh........and yet won't put a bill in congress to change the laws putting themselves on the line, is just dumb politics!

The laws on the books are why we are fucked. We do have laws about what to do if people come to the border seeking asylum. It's to give them a hearing, or let them in and hope they show up to their amnesty hearing. We have to take their cases. We're probably in the situation we are in because of the current laws. If we do what you want to do, the ACLU will sue. Or someone like that.

We'd all love to say, "don't even try coming to our border because we will turn you away. Stay in Mexico"

Man would I love to be able to do that. Go back to your country and go to the American embassy. That's where you apply for asylum. Or citizenship. You don't bum rush us.

I don't understand removing the razor wire. It's meant to tell people don't cross. Removing the wire says cross here. Right?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Bullshit butthead!

Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor who is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, authored “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant” (3rd ed., 2015). This series is based on his forthcoming research article co-authored with Andrew T. Hyman: “The Constitution, Invasion, Immigration, and the War Powers of States” (pdf). It will appear early this year in Volume 13, Issue 1, of the British Journal of American Legal Studies.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
....
Now, the links to the series of articles. I'll do select excerpts later, but the titles and subtexts should be major clues. Especially for the many here whom don't know or understand the USA Constitution and various States Rights versus Federal.
..........
Part I

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part I​

This series summarizes state powers over immigration and military force—and particularly the power to respond to illegal border crossings.
...

Conclusion​

The Constitution’s words “invaded” and “invasion” include unauthorized mass migration into the United States or into individual states. Unauthorized mass migration therefore triggers certain government powers and duties—state as well as federal. The following installments in this series will explain what those powers and duties are.

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part I ​

This series summarizes state powers over immigration and military force—and particularly the power to respond to illegal border crossings.

www.theepochtimes.com



.........

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part II​

This part II explains federal and state responsibility in the face of invasion and introduces the topic of transnational criminal gangs.

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part II ​

This part II explains federal and state responsibility in the face of invasion and introduces the topic of transnational criminal gangs.

www.theepochtimes.com



..........

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part III​

As part of our research into state war powers, my co-author, Andrew T. Hyman, and I examined the scope of “defensive war” as the Founders understood it.

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part III ​

As part of our research into state war powers, my co-author, Andrew T. Hyman, and I examined the scope of “defensive war” as the Founders understood it.

www.theepochtimes.com



.........

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part IV​

This Part IV examines a particularly thorny problem: To what extent may the federal government interfere when states exercise their defensive war powers?

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part IV ​

This Part IV examines a particularly thorny problem: To what extent may the federal government interfere when states exercise their defensive war powers?

www.theepochtimes.com



........

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part V: About Birthright Citizenship​

This final part looks at the Constitution’s words “natural born Citizen” and the claim that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are “birthright citizens.”

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part V: About Birthright Citizenship ​

This final part looks at the Constitution’s words “natural born Citizen” and the claim that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are “birthright citizens.”

www.theepochtimes.com

Gish gallop using the Epoch Times does not an argument make.

Which law authorizes a president to expel immigrants waiting for asylum claims to be decided?

 

[Delldude]

We do have laws about what to do if people come to the border seeking asylum.

True.............but why let more in at anyone time than the system is set up to handle?

Who's fault is that?

We're probably in the situation we are in because of the current laws.

No, we're in the situation we're in due to a global initiative by the WHO-WEF globalists.

 

[Delldude]

Which law authorizes a president to expel immigrants waiting for asylum claims to be decided?

Do you include the ones that didn't follow asylum law? Like I didn't think the Rio Grande is a port of entry.

Something like 90% don't qualify.

 

[BackAgain]

Except for the Speaker of the House's demand that they be tied together, they don't, you're right. Bring up separate bills/votes for each.

Fine. Then the nonsensical Senate proposed (but not open to the public) to immigration bill can be voted down separately. Then, whichever way the Ukraine and Israel spending proposals go, they go. Separately.

We still don’t need the senate proposal.

And Potato already has the authority and power plus the duty to shut down the border to all illegals.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Do you include the ones that didn't follow asylum law? Like I didn't think the Rio Grande is a port of entry.

Something like 90% don't qualify.

That is not a requirement. I would be curious which media outlet/pundit told you this lie.

Port-of-Entry Asylum Requirement Tossed by Federal Judge

A federal judge in Washington struck down a Trump administration rule Friday that made people who entered the United States by crossing the U.S.-Mexico border outside a port of entry ineligible for asylum.

www.courthousenews.com

"A federal judge in Washington struck down a Trump administration rule Friday that made people who entered the United States by crossing the U.S.-Mexico border outside a port of entry ineligible for asylum."

"The rule's direction that 'an alien shall be ineligible for asylum' if the alien entered the United States outside a designated port of entry is not 'compatible' with the congressional mandate that all aliens present in the United States may 'apply' for asylum, regardless of whether they entered the United States at a designated port of entry," U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss wrote in a 77-page opinion Friday."

Did you want to answer my question now?