The Department of Homeland Security had directed the state to stop blocking the U.S. Border Patrol’s access to roughly 2½ miles of the U.S.-Mexico border
Texas is refusing to comply with a cease-and-desist letter from the Biden administration over actions by the state that have impeded U.S. Border Patrol agents from accessing part of the border with Mexico.
In a letter to the Department of Homeland Security, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton rejected the Biden administration’s request for the state to “cease and desist” its takeover of Shelby Park, an epicenter of southwest border illegal immigration in Eagle Pass.
“Because the facts and law side with Texas, the State will continue utilizing its constitutional authority to defend her territory, and I will continue defending those lawful efforts in court,” Paxton wrote.
“Now stop it or we’ll send another sternly-worded letter!”
Arrest the guy for obstructing federal agencies. Then send another strongly worded letter to everyone else.
If they still refuse… arrest them too.
You really don’t want that. You might not realise it now, but even if we win, those of us left will gaze at the ashes under which we buried our friends and family, and wish it hadn’t happened.
OR Texas can pull it’s head out of its own asshole.
It’s a long shot, I know.
Dems: “Help! We sent a letter with strongest possible wording, it wasn’t effective, and we’re all out of ideas!”
How many times do conservatives have to slap Dems in the face before realizing they aren’t good faith actors?! Genocide in the Middle East, murder for fun on the southern border…what a mess.
For fuck’s sake, arrest these nimrods. At gunpoint, because God knows they aren’t fucking cooperative.
In a letter to the Department of Homeland Security, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton rejected the Biden administration’s request for the state to “cease and desist”
WTF? A cease and desist is a demand, not a “request!”
That’s not even quoting Texas’ fascist AG or anything; that’s the article writers’ own spin. Why are Julia Ainsley and Zoë Richards carrying water for fascists?
I guess I get what you’re saying. You’re saying that it’s irrelevant what the requester/demander calls it, what makes the distinction is whether or not there are stated consequences beyond the displeasure of the requester/demander.
What’s the issue? Get a ton of federal agents, march on the border, arrest all obstructing Texas shitheads and beat them down with the book. Make examples out of them.
That will likely result in bloodshed. I think it’s inevitable at this point unless Biden decides to completely roll over.
There’s not going to be any bloodshed. Texas National Guard soldiers want to go home safely every night, just like everyone else. I think the main issue is the border patrol doesn’t want a conflict.
Biden could nationalize the Texas Guard troops at the fence. Then give them a direct order to open the gate. If they don’t, dishonorable discharge for disobeying a direct order from the President. No pension, no nothing. They will open the gate.
What happens after that? Does he de-nationalize them once the issue is sorted, or has Texas now lost full control permanently?
edit: I seem to have hit some nerve with a legitimate question? 7 downvotes??? I don’t know how biden nationalizing the state guard works and what happens after.
I mean, they are occupying a section of the border of the entire country, and denying, through threat of violence, the federal government/military access to said border. At some point, this simply has to be read as insurrection, and put down. A country only gets to exist and enforce laws by virtue of the implied violence (physical or otherwise) that it can leverage to back it up.
Of course there are complications to this, like the thought that steamrolling these troopers would then spark a greater revolt. But when you have a state doing things like this, particularly a state that has made it abundantly clear they desire to secede and have prepared for secession, I think you need to play hardball. This could be either by forcibly bringing them back in line through state violence, or giving them what they want, in such a way that it ends up being a pyrrhic victory; imagine aggressive border protocols and removal of free travel along the Texas border, intense tariffs and duties on Texan goods, etc… honestly a Texit could be quite beneficial for the country, shifting congress balances somewhat. Add in some statehood’s for PR, Guam and DC and now you’re really cooking with gas.
Who knows though, I’m still finding it hard to believe that the Jan 6 insurrectionists weren’t mowed down in machine gun fire when they penetrated the capitol, so clearly my expectations of government reaction and what actually happens have some daylight between them.
Abbott does have a history of trotting out the national guard to keep the US military in place. If you don’t remember, look up the Jade Helm Scare. A Russian propaganda farm pushed the idea on social media that Obama was going to take TX citizens prisoner in abandoned Walmarts that were converted to holding centers and do something with them. Abbott was so convinced this could happen, that he ordered the national guard to watch the military training g exercise nicknamed Jade Helm.
I think having the FBI arrest the leadership is a better approach than troops killing each other.
Yeah I mean that’s fine, but you’d run the same risk there with bluff-calling and standoffs. Like clearly Texas is trying to bait the feds into either rolling over for a cheap win, or doing something that they might be able to use to spark something more significant. Not sure which is worse, but I know which one will look more weak/will incite further escalators acts on Texas’ part.
So the larger issue is that Republicans will continue pushing the goalposts until eventually a drastic action has to be taken. Better now, I think.
particularly a state that has made it abundantly clear they desire to secede and have prepared for secession
The state GOP rejected the petition to even add secession on their primary ballot, and the state Supreme Court declined to take up the pro-secession group’s request to intervene.
So it’s not really accurate to broadly paint the entire state as frothing at the mouth to secede. We have a sizeable number of idiots who do, but it’s objective not part of the Republican state party platform, much less the general population supporting it.
I mean I’m sure plenty of Texans have no desire to succeed. But there are multiple real actions that suggest the state has it in mind: separate border enforcement forces, isolated power grid, the Texas rangers/trooper or whatever they’re called. It may all just be maneuvering/bluster, but when you see the state power structures trying to create Amon Bundy-standoffs it does make one wonder.
There also nascent secession movements elsewhere, California has a visible one.
Nah, the politicians and the populace would gain nothing by seceding. The Republicans are trying to push extreme “state’s rights” on all fronts. The goal of this particular fiasco is likely to get a favorable outcome from SCOTUS and to prevent Texas from getting more blue/brown from immigrants’ children. The goal of extreme “state’s rights” is to ensure Republican control over the federal government (there are more red states than blue states, and if states have enough rights to do things like overriding election results, voter suppression, extreme gerrymandering, and other various ways of “rigging” elections, Republicans can ensure control over both state and federal government).