Mexican president says he’ll fight Texas migrant crossing law

[Gunny]

Problem for both this clown and the puppet in DC is the US Mexico border in Texas is also the Texas border. It's none of his damned business unless they're Mexican nationals getting sent right back. Then, as far as I'm concerned, too bad.

It is absurd that both DC and this fool in Mexico are fighting for something that is against the damned law to begin with.

Mexican president says he’ll fight Texas migrant crossing law | The Hill (https://thehill.com/latino/4367752-mexican-president-to-fight-texas-migrant-crossing-law/)

[RoccoR]

RE: Globalists Lose a Titan (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?79138-Globalists-Lose-a-Titan&p=1021528#post1021528)
SUBTOPIC: The Man
※→ Gunny, et al,

I think that Gunny makes a very important point.


Problem for both this clown and the puppet in DC is the US Mexico border in Texas is also the Texas border. It's none of his damned business unless they're Mexican nationals getting sent right back. Then, as far as I'm concerned, too bad.

It is absurd that both DC and this fool in Mexico are fighting for something that is against the damned law to begin with.

Mexican president says he’ll fight Texas migrant crossing law | The Hill (https://thehill.com/latino/4367752-mexican-president-to-fight-texas-migrant-crossing-law/)

(COMMENT)

No matter your stance on immigration, a foreign government cannot be allowed to dictate US Immigration Law.

As far as the Federal Government 'vs' State of Texas is concerned on the matter:



◈ 10th Amendment • US Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

◈ Article I • Section 10 • US Constitution: Powers Denied to the StatesNo State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

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.


While Congress may have passed federal legislation on the matter of immigration, there does not seem to be a prohibition on any state to control its borders within the Constitution.

Most Respectfully,
R

[revelarts]

I do love it when people take at least parts of the constitution seriously.

Just wish most folks didn't think of it like a buffet.
Considering it as sacrosanct, in all it's details, only when it agrees with their own personal political POVs.

[RoccoR]

RE: Mexican president says he’ll fight Texas migrant crossing law (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?79213-Mexican-president-says-he%E2%80%99ll-fight-Texas-migrant-crossing-law&p=1021797#post1021797)
SUBTOPIC: Application of the Constitution
※→ revelarts, et al,


I do love it when people take at least parts of the constitution seriously.

Just wish most folks didn't think of it like a buffet.
Considering it as sacrosanct, in all it's details, only when it agrees with their own personal political POVs.
(COMMENT)

It is the nature of many people to see only what they want to see. This is true of many a beasts with the Washington Beltway. No matter the gender or species, they work for themselves. They protect themselves → for the benefit of themselves. Being a benefactor of some significance opens doors and opportunities not available to lesser citizens. They work in their own best interest. They worry about trivia - and have become fixated on the latest of weapons → impeachment. The beasts of the Washington Beltway are fickle and self-centered.

The Constitution is a living document. And it should be the highest law in the land; not a distant and esoteric piece of history. It is common to both the federal and the state jurisdictions - as well as the people for which it was written. But it was conceived and written by 18th Century men, with 18th Century notions. Trying to apply the twists and turns found in 21st Century law to the intent of an 18th Century document meant to be pretty straight forward and understandable by the land owners is rather difficult.

Most Respectfully,
R

[revelarts]

RE: Mexican president says he’ll fight Texas migrant crossing law (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?79213-Mexican-president-says-he%E2%80%99ll-fight-Texas-migrant-crossing-law&p=1021797#post1021797)
SUBTOPIC: Application of the Constitution
※→ revelarts, et al,


(COMMENT)

It is the nature of many people to see only what they want to see. This is true of many a beasts with the Washington Beltway. No matter the gender or species, they work for themselves. They protect themselves → for the benefit of themselves. Being a benefactor of some significance opens doors and opportunities not available to lesser citizens. They work in their own best interest. They worry about trivia - and have become fixated on the latest of weapons → impeachment. The beasts of the Washington Beltway are fickle and self-centered.

Very True!
(not that "True" needs any adjectives here)



The Constitution is a living document. And it should be the highest law in the land; not a distant and esoteric piece of history. It is common to both the federal and the state jurisdictions - as well as the people for which it was written. But it was conceived and written by 18th Century men, with 18th Century notions. Trying to apply the twists and turns found in 21st Century law to the intent of an 18th Century document meant to be pretty straight forward and understandable by the land owners is rather difficult.

Most Respectfully,
R

short reply, 4 points:
1. That's why they wrote into the document the amendment process.
2. The 18th century language is still english, and is FAR clearer to the average modern reader than any law written today in gov't/bureaucratic "legalese".
3. The main point of the constitution is it's LIMITATIONS on the what the gov't has been granted the authority to do. The boundaries are clear.
4. The date on the calendar in isn't a factor. It was conceived and written by 18th Century men who were working off of principals and ideals gleaned from the study of human nature and the nature of Gov't going back to Egyptians, Moses, Greeks, Romans, Religious rule & Euro monarchies +. The 21st century hasn't changed human nature or the shape/perils of gov't.
See the 1st part of your own reply. it's nearly exactly what the 18th century men predicted and wanted to avoid. (see "the Anti Federalist Papers".. and even a few "Federalist Papers")

[Gunny]

I do love it when people take at least parts of the constitution seriously.

Just wish most folks didn't think of it like a buffet.
Considering it as sacrosanct, in all it's details, only when it agrees with their own personal political POVs.

There is also point of view from where one stands. You read about this (Border topic). I'm living in it. When it affects your immediate surroundings and society, it's a lot more important than what-all they're doing in NYC. It works just as well in reverse. Biden's border policy didn't matter at all with some cheering it on until Abbott started dropping the results of it on their doorsteps. From a POV, rightly so. If I lived in NYC I'd be far more concerned about getting stabbed on the street by some derelict than what overloading the SW's social and financial infrastructures was doing.

Rather than a buffet, I'd call it a matter of priorities.