Texas Border Invasion Standoff

Basically the best idea I can come up with is alongside getting the wall finished (wish we could Theodosian Walls this bitch, but that might be a touch expensive), have holding centres set up for those that slip through, surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards with dogs.

These would not be death camps as food and medical aid would certainly be provided, but the conditions would be cramped and miserable. As these people entered the United States illegally, they’d be told their asylum application may take years. In the meantime, every day as the guards make their rounds, the inmates will be told “tell us who you are and where you are from, and you’ll be on a plane home tonight. If your country is actually a war torn shithole or totalitarian nightmare, we’ll deposit you in the nearest safe country.”

Whereafter, the inmates are transferred to a US Airforce base where they are flown out on USAF chartered aircraft. Let the activists try to sabotage that deportation.
 
... That's literally Vietnam's win con. Make it politically unfeasible to continue. The idea that America could have won completely ignores political reality. They won by controlling the media.
You are arguing that "we cannot do X because of politics"
Your example is "that one time the enemy was in total control over the media and literally lied to the public. gaslighting them into believing a false reality. so the demonrats got elected"...

In a scenario where the enemy is both in control of all information AND lying, it does not matter what you do.
You can do A, you can do B, you can do Z.
No matter what you do, MSM will say that you are doing X and you "lose".
 
It actually wouldn't work. In fact, it'd be a massive failure, for the same reason we lost the war in vietnam. It doesn't work politically. In fact, it looks awful politically. Not to mention that the people in charge of shooting will undoubtedly get high rates of PTSD.

All actual solutions need to satisfy both effectiveness and political realities of them.

Shooting people caught trying to illegally cross borders is how most borders in the world are enforced.
 
You are arguing that "we cannot do X because of politics"
Your example is "that one time the enemy was in total control over the media and literally lied to the public. gaslighting them into believing a false reality. so the demonrats got elected"...

In a scenario where the enemy is both in control of all information AND lying, it does not matter what you do.
You can do A, you can do B, you can do Z.
No matter what you do, MSM will say that you are doing X and you "lose".
No, I'm saying the following:
Shooting everyone who illegally cross the border will never be politically feasible, regardless of media bias.

Then I gave an example of how political realities trumped the situation on the ground.

The media doesn't have to lie to torpedo "shoot everyone who crosses illegally."

Shooting people caught trying to illegally cross borders is how most borders in the world are enforced.
Only in some dictatorships is that the norm, and even then, that's shooting people trying to leave, not enter.

But actually, that's not the usual behavior. In fact, usually they attempt to do an arrest and a deportation instead. Or an arrest and execution as a spy. Or an arrest and just being turned back. In fact, shooting people trying to illegally cross a border was mostly a USSR/North Korea thing, and again, that was only for leaving.
 
No, I'm saying the following:
Shooting everyone who illegally cross the border will never be politically feasible, regardless of media bias.
It has literally been done. In multiple countries over history.
It is literally being done today in north korea.

And if the screaming liberal media is to be believed, it is being done in some eastern european countries (it isn't, they are exaggerating) and the locals are celebrating it as it is stemming the tide of rapefugees
 
It is literally being done today in north korea.
Only if they leave. They actually don't shoot people who enter North Korea and defect.

On top of this, the original claim (not by you, but who I was responding to) was that this happens for most borders, i.e. >50%. That's incredibly wrong. Hilariously wrong. Israel and Gaza pre-October 7 is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. I guess Russia vs Ukraine sorta counts, but that's an active war.
 
So, we have a problem between US states and the Federal gov and have a movie in 2024 that is literally about a potential years of lead scenario at best.

Is it something about to happen?

You're living through a replay of the Soviet collapse on the part of the U.S. right now, anon.

Emmanuel Todd attracted attention in 1976 when he predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, based on indicators such as increasing infant mortality rates and foreign trade data in his work La chute finale: Essais sur la décomposition de la sphère Soviétique (The Final Fall: an Essay on the Disintegration of the Soviet Sphere). Todd deduced that the Soviet Union had stagnated in the 1970s and was falling behind not only the West but its own Eastern European satellite states economically. In addition to this, low birth rates, a rising suicide rate, and worker discontent all were factors in an increasingly low level of productivity in the economy. Todd also predicted that poorly carried-out political and economic reforms would lead to a break-up of the Soviet Union with non-Russian republics seceding.​
Every single one of these is true for the United States.
 
You're living through a replay of the Soviet collapse on the part of the U.S. right now, anon.

Emmanuel Todd attracted attention in 1976 when he predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, based on indicators such as increasing infant mortality rates and foreign trade data in his work La chute finale: Essais sur la décomposition de la sphère Soviétique (The Final Fall: an Essay on the Disintegration of the Soviet Sphere). Todd deduced that the Soviet Union had stagnated in the 1970s and was falling behind not only the West but its own Eastern European satellite states economically. In addition to this, low birth rates, a rising suicide rate, and worker discontent all were factors in an increasingly low level of productivity in the economy. Todd also predicted that poorly carried-out political and economic reforms would lead to a break-up of the Soviet Union with non-Russian republics seceding.
Every single one of these is true for the United States.
Biden as Gorbachev and Trump as (an actually competent and sovereignist) Yeltsin?

Still too far from it.

But tag if the shooting war starts. In that case I will owe the beer I promised to @The Whispering Monk
 
Speaker Johnson Rejects Pending Border Deal: Illegal Crossings "Must Be Zero"


After years of insisting otherwise, the White House now calls the situation at the southern border "a crisis." The administration had often rejected that phrase, preferring instead to describe the historic influx of migrants crossing illegally as "a challenge."

But as Philip Wegmann writes via RealClear Wire,that nomenclature is no more. In a notable shift, when asked about border crossings, White House spokesman John Kirby told RealClearPolitics Monday, "The president himself has talked about the fact that there is a crisis going on at the border."


This was a reference to a statement President Biden made Friday when he said that his administration had been "negotiating" with Congress for "two months" to "finally address the border crisis." A change in policy as well as rhetoric, the president promised the next day that, if given new powers by Congress, he would "shut down the border right now."

House Speaker Mike Johnson was quick to spot the change in language. "Finally. It took three years for President Biden to admit there is a crisis at the southern border," he told RealClearPolitics in a statement, before adding, "It's not just a crisis, it's a catastrophe."

"Still, the president claims he has no executive authority to fix the disaster he has created," the speaker continued. "That is demonstrably untrue. He can and should act immediately."

House Republicans appreciate the change in rhetoric.

And as Jackson Richman reports via The Epoch Times, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has made clear where House Republicans will draw the line on any agreement dealing with the border: allowing illegal crossings.

"Any border 'shutdown' authority that ALLOWS even one illegal crossing is a non-starter. Thousands each day is outrageous. The number must be ZERO," Mr. Johnson wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Jan. 29.

The deal, whose text is set to be released this week, reportedly would permit the president to close ports of entry if illegal crossings reach a certain threshold.
One of the negotiators, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), announced on Jan. 28 that a proposal was almost ready.
"This bill could be ready to be on the floor of the United States Senate next week," he said on CNN, "but it won't be if Republicans decide that they want to keep this issue unsettled for political purposes."
The White House called on Congress to give the president the ability to protect the border.
"Until recently, Mr. Johnson advocated for HR2 because, in his view, presidents needed new legal authorities in order to secure the border," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre wrote in a memo.
HR2, known as the Secure the Border Act, was passed by the GOP-controlled House last year. It would have required a border wall to be completed and for asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their claims are considered, in addition to other border security measures. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said that bill was dead on arrival in the Democrat-controlled upper chamber.

Mr. Johnson previously said any Senate bill that doesn't include HR2 would be dead on arrival in the House.

"If Speaker Johnson continues to believe—as President [Joe] Biden and Republicans and Democrats in Congress do—that we have an imperative to act immediately on the border, he should give this administration the authority and funding we're requesting to secure the border," the memo states.
The memo cited quotes from Mr. Johnson to demonstrate that the speaker is being contradictory.
It quotes him as saying in February 2023: "America is the most compassionate nation in the world, but our immigration system is broken. Reforming that system is a job for Congress, and any balanced legislative approach must include measures to strengthen border security."
It also cites Mr. Johnson as writing in a letter to President Biden last month that "statutory reforms designed to restore operational control at our southern border must be enacted."
Mr. Johnson's office fired back.
"Speaker Johnson has been clear since the day he was handed the gavel that national security starts at our own border. The Secure the Border Act would codify this principle into federal law, and he continues to strongly urge the Senate and President to support it or similar legislation," Raj Shah, Mr. Johnson's deputy communications chief, told The Epoch Times on Jan. 29.
"But make no mistake, President Biden pledged on Friday to 'shut down the border. However, with the stroke of a pen, he could begin by restoring Remain in Mexico, ending catch and release, [and] reforming asylum and parole standards. His refusal places our national sovereignty at stake."
Former President Donald Trump, the GOP front-runner in the presidential primary, has voiced objections to the upcoming border deal.

"A Border Bill is not necessary to stop the millions of people, many from jails and mental institutions located all over the World, that are POURING INTO OUR COUNTRY. It is an INVASION the likes of which no Country has ever had to endure. It is not sustainable or affordable, and will, under Crooked Joe Biden, ONLY GET WORSE," he wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social.
President Biden has said he'd sign into law a bipartisan border deal.
"What's been negotiated would—if passed into law—be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we've ever had in our country," he said in a Jan. 26 statement.
"It would give me, as president, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law."
However, Mr. Johnson said that President Biden already had executive authority to close down the border.
"President Biden falsely claimed yesterday that he needs Congress to pass a new law to allow him to close the southern border, but he knows that is untrue," he said on Jan. 25.
"As my letter stated, President Biden can begin to secure the border by ending catch-and-release, ceasing exploitation of parole authority, reinstating the Remain in Mexico program, expanding the use of expedited removal authority, and renewing construction of the border wall," Mr. Johnson said, citing a letter he sent the president last year.
The forthcoming deal comes amid a crisis at the southern border, as there have been 785,422 encounters at the southwest border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the 2024 fiscal year, which started in October 2023, according to the agency. According to CBP, there were almost 2.48 million encounters in the previous fiscal year—an increase of 96,725 from fiscal year 2022.
 
As a Texan myself I do personally think we'd be better off if we left the United States. I just think the US is too big and is rapidly approaching a point to where it can only be held together by a increasingly tyrannical regime.
 
As a Texan myself I do personally think we'd be better off if we left the United States. I just think the US is too big and is rapidly approaching a point to where it can only be held together by an increasingly tyrannical regime.
Since you are from Texas, can I ask why you guys haven’t expanded the barbed wire to other common known border crossings?

Why are you guys still limiting yourselves to Eagle Pass? From what I’ve heard the migrants have just been heading to other unguarded areas now on your border with Mexico.
 
Since you are from Texas, can I ask why you guys haven’t expanded the barbed wire to other common known border crossings?

Why are you guys still limiting yourselves to Eagle Pass? From what I’ve heard the migrants have just been heading to other unguarded areas now on your border with Mexico.

Because Gregg Abbott wants to run for president at the next election and needs a bit of political theater now to get his name out there.
 
And doing more would be going too far?

I mean, the dude literally just defied the entire Federal Government and did it successfully, the first time a State has won a nullification crisis in American History.



"We have never seen the point that we have right now, " said immigration attorney Haim Vasquez. "Never to that point to where we have the Texas National Guard, agents from DPS basically blocking the entrance and taking authority or control of the border."


On Monday the Supreme Court said the federal government has the authority to remove razor wire that Texas installed at the southern border. Homeland Security said Texas had until Friday to give federal authorities access to Eagle Pass. But Governor Abbott is doubling down saying he'll increase state patrol of the border, adding more barriers and more razor wire.


"We are at a very critical issue right now because we're testing, really, the essence of the Republic of the United States and whether or not the Supreme Court has authority, whether states have to abide or find a way to interpret it the way that they want," said Vasquez.


On Friday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton refused the federal government's request for access to the border and demanded proof that the federal government has the authority to turn a Texas park into a port of entry.


Vasquez says we'll have to wait and see who takes action next.


"If the federal government backs down from this, they completely will lose the authority they have on Supreme Court precedent," said Vasquez.​
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top