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.

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Because the facts and law side with Texas

    Lol no they don’t. Paxton knows that. Federal agents always have jurisdiction over the border

    • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Right, I mean, literally the federal government could claim 200 miles from the border in Texas and the only thing that could stop them is a bad interpretation of the law by the Supreme Court. Which probably puts it within the realm of possibility, to be honest.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Just send in an 18 year old kid with a gun, those Texans will be petrified with fear and won’t even be able to respond. Or does that only work when it’s at a school?

  • Hotspur@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • m0darn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think having the FBI arrest the leadership is a better approach than troops killing each other.

      • Hotspur@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

  • Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      That will likely result in bloodshed. I think it’s inevitable at this point unless Biden decides to completely roll over.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

          • stoly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            The reason people are downvoting you is because your question is “So what does Biden do with his authority after exercising his authority? Not exercise it more or exercise it forever?”

            You think you have a gotcha, but really you just sound ignorant and angry.

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              WTF? There’s no gotcha there.

              I seriously have no idea what happens after he does it. There’s 0 anger in my question just trying to understand what it actually means.

              It solves the immediate problem, but whats the aftermath.

              Edit: And please do tell what kind of options beside eventually giving control back, or keeping control exist? I seriously don’t know.

              • stoly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                The National Guard is the “militia” that you hear about in the Constitution and such. Basically militias were brought up during the Revolutionary War and are what actually fought most of the battles. Those people wanted to ensure that militias would always be a thing so that in the future, oppression wouldn’t occur.

                In normal times, a governor is the head of a militia. But ultimately, the militias are part of the US military and always under the president. There are going to be laws and situations that Congress has spelled out over the years that say when this can or cannot happen, for how long it can last, etc.

                In brief: during an emergency, the president or governor calls up the reservists. Think natural disasters and such. When the emergency is over, they go back home and back to their normal jobs.

                • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  This doesn’t seem the same though?

                  In this case it’s the state national guard interfering with federal business. They themselves are the emergency.

                  If he nationalizes them to resolve the situation (letting the border guard patrol the area) the moment he ends his control, Texas would just start up the interference again?

                  Is the outcome that he nationalizes it, and they remain under his control until a federal court orders Texas to comply, at which point he returns control to Texas?

              • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                The same thing happens as with desegregation. The national guard eventually goes home as the operation is considered complete. Sure the governor could reactivate them and try to understand everything, but that’s not really realistic.

      • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        We already handled the “what are you going to do if we don’t follow the law” question here once, they must have just taken that part out of their history books.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Read the wiki article on the standoff in Waco, TX, which happened under Clinton. It would be a larger version of that.

  • Laughbone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    The only thing Ken Paxton should be defending in court is himself for securities fraud.

  • PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    For fuck’s sake, arrest these nimrods. At gunpoint, because God knows they aren’t fucking cooperative.

  • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    6 months ago

    The clear answer here is to say if Texas demands to police the boarder, all Federal boarder agents will be pulled back, and funding for boarder protection will be withheld. You can’t have it both ways.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Anything that goes wrong there is the fault of 30 years of Republicans blocking any sort of change. Don’t blame the feds, they don’t have the authority to fix this problem. Congress is the only one who can.

  • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Republicans: We need stronger border protections!

    DHS: Here’s increased BPD funding and facility modernization efforts.

    Republicans: No. Only death.

  • ratman150@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    They decided the pronouns of Texas are her? Awfully progressive, didn’t know the state of Texas could even have a gender?

  • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Texas is using the national guard, Biden is the Commander and Chief, he should just order them to stand down, then court marshal anyone who refuses the lawful order.