The Feds vs. Texas

If you don't watch Fox News, you may not have noticed the thousands of people illegally entering the country daily through our southern border.  Fox has been showing it ever since Biden took office, and reversed Trump's border protection policies with one Executive Order after the next.  With so many coming through into Texas, the Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, decided the rest of the country should share in the misery; and he started having busloads of illegal immigrants sent up north, to sanctuary cities.  Eventually, when the Democratic mayors of these cities started complaining about the problem, the Democratic-Mainstream Media Complex ((D-MSMC) had to report on it also.     

Then, Governor Abbott took things a step further.  He decided that if the Biden Administration would not enforce existing immigration law, and stop what amounts to an invasion of our country, that he would try to do so.  The Governor said he had a duty and responsibility to protect the people of Texas.  Therefore, he ordered that razor wire fencing be put up along a section of the Rio Grande River.  It was an attempt to stop the overwhelming flood of people entering the country, and the state, illegally.  But President Biden would have none of it.

Reasonable people might ask why the President has encouraged millions of people to enter the country illegally.  After all, he did not have to undo all of President Trump's border protection policies immediately upon assuming office.  Reasonable might ask why much of the Democrat Party has been going along with this open border policy.  Clearly, Biden does not care about the sovereignty of the United States.  Clearly, Biden does not care about protecting the American people - neither in terms of their personal safety nor their economic well-being, given the added tax burden placed on the public by so many people's social needs.

So why does Biden want to undo/remake America?  The only thing that I can think of is that he and the Democrats expect all these people here will vote, and they will vote for Democrats.  Because Democrats are buying their votes with numerous handouts.  In California, people here illegally essentially have the same rights as legal residents.  They can get a driver's license, food stamps, Medi-Cal (known as Medicaid in other states), emergency shelter and transitional housing, and even get a job (although the employer may get in trouble).  

Back to the border dispute between Biden and Texas.  Biden sued Texas.  The 5th Circuit said the border patrol did not have the right to take down the razor wire put up by Texas, intended to block people from entering the country, and Texas, illegally.  But, by a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court reversed.  The five Justices voting in favor of Biden and the federal government included the three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.  Voting with them was Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts.  Opposed were Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas.  

At the trial level, the District Court Judge, after looking at all the photos of so many entering illegally, questioned why the border patrol needed to cut the razor wire fencing put up by Texas.  Although siding with the federal government, the judge opined that cutting the fencing appeared to be "for no apparent purpose other than to allow migrants easier entrance further inland."

I do not pretend to be an expert in immigration law.  Article 1, Section 8 does give Congress the power "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  The main law on the topic seems to be the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, although that law has been amended various times.  (I certainly welcome comments by any immigration law experts.)  

Article 2, Section 3 says that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."  There is now widespread agreement that Biden is not doing that with regards to the immigration laws.  And Article 4, Section 4 has this interesting provision:  "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion."  I think we can reasonably call the illegal entry by 7 to 10 million people an "invasion."  And Biden clearly has no interest in protecting the states from that invasion.  

Article 1, Section 10 has this provision:  "No state shall, without the consent of Congress...engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."  Following Governor Abbott's decision to continue protecting the Texas border, UC Berkeley School of Law Dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, had an Op-Ed in the 1/30/24 Los Angeles Times, with this title:  "Texas' frightening lawless defiance of a Supreme Court order."  Yes, the US Constitution says the US Constitution and federal law are supreme over state law.  

But Governor Abbott claims there is an invasion of his state.  The pictures from the border do not lie.  Then Chemerinsky misses the mark, by citing cases that are not apropos.  Yes, President Eisenhower had to send in federal troops to assure the protection of black students in Little Rock, Arkansas.  But there, you had a state governor acting in violation of federal law.  Governor Abbott is trying to enforce federal law, by not allowing people to enter the country wherever and whenever they wish to do so.    Perhaps that is why the Republican Governors Association, as well as former President Trump, all support Governor Abbott.  

I find it interesting that the Democrats had no problem with ignoring federal laws when they set up sanctuary cities and states.  Or when they said they need not comply with requests to hold criminal illegal immigrants until they they could be picked up by ICE in order to be deported.  I've said it a number of times before - if the federal government won't enforce the law, then no one should be surprised if others choose to do so.  I, for one, stand with the Governor who cares about US sovereignty, and who cares about protecting the people of his state.  I do not stand with a lawless president.        

Stop Already With Talk Of The Two-State Solution! Stop It!

It's hard to take.  Especially from my fellow Jews.  This talk of the need for the creation of a Palestinian state.  Why, after the atrocities committed against Israel on October 7, is this topic of conversation?  Why now?  The only topics for conversation at this point in time should focus on the three requirements for peace laid out by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  1.  The complete defeat and elimination of Hamas.  2.  Thereafter, a demilitarized Gaza, with Israel maintaining complete security control.  3.  A deradicalization of all of Palestinian society - in Gaza and in the West Bank.   

Recently, it was discovered that 12 employees of UNRWA (The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) participated in the October 7 massacre of Israelis.  That should come as a surprise to absolutely no one who has been paying attention.  UNRWA runs the schools in Gaza.  Their textbooks show all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea to be "Palestine."  Israel does not exist.  They teach schoolkids that it is good to be a martyr, and that Jews are bad.  To this terrorist supporting organization, that teaches death over life, the Biden Administration gave $340 million in 2022.  Trump had cut the funding to UNRWA because of their support for terrorism.  But, as with many successful Trump policies, Biden reversed it.

Why does UNRWA even exist?  As Bret Stephens said in his 1/31/24 Op-Ed in the New York Times:  "No other group except for Palestinians gets its own permanent agency."  He points out that the surrounding Arab countries did not want them.  Stephens:  "...the postwar era produced millions of refugees:  Germans, Indians, Pakistanis, Palestinians and Jews, including some 800,000 Jews who were kicked out of Arab countries that had been their homes for centuries.  Nearly all found new lives in new countries - except for Palestinians."   

Stephens:  The Palestinians "have been kept as perpetual refugees  as a means of both delegitimizing Israel and preserving the irredentist fantasy that someday their descendants will exercise what they believe is their "right of return," effectively through the elimination of the Jewish state."  But, again, Donald Trump knew better.  He understood that Arab countries could be made to see the futility of the idea of eliminating Israel.  He understood that he could get Arab countries to see the benefits in normalizing relations with Israel - an advanced, high-tech modern society.  Hence, the successful Abraham Accords.  

But what are the Democrats doing?  49 US Senators (48 Democrats and "Independent" Bernie Sanders) announced they will present an Amendment to the pending national security legislation, stating that it is US policy to support a two-state solution.  Two Democrats refused to sign on - Joe Manchin and John Fetterman.  Good for them.  Sad to say that all nine Jewish Senators signed on, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff.  I mention Ossoff because back in 2021, during another war between the Palestinians and Israel, Ossoff led 25 Democratic Senators and 2 Independents in issuing a statement calling for an immediate ceasefire.  How did that work out, Senator Ossoff?  Peace break out?  

Over at the State Department, we learn that Antony Blinken instructed his diplomats to "conduct a review and present policy options on possible U.S. and international recognition of a Palestinian state."  (As reported in the Free Beacon and reposted by ZOA.)  Here is what Reuters reported Matthew Miller, State Department spokesman, saying:  "We are actively pursuing the establishment as an independent Palestinian state, with real security guarantees for Israel, because we do believe that is the best way way to bring about lasting peace and security for Israel, the Palestinians and for the region." 

Security guarantees for Israel?  Would that be like The Office of the United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon?  Just look at the tremendous success they have had in preventing the massive build-up of approximately 100,000 to 150,000 missiles controlled by Hezbollah, all aimed at Israel.  Good job!  No, only Israel must be responsible for the safety and security of Israel.  

I am reminded of how Obama sold out Israel at the UN in December, 2016, his last full month in office.  Obama instructed his UN Ambassador to not veto a Security Council resolution that essentially said all the land beyond the Green Line (the so-called 1967 borders) belonged to the Palestinians.  That, of course, included the Holy City of Old Jerusalem, where the holiest sites in Judaism can be found.  But the UN and Obama decided that the Arabs owned those sites.  That resolution passed the Security Council by a vote of 14-0, with the US abstaining.  I said at the time that such a resolution would only be likely to bring about more war.  Indeed.  (See the 12/24/16 post "The United States Abandons Israel at the United Nations.") 

Biden, as always, is on top of things.  He has sanctioned 4 Israelis, so-called "settlers" in the West Bank, for allegedly attacking Palestinians.  The sanctions prevent them from getting US visas, and from accessing the US banking system.  It is basically a meaningless gesture, other than to show his left-wing and Arab-Muslim base how fair he is.  But Biden is virtually always wrong on foreign policy.  He lifted sanctions on Iran, allowing the Ayatollahs to make billions on the sale of oil, and be able to support Hamas and the Houthis as a result.  Biden also took the Houthis off the US terrorist list, after Trump had put them on the list.  Now he put the Houthis back on the terrorist list.  Good job, Joe. 

So, I ask everyone...especially my Jewish friends and readers...please stop talking about a two-state solution.  Talk about the 3 prerequisites for true peace as outlined by Netanyahu.