General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsbucolic_frolic
(43,465 posts)Sending in federal troops would play right into their hands.
Redleg
(5,861 posts)I am not an attorney but it seems to me that sending soldiers down there will create more problems than it will solve.
TomSlick
(11,127 posts)Absent a presidential invocation of the Insurrection Act, federal troops must not be used to enforce civilian law.
In 1857, President Eisenhower relied the Reconstruction era Enforcement Acts to protect the rights of African Americans that were being denied by Arkansas Governor Faubus' defiance of federal court orders. Those acts would appear to have no application in this instance.
My suggestion would be for the President to order the Texas National Guard Adjutant General to federal service and then order him to withdraw all National Guard troops from the area. If he refuses either order, send a contingent of military police officers to apprehend him for violation of the UCMJ.
lapfog_1
(29,243 posts)let's expel them... and then they can do what they want with the border with Mexico. We will use our new majority in the House and Senate to finally build the wall that the cons want so bad, all the way around Texas. Probably should annex that panhandle thing just to make the wall less expensive. give it to Oklahoma.
Actually it wouldn't bother me for Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana to all leave the union.
well, sort of.
MagickMuffin
(15,976 posts).
Response to lapfog_1 (Reply #5)
Post removed
shrike3
(3,856 posts)What other states are thumbing their nose at the Commander in Chief?
Last time I checked ...
lapfog_1
(29,243 posts)if you mean the feds contribute more to CA than to other states, that is true.
However, CA is by FAR the biggest contributor to the federal budget.
In terms of what states contribute more than they take, CA is in the top tier.
https://smartasset.com/data-studies/states-most-dependent-federal-government-2023
in fact CA in 2023 was ranked 41 out of 50, contributing $5.03 for every dollar the federal government spends in CA.
as for the number of nutjobs north of Redding, CA... compared to the coastal population... ahh no. They are only large in actual numbers, but in percentages... very few compared to the population of California.
niyad
(113,798 posts)data that I have seen.
LeftInTX
(25,743 posts)LOS ANGELES
'Calexit' Supporters Get The Green Light To Start Collecting Signatures
losangeles
April 24, 2018 / 6:11 PM PDT / KCAL News
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Advocates looking for California to secede from the United States can begin collecting signatures for a long-shot initiative asking voters to weigh in, Secretary of State Alex Padilla said Monday.
The proposed initiative is the third so-called Calexit proposal since President Donald Trump's election. Previous efforts were withdrawn or failed to gather the required signatures.
The latest would ask voters about secession in 2020. If it passed, a second election would be held a year later asking voters to affirm the decision.
Marcus Ruiz Evans, co-founder of the group Yes California, said the second vote would show that Californians are serious about secession and would strengthen the case for foreign governments to recognize the state's independence.
https://www.yescalifornia.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_and_secession_in_California
In early 2009, former State Assemblyman Bill Maze began lobbying to split thirteen coastal counties, which usually vote Democratic, into a separate state to be known as either "Coastal California" or "Western California". Maze's primary reason for wanting to split the state was because of how "conservatives don't have a voice" and how Los Angeles and San Francisco "control the state". The counties that would make up the new state would be Marin, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties. It has also been proposed that the state be split in two simply at the straight divide of the 120th meridian west, much like its border with the state of Nevada.[18]
In June 2011, Republican Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone called for Riverside, Imperial, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino, Kings, Kern, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa and Mono counties (see map, highlighted in red) to separate from California to form the new state of South California. Officials in Sacramento responded derisively, with governor Jerry Brown's spokesperson saying "A secessionist movement? What is this, 1860? It's a supremely ridiculous waste of everybody's time."[19] and fellow supervisor Bob Buster calling Stone "crazy", suggesting "Stone has gotten too much sun recently."[20]
In September 2013, county supervisors in both Siskiyou County and Modoc County voted to join a bid to separate and create a new "State of Jefferson".[13] Mark Baird, spokesperson for the Jefferson Declaration Committee, is reported to have said the group hopes to obtain commitments from as many as a dozen counties, after which they will ask the state legislature to permit formation of the new state based on Article 4, Section 3 of the US Constitution. In January 2014, supervisors in Glenn County voted in favor of separation,[21] and in April 2014, Yuba County supervisors voted to become the fourth California county to join the movement.[22]
On June 3, 2014, residents in Del Norte County voted against separation by 58 percent to 42 percent;[23] however, voters in Tehama County supported a separation initiative by 57 percent to 43 percent.[24] On July 22, 2014, Sutter County voted 50 to join the State of Jefferson.[25]
Six Californias: On December 19, 2013, venture capitalist Tim Draper submitted a six-page proposal[26][27] to the California Attorney General to split California into six new states, citing improved representation, governance, and competition between industries.[28]
On February 19, 2014, Secretary of State Debra Bowen approved the proposal allowing supporters to start collecting signatures in order to qualify the petition for a ballot. A total of 807,615 registered voters were needed by July 18, 2014, for the proposal to appear on the ballot.[29] On July 14, the petition organizer announced that the proposal received enough signatures to be placed on the ballot in two years;[30] however, it was determined that only about two thirds were valid and the petition fell short of qualifying for the November 2016 ballot.[31]
In August 2022, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors began an approval process for a possible secession measure to be added to the November 2022 general election ballot. Proponents of including the ballot measure cite dissatisfaction in the county's share of state and federal funding.[40][needs update]
In 2020, "Move Oregon's Border For a Greater Idaho" proposed breaking off most of Oregon's area and some of Northern California and join it with Idaho. The areas proposed to break off of Oregon and California vote Republican but in a state whose legislatures are dominated by Democrats. Douglas and Josephine counties in Oregon approved language for petitions to put a measure on the ballot. Even if passed by voters, it would still need approval from all three state legislatures.[38][39]
niyad
(113,798 posts)I am well aware of the calexit insanity.
Emile
(23,127 posts)Redleg
(5,861 posts)Maybe we should just let them secede from the union. Sarcasm alert.
Think. Again.
(8,745 posts)...to the state while supplying federal aid to the citizens.
former9thward
(32,128 posts)Texans sent the federal government $261 billion in taxes in 2016, and the state government received $39.5 billion in grants in return, or about 15 percent of the total federal tax tab.
https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2017/november/federal-funding.php#:~:text=Texans%20sent%20the%20federal%20government%20%24261%20billion%20in,15%20percent%20of%20our%20total%20federal%20tax%20tab.
Emile
(23,127 posts)to secure the border.
Response to Emile (Reply #12)
mahatmakanejeeves This message was self-deleted by its author.
The Contrarian
(87 posts)That is exactly what they are doing. And securing the border is a federal function not a state function.
Emile
(23,127 posts)TexasDem69
(1,881 posts)Texas is using Texas personnel paid from Texas money.
shrike3
(3,856 posts)TexasDem69
(1,881 posts)As Im sure you know. Focus grasshopper.
shrike3
(3,856 posts)It almost comes across like you're defending Abbott's actions. Though I'm sure that's not what you intend. If you're here, you're a Democrat, not an Abbott supporter.
Kind of a sarcastic question. Now here's a serious one. What do Texans think of this? I don't know anybody in Texas. Have no one on the ground to ask. His approval rating appears pretty stable, so his actions aren't costing him anything. Do Texans support what he's doing?
TexasDem69
(1,881 posts)Is a long ways away from defending Abbotts actions. Youre too smart not to understand that. Just like DeSantis is popular in Florida, Abbott is popular in Texas. Im pretty sure hell be reelected unless we can convince McConaughey to run.
The OP suggested sending the U.S. military to Texas to enforce domestic law. I do not support that step at all. Its a slippery slope. Trump would not hesitate to take that step, and would point to Bidens actions as justification.
shrike3
(3,856 posts)But maybe the support vibes I sensed from you were support for the state itself, which is understandable. It's your home. I'd appreciate you answering my second question. What do people in Texas think of his actions regarding the border? You don't know everyone in Texas, obviously, but you can read the temperature down there far better than I can. What do you see and hear from people? I'm not talking about polls; I'm talking about the mood. Are Abbott's actions popular?
I don't know what should be done re the current situation, but something's got to be done and soon. This can't continue.
TexasDem69
(1,881 posts)My take is that no politician really wants to solve it, because weve been discussing the same problem since I started voting in the 80s.
I dont talk politics with my fellow Texans because Texas is in fact conservative, so my liberal views arent particularly welcomed. But when politics do come up Abbott seems fairly popular. Democrats need a good candidate, or a famous one like McConaughey
shrike3
(3,856 posts)Pols don't have the will or the desire to tackle the border. Never have.
No offense, but I've been hearing that Texas is going to turn blue: never happens. Maybe a McConaughey could turn things around: I don't know. It's kind of like with DeSantis winning by a comfortable margin in 2022: I tell my Floridian friends, people voted for the guy, somebody has to like him.
Michigan has Dem leadership, but some of the most hardcore MAGAs I know are in Michigan. Girl I went to school with was down in Detroit, yelling "Stop the Count!" Meanwhile, the president of my graduating class (I grew up in Michigan) thinks abortion shouldn't be allowed for any reason, and the solution to gun violence is to get rid of gun-free zones and arm everyone in sight. So, a state may be ostensibly blue but have a lot of "red" people in it. I'm sure it's the same in a red state.
TexasDem69
(1,881 posts)But Ive been reading stories about Texas going blue, or my home state North Carolina doing the same, for 30 years and other than President Obama (for NC) its never happened. It wont happen in 2024 either. Well see about the future.
shrike3
(3,856 posts)Only been to Texas once, and very briefly. Acquaintance was down there recently with her wife and thought Texans were the greatest; so friendly. On the other side of the coin, a relative of mine recently moved out of Texas after 20 years there. Just said, "It was time." Could be for political reasons, or not. Her family's pretty MAGA, so that may be why she's not talking.
Emile
(23,127 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,725 posts)former9thward
(32,128 posts)Please post.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,725 posts)Does this help?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/07/07/states-federal-benefits/
It looks as if Texans sent in $10,443 per capita and received $11,981 per capita.
And good evening.
Progressive dog
(6,931 posts)"Business Insider" reported that Texas received $1280 dollars in spending per person in excess of Federal taxes. The Federal Government not only gives grants to stares. Social security, medicare, medicaid, defense spending and that money is mostly spent in states.
https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-taxes-federal-services-difference-by-state-2019-1?op=1
Igel
(35,386 posts)Ports, leasing monies, other types of revenue.
Progressive dog
(6,931 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 27, 2024, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)
They even help guard the border. (sarcasm)
former9thward
(32,128 posts)People paid into that program. As well as Medicare. It is not some gift. Defense spending to pay salaries is now a gift to the states? Wow...
Progressive dog
(6,931 posts)and some states get more payments than others. Grants are not gifts either. The federal government takes money form taxpayers in all states but spends more in some states than others.
You don't think Texas itself is sending money to the government, do you?
Texas gets more back in federal taxes than it pays which makes the OP wrong. Only 11 states pay more than thgey get back and Texas is in the other 39.
former9thward
(32,128 posts)Not "federal" taxes. And yours's too if you work. All of these charts never spells out how they are defining what state's get back. I don't wonder why.
Progressive dog
(6,931 posts)are listed as revenue in it's budget. The charts count all the federal money returned to the states.directly or by spending. You get to tax no one.
former9thward
(32,128 posts)They don't say. Much of the info would be impossible to get on a state level anyway. It is BS and no one calls them on it.
Progressive dog
(6,931 posts)So, yes I do know what they include. They include all taxes out and all federal money in. Couldn't be simpler.
A lot of federal tax money is immediately rerouted back to the states in the form of grants, which the state uses to spend on resources. But in some states, some taxpayers are left spending more in taxes than what they receive back in federal services.
The majority of states receive more in federal services than what they pay in federal taxes, but 11 states, including California and New Jersey, spend more than they receive.
https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-taxes-federal-services-difference-by-state-2019-1?op=1
moniss
(4,274 posts)and does not cover all federal dollars returning to and spent in Texas.
former9thward
(32,128 posts)So far no one has. I am sure someone will post something showing TX is on welfare from the federal government.
moniss
(4,274 posts)tax advocacy/social issues advocacy sites I've seen in the past that give the figures state by state.
limbicnuminousity
(1,407 posts)former9thward
(32,128 posts)I trained at two of them in that state. Bases are put disproportionality in southern states so that our military is not shut down for large times of the year by the weather. They are never going to relocate to the north.
TxGuitar
(4,216 posts)Don't realize that those bases would be gone and the revenue (and hardware) with it. Texas would be a third world country that Mexico would probably just annex.
pwb
(11,306 posts)We don't do that shit.
Kennah
(14,352 posts)Response to The Contrarian (Original post)
marble falls This message was self-deleted by its author.
brush
(53,971 posts)CanonRay
(14,134 posts)to enforce desegregation
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,927 posts)N/t
LeftInTX
(25,743 posts)Border Patrol should just remove the wire. Border Patrol is also armed. Heck, Border Patrol can then become "martyrs" if the Texas NG attacks them.
edhopper
(33,653 posts)Can't the Commander in Chief tell them to stand down?
limbicnuminousity
(1,407 posts)And if they refuse he can send in guard units from surrounding states. Much more efficient to call in the professionals.
keithbvadu2
(37,024 posts)You know, the wall that Americans paid billions for to keep them out.
Response to keithbvadu2 (Reply #19)
B.See This message was self-deleted by its author.
moonshinegnomie
(2,502 posts)send in border patrol to remove the wire. federalize the nat guard. arrest any texas troopers who get in the way and court martial and BCD them...
go after the officers in command too.
brooklynite
(94,933 posts)moonshinegnomie
(2,502 posts)then you can....
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,927 posts)A federalized NG would be restricted from doing much of anything beyond standing down. Posse Comitatus applies to the NG while under federal control.
TexasDem69
(1,881 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 23, 2024, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)
Calculating
(2,957 posts)Most people I know acknowledge that we can't just let an infinite amount of migrants in. It's overwhelming our support services and ability to absorb them.
brooklynite
(94,933 posts)Polybius
(15,519 posts)Did he break the law?
brooklynite
(94,933 posts)Polybius
(15,519 posts)Did he not?
TexasDem69
(1,881 posts)We should not encourage the use of the military in the U.S. Thats a half-step from despotism.
Think. Again.
(8,745 posts)...if one section of the National Guard is incapable of carrying out it's duties, send in others to help them out a bit.
TexasDem69
(1,881 posts)Managed by Texas?
Think. Again.
(8,745 posts)It isn't the Texas State Militia that's shirking their responsibility, is it?
TexasDem69
(1,881 posts)The national guard of each state is under the command of that states authorities, not any federal authority. Sorry.
Think. Again.
(8,745 posts)...over the various state's National Guard units?
I admit I'm completely uninformed on military stuff but that seems odd to me.
They are each completely autonymous units?
TexasDem69
(1,881 posts)Just repeating what I read after a 2 minute search. Seems like the national guards are at the beck and call of each state governor.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,927 posts)Outside of that, they are under the command of the Governor. Texas has a State Guard though, and I thought they were involved in this as well. The Texas State Guard is a state defense force and those forces only answer to their respective governors. State defense forces are solely under State control.
Think. Again.
(8,745 posts)...tells me that the various state guard units comprise the larger National Guard which is a under the authority of a FEDERAL agency called The National Guard Bureau...
"The National Guard Bureau is the federal agency responsible for the administration of the National Guard established by the United States Congress as a joint bureau of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force. It was created by the Militia Act of 1903. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, elevated the National Guard to a joint function of the Department of Defense. The 2007 NDAA, from the previous year, elevated the chief of the National Guard Bureau from a lieutenant general to a four-star general."
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_Bureau
TexasDem69
(1,881 posts)Says the national guard is under federal control. Texas national guard website says each state guard is under the direct control of the state governor. https://www.nationalguard.com/texas
Think. Again.
(8,745 posts)...and which is included in the excerpt I quoted from the article:
"The National Guard Bureau is the federal agency responsible for the administration of the National Guard established by the United States Congress as a joint bureau of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force."
TexasDem69
(1,881 posts)Does not equal control. National guard of every state is under the command of the state governor UNLESS federalized.
Think. Again.
(8,745 posts)Thanks for your input.
TexasDem69
(1,881 posts)Is being correct. Youre welcome though. Now you know a little bit more than before
Think. Again.
(8,745 posts)...your willingness to bestow such wisdom.
shrike3
(3,856 posts)I assume greater minds than mine are working on a course of action.
orthoclad
(2,910 posts)up the Rio Grande to remove all those obstacles to navigation in "waters of the US". The US government has the authority. Navigable rivers are Federal bailiwick.
Ah, but we need to do the High Road thing and negotiate with terrorists.
Marthe48
(17,105 posts)and his henchmen? Nip the lawlessness in the bud. Enough is enough
What treason did Abbott commit? Lawlessness does not equal treason. Texas should follow Supreme Court rulings but we arent a dictatorship.
Emile
(23,127 posts)us weak on crime.
spanone
(135,921 posts)If there's no way to enforce a Supreme Court ruling, what's the point of having one?
I'm not suggesting troops, just wondering.
Polybius
(15,519 posts)I want to win in November.
Sneederbunk
(14,319 posts)B.See
(1,343 posts)has the right to defy the SCOTUS, and/or federal law. But as always, the so-called "law and order" party only has respect for THEIR laws and THEIR orders. Like when Abbott and DeSantis fraudulently send migrants all over the country without their knowledge of where the fk they're going, actions some have characterized as "kidnapping."
What the law says about DeSantis and Abbott sending migrants to blue states The migrants sent to Marthas Vineyard have said they were told they they were going to Boston for expedited work papers. And critics have said migrants were misled," that they might not have willingly participated, and have even compared the situation to kidnapping.
Also interesting is the MAGA hypocrisy when it comes to rush to DEFEND illegal immigrants who come from not-so-brown countries, as depicted in this news item:
Selective compassion: The Romeike family and the GOPs immigration hypocrisy
Something of which Latino VOTERS in Texas and across the nation should TAKE NOTE.
area51
(11,937 posts)1st world country with affordable healthcare to our healthcare dystopia.
Barry Markson
(261 posts)Are you sure that you're posting on the correct forum?
The Contrarian
(87 posts)The Governor of Texas is directly disobeying the Supreme Court. And people are dying as a result. Should POTUS just shrug his shoulders?
limbicnuminousity
(1,407 posts)Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Guess I'm a hawk on this. It's insurrection. Abbott willingly and publicly defied the Supreme Court. People have died. Delay at this point is going to add to the eventual body count.
edit to add: §252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
Previous instances when the president has used his authority (there's more precedent than Wallace):
Ex. Ord. No. 10730, Sept. 24, 1957, 22 F.R. 7628, authorized the Secretary of Defense to order into the active military service of the United States units of the National Guard of the United States and of the Air National Guard of the United States within the State of Arkansas for an indefinite period and until relieved by appropriate orders in order to enforce any orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas for the removal of obstructions to justice in respect to enrollment and attendance at public schools in the Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Arkansas; authorized the Secretary of Defense to also use the armed forces of the United States to enforce such orders of the district court; and authorized the Secretary of Defense to delegate his authority to the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force.
Ex. Ord. No. 11053, Sept. 30, 1962, 27 F.R. 9681, authorized the Secretary of Defense to call into the active military service of the United States units of the Army National Guard and of the Air National Guard of the State of Mississippi for an indefinite period and until relieved by appropriate orders in order to enforce all orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for the removal of obstructions to justice in the State of Mississippi; authorized the Secretary of Defense to also use the armed forces of the United States to enforce such court orders; and authorized the Secretary of Defense to delegate his authority to the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force.
Ex. Ord. No. 11111, June 11, 1963, 28 F.R. 5709, authorized the Secretary of Defense to call into the active military service of the United States units of the Army National Guard and of the Air National Guard of the State of Alabama for an indefinite period and until relieved by appropriate orders in order to enforce the laws of the United States within that State and the orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to remove obstructions to justice, and to suppress unlawful assemblies, conspiracies, and domestic violence which oppose the laws of the United States or impede the course of justice under those laws within that State; authorized the Secretary of Defense to also use the armed forces of the United States for such purposes; and authorized the Secretary of Defense to delegate his authority to the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force.
Ex. Ord. No. 11118, Sept. 10, 1963, 28 F.R. 9863, authorized the Secretary of Defense to call into the active military service of the United States units of the Army National Guard and of the Air National Guard of the State of Alabama for an indefinite period and until relieved by appropriate orders in order to enforce the laws of the United States and any orders of United States Courts relating to the enrollment and attendance of students in public schools in the State of Alabama and to suppress unlawful assemblies, conspiracies, and domestic violence which oppose the law or impede the course of justice under the law within that State; authorized the Secretary of Defense to also use the armed forces of the United States for such purposes; and authorized the Secretary of Defense to delegate his authority to the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force.
Torchlight
(3,418 posts)Go over precedent, and look for those points that must to be met by law before the idea can be called anything other than impractical.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)WarGamer
(12,505 posts)pinkstarburst
(1,327 posts)Both the left and the right are unhappy with the number of people currently crossing the southern border, the right because they're always unhappy, and the left because migrants are demanding resources in major cities and taking those resources away from underserved populations who never had enough resources to begin with.
Biden needs some sort of way to shut down the border or meter the number of people coming across per week in a humane way (not the terrible Greg Abbott way) so that he can say to the left and the right that he has heard their concerns and it's not just open migration across the border, but whatever number the major cities have the resources support until their immigration hearings. We can't just keep kicking the can down the road.