jrdaustin said:

---

fixer said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Since the CRS Legal Sidebar was released, the southern border was successfully "closed" under a national security justification for the Covid pandemic, which was commonly called Title 42.

If the President closed the border today, what justification would most likely pass legal scrutiny?

Edit for the chukleheads: We are not talking about legal commerce and crossings.

---

This question is a tautological distraction.

The border is open for legal commerce and legal entry (i.e. passport).

By simple logic and definition, then, the border is closed to all other forms of entry. This is Illegal entry. Unlawful entry.

This isn't the question that needs to be answered.

The question is why has Biden intentionally allowed the border situation to spiral into a national security nightmare?

---

Well stated. The OP appears to have initiated lengthy thread attacking the prior administration and members of this forum by challenging people to answer his question about legality of stopping illegal migration... While completely ignoring the fact that the legal authority to stop unlawful entry has been there all along.

It's a continuation and manifestation of the game being played by the Biden administration right now... "Pass a new law, and we'll do something".

It is and always was a false flag.

---

Practically speaking, you are both wrong. The legality of 'close border' policies are still very much in legal limbo and being litigated in the courts. For example, the Migrant Protection Protocols, more commonly called Remain in Mexico, was still being litigated prior to Biden shutting it down. If an administration started it back up, it would be challenged in the courts and likely blocked with an injection till legal questions were addressed by the courts. The OP was looking for what the courts would use as the legal justification for the power bestowed to the executive to implement MPP or other 'close border' policies. There were a few legitimate answers provided in this thread.

Furthermore, the OP legal question doesn't address the legal rights people currently have to claim asylum in this country. For instance, shouldn't a person be disqualified if they knowing enter the country illegally? "We have to pass a new law to do something about that."

rgvag11 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

fixer said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Since the CRS Legal Sidebar was released, the southern border was successfully "closed" under a national security justification for the Covid pandemic, which was commonly called Title 42.

If the President closed the border today, what justification would most likely pass legal scrutiny?

Edit for the chukleheads: We are not talking about legal commerce and crossings.

---

This question is a tautological distraction.

The border is open for legal commerce and legal entry (i.e. passport).

By simple logic and definition, then, the border is closed to all other forms of entry. This is Illegal entry. Unlawful entry.

This isn't the question that needs to be answered.

The question is why has Biden intentionally allowed the border situation to spiral into a national security nightmare?

---

Well stated. The OP appears to have initiated lengthy thread attacking the prior administration and members of this forum by challenging people to answer his question about legality of stopping illegal migration... While completely ignoring the fact that the legal authority to stop unlawful entry has been there all along.

It's a continuation and manifestation of the game being played by the Biden administration right now... "Pass a new law, and we'll do something".

It is and always was a false flag.

---

Practically speaking, you are both wrong. The legality of 'close border' policies are still very much in legal limbo and being litigated in the courts. For example, the Migrant Protection Protocols, more commonly called Remain in Mexico, was still being litigated prior to Biden shutting it down. If an administration started it back up, it would be challenged in the courts and likely blocked with an injection till legal questions were addressed by the courts. The OP was looking for what the courts would use as the legal justification for the power bestowed to the executive to implement MPP or other 'close border' policies. There were a few legitimate answers provided in this thread.

Furthermore, the OP legal question doesn't address the legal rights people currently have to claim asylum in this country. For instance, shouldn't a person be disqualified if they knowing enter the country illegally? "We have to pass a new law to do something about that."

---

I disagree. Under current Presidential Authority, there is no law in place that prohibits restricting access to this country by people that just show up at the border. Your original premise is flawed. A wall, Remain in Mexico, behind-the-scenes pressure on Obrador, dentention/removal, and simple denial of access to the country are all tactics allowed under current law. The courts aren't itching to weigh in on this - evidenced by their non-involvement with what's currently going on. The whole reason they haven't gotten involved is due to a deferential postion with regard to the Administrative branch.

Could some be challenged? Sure. But you seem to be approaching this from a "we must have airtight authority that has survived judicial review before we take any action" mindset. That is a false flag. The present administration is evidence of this.

Furthermore. As you stated, MPP was not ended by the courts. It was terminated by the Biden administration. In actuality, In August 2021, a federal court in Texas ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to reinstate MPP. A court in California has taken the opposite position. But the only involvement of the SCOTUS was that Biden had the authority to shut it down. It never weighed in on the merits of MPP itself. So I'm not sure where your assumption that some additional justification is required to appease the courts is coming from. I dispute your claim that a long lasting injunction is likely.

Now if you want to have a discussion of how we take Trump's 2,000,000 immigrants to zero, my suggestion is that we walk before we run. That means we stop the incessant flow of 10,000/day that we presently have. We have to deal with the gunshot wound before we try to cure hemophelia.

rgvag11 said:

---

---

I read most of this thread, emphasis on most of, and I can't figure out WTF you are trying to say or convey. Maybe it is that Trump sucked in terms of immigration, I am not sure. The wall deal was absolute bunk, crap, and a glossy salacious attempt to appeal to his fan base. Very impractical, un-American (taking private land for BS and not compensating adequately) and a costly boondoggle. I detest Trump, I think he is blowhard Yankee tool.

That being said, he has been the most effective president in slowing down illegal immigration, and if you consider the times extremely effective, in the last 60 years or so. His threats, both veiled and overt, scared the piss outta the MexGov and the Mexicans started steppin' and fetchin' in terms of actually stopping a large portion of the illegal alien stuff and were slowing things down at the southern border. Equally, countries like Nicaragua were terrified to participate in what is now going on, due to that crooked dimwit Biden, in terms of the flying in and walking to the states.

No one person in the history of organized crime has done more to enrich organized crime groups than Joe Biden. Any progress made in the previous 10 years of fighting the Mexican crime groups was not only erased, but the growth and income surpassed the wildest expectations these groups. Biden took about 80% of the risk out of their operations while lowering costs about 75% and increasing the profits by about 200% and driving up the market.

All these "Asylum rules and laws" are crap in terms of how they are applied. These are ambiguous laws that have their first "check" by the agents making apprehensions or taking claims at POE's. How these agents, mere employees, are instructed is what will make the difference. Under FJB it is approve all and permit all save for obvious Axe Murder's and blatant Terrorists. That is it.

I was in Mexico, along the border, for a long spell of both Presidents tenures, daily and worked there during these times. The difference between the administrations was appalling.

In my opinion one of Trumps only successes was to get the MexGov to actually help in this mess, and they did. That cut immigration big time. What is going on now is unparalleled in terms of jacked up. I don't believe any of the figures coming out of Washington, during any government, and the immigration figures are probably bunk too. All I can say is that things along the border were much better, less illegals, more order, few Haitians and Africans and the gambit of other OTM's and now it is the wild ass west with nothing but chaos.

If the border was in fact 'secure' and 'under control' as we have been assured by mayorkas, biden, and others for the last three years, how can they also say they need a new law to close it? Or call the system broken after not only never trying to enforce anything, but also try to thwart Texas from doing anything about it. Honestly, these people should hang for treason, but we can't even impeach them, and even if we did they would retire and continue to take tax dollars as their pension. WTF

rgvag11 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

fixer said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Since the CRS Legal Sidebar was released, the southern border was successfully "closed" under a national security justification for the Covid pandemic, which was commonly called Title 42.

If the President closed the border today, what justification would most likely pass legal scrutiny?

Edit for the chukleheads: We are not talking about legal commerce and crossings.

---

This question is a tautological distraction.

The border is open for legal commerce and legal entry (i.e. passport).

By simple logic and definition, then, the border is closed to all other forms of entry. This is Illegal entry. Unlawful entry.

This isn't the question that needs to be answered.

The question is why has Biden intentionally allowed the border situation to spiral into a national security nightmare?

---

Well stated. The OP appears to have initiated lengthy thread attacking the prior administration and members of this forum by challenging people to answer his question about legality of stopping illegal migration... While completely ignoring the fact that the legal authority to stop unlawful entry has been there all along.

It's a continuation and manifestation of the game being played by the Biden administration right now... "Pass a new law, and we'll do something".

It is and always was a false flag.

---

Practically speaking, you are both wrong. The legality of 'close border' policies are still very much in legal limbo and being litigated in the courts. For example, the Migrant Protection Protocols, more commonly called Remain in Mexico, was still being litigated prior to Biden shutting it down. If an administration started it back up, it would be challenged in the courts and likely blocked with an injection till legal questions were addressed by the courts. The OP was looking for what the courts would use as the legal justification for the power bestowed to the executive to implement MPP or other 'close border' policies. There were a few legitimate answers provided in this thread.

Furthermore, the OP legal question doesn't address the legal rights people currently have to claim asylum in this country. For instance, shouldn't a person be disqualified if they knowing enter the country illegally? "We have to pass a new law to do something about that."

---

So you are saying that the federal government has effectively 0 control over the border?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Covid "Migrant". Use their scam against them.

---

Continue to help "migrants" migrate to blue cities if Biden won't shut off the flow at the border. It's their term, and apparently the U.S. legal apparatus agrees. Make them pay.

To answer the question at hand, possibly employ something along the national security line since we're catching so many known terrorists and accomplices.

Another thought was to limit crossings to only the numbers that can be reviewed and thrown through court in a day.

More grist for the mill.

https://texasscorecard.com/federal/under-joe-biden-border-patrol-is-a-border-processing-agency/

Only criminals cross the border illegally.

Rongagin71 said:

---

More grist for the mill.

https://texasscorecard.com/federal/under-joe-biden-border-patrol-is-a-border-processing-agency/

---

"We can't continue to send the Biden administration money to do bad things."

Quote of the year....

jrdaustin said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

fixer said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Since the CRS Legal Sidebar was released, the southern border was successfully "closed" under a national security justification for the Covid pandemic, which was commonly called Title 42.

If the President closed the border today, what justification would most likely pass legal scrutiny?

Edit for the chukleheads: We are not talking about legal commerce and crossings.

---

This question is a tautological distraction.

The border is open for legal commerce and legal entry (i.e. passport).

By simple logic and definition, then, the border is closed to all other forms of entry. This is Illegal entry. Unlawful entry.

This isn't the question that needs to be answered.

The question is why has Biden intentionally allowed the border situation to spiral into a national security nightmare?

---

Well stated. The OP appears to have initiated lengthy thread attacking the prior administration and members of this forum by challenging people to answer his question about legality of stopping illegal migration... While completely ignoring the fact that the legal authority to stop unlawful entry has been there all along.

It's a continuation and manifestation of the game being played by the Biden administration right now... "Pass a new law, and we'll do something".

It is and always was a false flag.

---

Practically speaking, you are both wrong. The legality of 'close border' policies are still very much in legal limbo and being litigated in the courts. For example, the Migrant Protection Protocols, more commonly called Remain in Mexico, was still being litigated prior to Biden shutting it down. If an administration started it back up, it would be challenged in the courts and likely blocked with an injection till legal questions were addressed by the courts. The OP was looking for what the courts would use as the legal justification for the power bestowed to the executive to implement MPP or other 'close border' policies. There were a few legitimate answers provided in this thread.

Furthermore, the OP legal question doesn't address the legal rights people currently have to claim asylum in this country. For instance, shouldn't a person be disqualified if they knowing enter the country illegally? "We have to pass a new law to do something about that."

---

Under current Presidential Authority, there is no law in place that prohibits restricting access to this country by people that just show up at the border.

---

You almost answered the question in the OP. Let me phrase it a little differently. If the President closed the border today, which law, or laws, would a court cite that bestows that authority? For Title 42, the courts said 42 U.S.C. 265 grants that authority for contagion-related expulsions. For MPP, the courts never made a final ruling on the policy.

I think the real RGV AG and his reply smokes the OP.

bobbranco said:

---

I think the real RGV AG and his reply smokes the OP.

---

When RGV AG speaks about the border, everyone should listen. Dude knows his stuff.

bobbranco said:

---

I think the real RGV AG and his reply smokes the OP.

---

Lol absolutely!

nortex97 said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

APHIS AG said:

---

We do not need any justification. We are a sovereign country so we say who can come in or who stays out.

---

Except, in this country, the Constitution is paramount. Meaning that we do need justification provided by the Legislative branch. Yes, Biden is screwing us hard with the border, but Congress has blame in this too.

---

False. It's entirely Biden's doing.

REVEALED: Sixty-four (64) Executive actions Biden has taken to open the southern border and undo President Trump's actions to seal it, thereby creating the conditions for the border invasion. Here is the full list:https://t.co/E7QPyBH8sa

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) February 1, 2024

---

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. In a vacuum, I'm saying the Constitution doesn't spell out immigration/illegals/whatever. Therefore, we must have legislation to guide the process. We haven't had any significant immigration legislation pass in decades. And the foundation for our current policies dates back to 1965, I believe. So out of the vacuum, Biden can and should be doing more. However, it's long past time for Congress to modernize legislation. And that's where you end up having both parties using the issue as a political football.

rgvag11 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

We have laws that we are enforcing that allow the illegals to stay.

---

Your president's puppet masters are intentionally misusing asylum laws. They are absolutely NOT enforcing them.

Why did you vote for corruption? Why are you still supporting corruption? Do you also hate America?

---

The spike in asylum claims started under Trump.

---

Hussein's State Department was advertising in Mexico City and South America for people to illegally migrate to America. Why?

Trump wasn't forcing people to make false asylum claims. That is all on dimocrats and their enablers.

Rongagin71 said:

---

More grist for the mill.

https://texasscorecard.com/federal/under-joe-biden-border-patrol-is-a-border-processing-agency/

---

One only needs to listen to the CBP. They will tell you this exact thing. They're beyond pissed about it.

And propagandists like the OP are now pushing some never-before whackadoodle theory that we aren't even allowed to have borders without new legislation. Talk about a lie!

How this troll has been allowed to go on for pages and nuh-uh response after nuh-uh response is beyond me.

Passports are racist.

That bot must get paid per post.

It is a ****ing beating.

rgvag11 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

fixer said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Since the CRS Legal Sidebar was released, the southern border was successfully "closed" under a national security justification for the Covid pandemic, which was commonly called Title 42.

If the President closed the border today, what justification would most likely pass legal scrutiny?

Edit for the chukleheads: We are not talking about legal commerce and crossings.

---

This question is a tautological distraction.

The border is open for legal commerce and legal entry (i.e. passport).

By simple logic and definition, then, the border is closed to all other forms of entry. This is Illegal entry. Unlawful entry.

This isn't the question that needs to be answered.

The question is why has Biden intentionally allowed the border situation to spiral into a national security nightmare?

---

Well stated. The OP appears to have initiated lengthy thread attacking the prior administration and members of this forum by challenging people to answer his question about legality of stopping illegal migration... While completely ignoring the fact that the legal authority to stop unlawful entry has been there all along.

It's a continuation and manifestation of the game being played by the Biden administration right now... "Pass a new law, and we'll do something".

It is and always was a false flag.

---

Practically speaking, you are both wrong. The legality of 'close border' policies are still very much in legal limbo and being litigated in the courts. For example, the Migrant Protection Protocols, more commonly called Remain in Mexico, was still being litigated prior to Biden shutting it down. If an administration started it back up, it would be challenged in the courts and likely blocked with an injection till legal questions were addressed by the courts. The OP was looking for what the courts would use as the legal justification for the power bestowed to the executive to implement MPP or other 'close border' policies. There were a few legitimate answers provided in this thread.

Furthermore, the OP legal question doesn't address the legal rights people currently have to claim asylum in this country. For instance, shouldn't a person be disqualified if they knowing enter the country illegally? "We have to pass a new law to do something about that."

---

Under current Presidential Authority, there is no law in place that prohibits restricting access to this country by people that just show up at the border.

---

You almost answered the question in the OP. Let me phrase it a little differently. If the President closed the border today, which law, or laws, would a court cite that bestows that authority? For Title 42, the courts said 42 U.S.C. 265 grants that authority for contagion-related expulsions. For MPP, the courts never made a final ruling on the policy.

---

Okay. Simple answer. INA. Period. End of story. By the way, trying to sound like a condescending professor holding class is not a good look for you. Be more respectful.

We have a problem at the border that needs addressing. Sounding like an anthropology professor with an agenda, you're striving for some academic conversation that is a literal straw man derailing from the problem. My response is, you take Presidential action under INA to defend our border, JUST LIKE HAS BEEN DONE FOR EVERY RECENT ADMINISTRATION outside of the Biden Administraton, and implement policies in place under existing law. Then, if someone decides to challenge what you're doing, you hire attorneys to deal with the litigation, and keep doing what you're doing.

In other words, I have no interest in trying to disect INA in order to make you happy. The authority is apparent. Outside of that, IANAL, and this isn't a law school class. Having gone back and looked through the thread, your posts read like one who has just learned of the Socratic Method through Wikipedia. Yet you have interspersed your questions with condescending posts againt others, and you have also refused to answer good faith questions posed back at you. That's not how the Socratic Method works.

Good day.