Oh, Just Wondering ...

And, yes, the same thing would apply in Florida with Governor DeSantis.

The reason it would need to be FEDERAL court is that anything involving INTERSTATE commerce involves "FEDERAL QUESTION" jurisdiction, e.g.:

"Is a STATEWIDE BAN an unreasonable burden?"

"If a COUNTY JUDGE issued a COUNTY-WIDE ban based on LOCAL conditions, would THAT be an unreasonable burden on INTERSTATE commerce?"

"What types of mandates or prohibitions would NOT be an unreasonable burden?"

For those who are going to argue "politics"--I'm a lawyer and accountant with more than 3 decades experience in the healthcare and insurance industries, mainly involving payment for medical services from insurance companies and I've had over 2,000 pages published in professional journals and professional education seminar materials.

So DON'T waste time with garbage about what you read somewhere "on the Internet" from people who know NOTHING about the Constitution, etc.

Hopefully when people start suing the Federal government for not upholding its immigration laws.

The two are COMPLETELY unrelated.

There are already all sorts of immigration lawsuits. Reality is that there isn't a solution to the immigration issue.

People ALL OVER THE WORLD think, "I'll move to the U.S. for WHATEVER my problem is. Can't find a job locally? Let me go to the U.S. Abusive marriage? Let me go to the U.S. Free education? Let me go to the U.S. as an 'international student'--which colleges will provide full-ride scholarships? I graduated with a bachelors degree in law here in my country--how do I get licensed as an attorney in the U.S.? (you don't--you need a Juris Doctor degree from a U.S. law school approved by the American Bar Association.)"

For COVID, Abbott and DeSantis need to step out of the picture and allow LOCAL leaders such as mayors, county commissions, etc., to issue rules that match their LOCAL situation. Texas has 30 million residents and 254 counties. Houston is the 4th-largest population center in the U.S. I read somewhere years ago that there are some Texas counties where there are more sheep, cattle, etc., than there are people.

What the governors SHOULD be doing is issuing a set of CRITERIA that LOCAL officials are required to FORMALLY consider, and possibly file with state health authorities or the Governor's office their reasoning, etc., in support of whatever local rules they impose.

Here in MT we have 1.8 million people and 3 million cattle, so I can relate to that bit, haha.

As far as immigration is concerned...there is a quite simple solution. Fix the legal ways to get in so they aren't mired by years of red tape and thousands upon thousands of dollars' worth of costs if you want to live here as a citizen. Get the visa system straightened out for those who just want to temporarily come here to work, study, etc. then seal the border against everyone but these legal immigrants and legitimate asylum seekers.

The current situation is not sustainable. Something has to change.

The problem is that as a practical matter it's not possible to "seal the border".

For example, a number of years ago they found that drug smugglers had constructed an UNDERGROUND tunnel from Mexico into Texas. It STARTED under a warehouse-type business in Mexico, was several hundred yards long, and terminated in a warehouse-type building in Texas.

And if they DID provide "easy paths", then MILLIONS of ADDITIONAL people would show up. MOST of the folks who WOULD be allowed in would tell folks back home--"Come! *I* got in--YOU can get in."

Back in 1986 with the Reagan amnesty I tried getting into immigration law. I had people come as potential clients who had been in the U.S. illegally for 15 YEARS or more. And now--FINALLY it would pay off.

The problem with ANY kind of amnesty / work visa / etc., is that that just opens the door to--"Hey--it was a LONG wait for ME, but you WILL be able to find work OFF THE BOOKS, etc. and SOMEDAY you WILL be able to LEGALLY stay here permanently."

There's also the problem that MOST of the people who would show up are NOT well educated, DON'T speak English, and DON'T have the skills to get a decent-paying job in the U.S. job market. It's not the folks who graduated from Central or South American universities, where they studied English in addition to a major in something like engineering, accounting, management, etc.

Those no-skills people would wind up COMPETING for low-level jobs with native-born Americans, who would be outraged--and would vote into office legislators who would repeal those laws.

Also, there are MILLIONS of people in other countries who DO have skills, DO meet all the qualifications to emigrate, etc., and who are "waiting their turn" to do it LEGALLY.

And now people are just SHOWING UP basically saying--"SCREW THEM!! I JUST DECIDED TO *SHOW UP* SO YOU *HAVE TO* GIVE *ME* PRIORITY--EVEN THOUGH I *DON'T* MEET *ANY* QUALIFICATIONS and have NOTHING TO OFFER!!"

And the U.S. is not the only country facing the problem. ALL OVER Africa there are human traffickers who have people get to Libya, where they are put on boats to be sent to Italy, with the same, "We're here, so you have to let us in" attitude.

That got so bad the Italy has the Italian Navy patrol its waters, intercept those boats, and turn them back, saying, "You can't enter Italian waters."

And at least prior to COVID, Australia faced the same situation. Groups from areas like the Indian subcontinent would load into boat planning to sail 700-800 miles and show up on Australian shores with "You have to take us in."

That got so bad that the Australian Navy started patrolling something like 400 miles away from Australia, intercepting them, telling them, "You have no right to enter Australia" and diverting them to a "refugee" island.

Hey if deploying the army to reinforce Border Patrol and National Guard at the border is what it takes then that's what it takes.

Remove the incentive to cross illegally by making it easy to come in legally. Once we legally let in as many as are economically feasible then there is nothing wrong with saying, "Sorry, we simply cannot allow you in unless you need legitimate and temporary asylum. Get in the legal line."

I'm simplifying this of course, but we have to adopt this approach or something similar.

It just doesn't work that way. Are they going to tell THE WORLD, THE MEDIA, etc., "TOUGH -- this 5 year old kid was sent without parents. He'll just have to wait 'somewhere' for the next 30 year."?

And there are all sorts of international agreements. If the U.S. starts "breaching" THOSE agreements, then places like the U.K. and E.U. could start retaliating with "Well, we won't let U.S. residents COME TO OUR places. We won't let OUR scientists, universities, professional journals, etc., COLLABORATE with U.S. academics." The result would be that the U.S. would lose credibility in ALL such fields.

What do you tell the MILLIONS of people who HAVE done all the LEGAL applications and ARE waiting in line?? -- "SORRY, all these people who simply SHOWED UP now get to CUT IN LINE AHEAD OF YOU."?

And regarding "deploying the army, Border Patrol, and National Guard" -- there are about TWO THOUSAND MILES of border. It would require having people stationed every few hundred feet. And under U.S. LAW EACH person showing up has a LEGAL RIGHT to be HEARD--in court.

There also would be the problem of people complaining about "POLICE STATE!! They're just using this as an EXCUSE!! We don't want HUGE NUMBERS of ARMED TROOPS in OUR town, etc."

Also, MOST of the border is PRIVATE LAND. The government DOES NOT have the legal right to just "GO ONTO" the land and "squat"--be driving supply trucks, troop carriers, etc., all over the place on private land, etc.

Well you're reducing everything here to the absurd (fallacy) and contradicting yourself, but let's try to break this down:

- That five year old can apply for asylum immediately. Also, the odds of him having to wait 30 years before the process moves along are non-existent. Our system is screwed up, but not that screwed up.

- No international agreements would be impinged upon if the U.S fixed its legal immigration system and kept out illegal aliens on the southern border. We're only keeping out, wait for it, illegals who don't need asylum. We're not shutting everyone out. Get real.

- Well I've been arguing that we need to block illegals and fix the legal system so we PRIORITIZE those doing it right and waiting in line. Evidently you missed that. Do you read what I write?

- So don't deploy the military then. That's fair. But figure out how to solve the problem. All I see you doing is tripping over yourself to complain.

We have no intention of doing that.