A current thread titled the same belongs to Earl but since Earl insists on having his debates unsullied by disagreement, and bans members like myself.....
So, posits Earl, Abbott is thinking of declaring an "invasion" to deal with migrants coming over the Texas border and this would enable him, as governor, to invoke "war powers" under The Constitution, and treat the migrants as enemy combatants although Abbott says he would only have them rounded up, not shot.
An interesting proposition but for the fact the federal government has "sanctioned" the border crossings, Earl argues in the second post of his debate topic, not mentioning that if the crossings are sanctioned, his term, they can't at the same time be an "invasion".
So I'm not sure where this leaves us and hoping Earl can provide the answer.
So, posits Earl, Abbott is thinking of declaring an "invasion" to deal with migrants coming over the Texas border and this would enable him, as governor, to invoke "war powers" under The Constitution, and treat the migrants as enemy combatants although Abbott says he would only have them rounded up, not shot.
An interesting proposition but for the fact the federal government has "sanctioned" the border crossings, Earl argues in the second post of his debate topic, not mentioning that if the crossings are sanctioned, his term, they can't at the same time be an "invasion".
So I'm not sure where this leaves us and hoping Earl can provide the answer.
