What is wrong with enforcing border laws?

[Deluge]

What is wrong with enforcing border laws?

[User]

I think your post a couple of weeks ago asking why folks on the left oppose enforcing border laws or support illegal immigration pretty much covers this, too. 

 

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

What is wrong with enforcing border laws?

A HUGE problem with enforcing border "laws" is Trump's invalid executive orders; same reason Biden didn't want to issue executive order changes to the LAW.

Quote

The Legal Effect of Executive Orders 

As previously explained, an executive order’s authority must derive from an already existing statute or a constitutionally enumerated presidential power.  

For example, an executive order that purports to create an obligation, right, or penalty outside the scope of an existing statute or enumerated presidential power would be a legislative act. This would encroach on Congress’s constitutional authority to make the law, thereby violating what is known as the Separation of Powers doctrine. Such an executive order would therefore be unlawful and unconstitutional because the President lacked authority to issue the order. 

An executive order that purports to apply a duly passed federal law or enumerated presidential power in a manner that violates the Constitution by, for instance, infringing on First Amendment speech rights or the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, would also be unlawful. In this case, while the President may have had the authority to issue an executive order, the substance of that order violates the Constitution and is therefore invalid. 

Once issued, federal agencies and officials generally treat an executive order as presumptively lawful and will begin to effectuate the order by issuing regulations, revising policies, altering enforcement priorities, and even changing content and language on government websites and publications.  

...

Challenging an Executive Order  

For an executive order to be invalidated, whether because the President lacked the authority to issue it or because its substance violates the Constitution, an aggrieved party must challenge the order in federal court. Challenges to an executive order can come at many stages.  

Upon issuance, a party or parties who have standing, meaning that they would be injured if the order were to take effect, can sue the President and any government agencies and officials tasked with executing the order. Such a suit would seek a declaration that the order is unconstitutional and/or unlawful and seek to enjoin the government from enforcing it. Opportunities for declaratory and injunctive relief are also available at the point that a government agency seeks to promulgate a change in regulation, policy, or enforcement in response to an unconstitutional or illegal executive order.       

A party may also challenge a regulation or policy stemming from an invalid executive order when a federal agency attempts to enforce that regulation or policy against them. In these cases, the party would assert as a defense to the enforcement action that the agency did not have the statutory or constitutional authority for its enforcement. This would not be a direct challenge to the order but rather to the actions that the agency took in response to the order. In this situation, a successful challenge may result in the agency being enjoined from enforcing its own regulation or policy but might not prevent other federal agencies from applying their regulations and policies based on the underlying executive order absent additional litigation. 

The Future of Trump’s Executive Orders 

As of this writing President Trump has signed 92 executive orders. Some have been prosaic but many have sought to radically change our constitutional and legal order, including attempts to end birthright citizenship, unilaterally freeze federal foreign aid, erase transgender people from recognition by the federal government, restrict the availability of gender affirming health care for youth in medical institutions receiving federal funding, ban diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives, and target lawyers and law firms that represent perceived political enemies.  

According to one tally, there are currently 126 lawsuits challenging these and various other executive orders. The outcomes of these challenges, at least some of which will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, will determine how successful the Trump administration may be in reshaping the federal government and presidential power.        

    

tl/dr for simpletons:

Invalid executive orders are unjust and unfair and will be shot down by the courts.

Of course, the MAGA CULT cares NOTHING about justice OR fairness. 🤮

 

 

[User]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

A HUGE problem with enforcing border "laws" is Trump's invalid executive orders; same reason Biden didn't want to issue executive order changes to the LAW.

OK, so you didn't answer the question. Nice vague dodge. 

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Invalid executive orders are unjust and unfair and will be shot down by the courts.

Of course, the MAGA CULT cares NOTHING about justice OR fairness. 🤮

Which ones?

What does any of this have to do with ICE doing their jobs as they are doing now?

 

[Deluge]

10 minutes ago, robosmith said:

A HUGE problem with enforcing border "laws" is Trump's invalid executive orders; same reason Biden didn't want to issue executive order changes to the LAW.

What "LAW" dumbass? Are you saying the US has no border laws? 

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

A HUGE problem with enforcing border "laws" is Trump

I think this just about sums it up. Everything after that is just symptomatic of TDS.

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

What is wrong with enforcing border laws?

Nothing.!

[Deluge]

On 6/30/2025 at 1:15 PM, robosmith said:

tl/dr for simpletons:

Invalid executive orders are unjust and unfair and will be shot down by the courts.

Of course, the MAGA CULT cares NOTHING about justice OR fairness. 🤮

Oh, and the courts will be shot down by the SC for promoting treason.