I have a full understanding about how things are "supposed" to work @IsailedawayfromFR . But from what I see that is not how they are working today. For instance, RvW and gay marriage. Those are other subjects for another day but are none the less examples of the government imposing their will on the states. I would be interested in reading media that you must read that says differently.
You do not have to read very far to know that when a law is broken, there is a law written that says so. Like a thief not breaking into a store or some perp not murdering someone. That is the way it is 'supposed to work'. Just because either gets away with it does not mean it is lawful, just means he was not caught or was permitted to get away.
A state is sovereign save certain aspects that it delegated to the federal government. The US Constitution says so and it is the law.
Just because a state chooses to acquiesce to federal control does not preclude that fact. An example is some states have decided to support legality of marijuana in spite of a federal dictate that says it is illegal. Another area is one coming up recently in state gun laws that supercede federal gun prohibitions.
That being said..what authority would the government have to impose their will re: immigration? Well none in the case you posed. But these things could be done to override the state governments:
In this world of EO's it would be simple for an administration to enhance the existing Immigration Laws to accommodate the current administration's policies.
Also easy to circumvent governors' resistance by using federal property (military bases, etc) or privately owned businesses (hotels) or implementing the use of Dem controlled cities. Yeah, some of this would set up court battles...that could drag on for years but in the mean time...
Assuming you are familiar with Operation Lone Star and the National Guard sent to the border (staying within the bounds of the law) what else should he do? Shout "We're mad and we're not gonna take it!" I believe Abbott has said that in a legal way. The Govs saying that are not frontline states as we are.
None of this would be happening if the Feds operated within the bounds of the law. Immigration is a Federal matter...not state. The very fact that these people are here is against the law.
State governments have a responsibility to enforce laws within its borders. Among those are the obligation for it to protect its citizens, which is superior to any dictate that the federal government may presume, such as permitting illegals to reside within a state. Once again, just because a state chooses to not enforce that does not preclude it being a fact it exists.
Travel by non-citizens? Show me that law. Or where it is enforced. The illegal transport is not the states' issue. It is the Federal gov breaking the law if there is one.
This is probably the most I've typed here..or any other site. I'm not a big talker. But your response to a fairly innocuous (but true) post kind of got my dander up. I lurk here enough to know you are very intelligent. But you sound a little naïve.
Tell me what you think Abbott should do, please.
Abbott is derelict in following the governors of South Dakota, South Carolina and Iowa in declaring no illegals will be brought into their states due to health or financial reasons. That is a state prerogative, not a federal one.
If the federal government wishes to settle illegals, let it be another state. And let them know emphatically so. Texas has options to stop it from happening such as arresting any federal officer who attempts to implement an action against state law.
We are spriralling downhill because too few people stand up to the federal bully. A state has the law on its side and the prerogative to enforce it if it chooses to.
A state also has no obligation to stay within a country that disregards the contract under which it joined the Union. Abbott could use his bully pulpit to support secession decisions for the state. To seriously consider the state seceding is a very powerful threat.
And of course Abbott could lobby to split Texas into 5 states to alter the Senate by adding 8 more Texas Senators, at Texas' discretion, as Congress approved such during the entry into the union. That is the law once again being on Texas' side.
