The uniforms and language might need some updating, but that shouldn't be difficult: "Tus papeles, por favor."
Posted on 01/03/2024 8:52:21 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Mayor Eric Adams wants to add trains and planes to his executive order limiting migrant buses arriving in the Big Apple — as City Hall attempts to stem the flood of asylum seekers now flocking in on New Jersey transit trains.
The call comes as Adams was scheduled to huddle with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy over the new wrinkle in the crisis, which saw busloads of migrants thwarting the crackdown by heading to the Garden State, where asylum seekers would then hop trains into Manhattan.
“We’re dealing with a person who just wants to disrupt,” Adams said Tuesday, referring to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who has been transporting migrants who cross the southern border illegally to progressive sanctuary cities.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I hope Abbott sends more illegals to leftist areas! It’s time the lefties know how the rest of the country feels!
And automobiles ?
The Constitution prohibits any State from restricting the movement of people within the US.
Oh, right, THEY don’t have to follow the Constitution.
“We’re dealing with a person who just wants to disrupt,” Adams said Tuesday, referring toTexas Gov. Greg AbbottPresident Joe Biden.
It’s an asylum state...The only way to change it is to take away that status through the legislature. Notice the gov is silent...and so is Schumer...But that’s all about getting some big bucks to NYC.
Isn’t this a restriction on Interstate Commerce?
I mean, IF YOU CAN’T SHIP DEMOCRAT ILLEGAL ALIEN SLAVES ACROSS BORDERS, WHAT CAN YOU DO?
What a racist!
The uniforms and language might need some updating, but that shouldn't be difficult: "Tus papeles, por favor."
If one transports people across State lines, isn’t that kidnapping?
How’s about expanDing it to the frickin’ BORDER!!!!!
Isn’t this what Greg Abbott is doing in Texas? Limiting transportation into his state? I guess its OK for New York but not Texas.
One more mode of transportation and we’ve got ourselves a zany comedy.
Not if they go willingly.
I’m having a good time envisioning if President Trump had restricted transporting illegals... the outcry would have been deafening! so far we hear silence about Adams and Murphy. No heads exploding, nothing.
Where are all the Scumbag Law Firms? Why aren’t they screaming about Immigrants Rights while these rogue State Actors unleash Law Enforcement on these peaceful travelers while Criminally Threatening them for exercising their right to travel them Forcing them against their will to Get back on the Bus.
Last I checked Gov Abbott has ironclad evidence these migrants VOLUNTEERED to go to these sanctuary cities.??
SOMEONE NEEDS TO GIVE ADAMS A 24 HOUR PERSONAL TOUR ODF EAGLE PASS, TEXAS & LUKEVILLE, ARIZ.
HE NEEDS TO SEE IT WITH HIS OWN EYES.
IF HE STILL IS STUBBORN, THEN HE NEEDS TO RESIGN.
They were allowed to REQUEST where they wished to go.
NOT KIDNAPPING
“Mayor Eric Adams wants to add trains and planes to his executive order limiting migrant buses arriving in the Big Apple...”
He should just build a wall....
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Since the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell , 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia , 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases , 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.