Texas passes border law: will it stand?
Here’s the gist of the state law:
Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill making Texas the first state in the union to give law enforcement officers the authority to arrest migrants who illegally enter the state. …
Senate Bill 4 from Special Session #4 makes illegal entry into Texas from a foreign country a criminal offense. The law is the latest attempt by the state to crack down on migrants illegally entering the state between ports of entry. By creating the offense of illegal reentry, offenders can be penalized with sentences of up to 20 years in prison. It also provides the mechanism to order an offender to return to the foreign nation from which they entered or attempted to enter this state. The law provides civil immunity and indemnification for local and state government officials, employees, and contractors for lawsuits resulting from enforcing these provisions.
The law is similar to a current federal statute under Title 8 of the United States Code 1325, which makes illegal entry into the United States a misdemeanor offense for a first-time offender and a felony for a second offense. Under the current administration, the federal statute is not pursued to any significant degree.
I’m not sure this law will be allowed to stand. SCOTUS has already ruled on something very similar regarding the state of Arizona, back in 2012. And although the makeup of the Supreme Court was different back then, there’s always the possibility of respect given to precedent. To refresh your memory, here’s a post I wrote about that Arizona decision. An excerpt:
The Court’s decision in Arizona v. US can be summarized as follows: the federal government is boss in immigration law. If the federal government wants to ignore its own federal immigration laws and refuse to enforce them, a state can’t pass its own laws that are more stringent than the federal ones on the books.
Although federal law already makes it illegal for someone to be in the country without proper authorization, Section 3 of the Arizona statute also makes it a state crime, subject to additional fines and possible imprisonment. The Court held that this provision was preempted and cannot be enforced. The Court held that Congress has left no room for states to regulate in this field, even to implement the federal prohibition.
However, you can see – if you follow that link – that the conservative justices dissented. To me that means that the decision of SCOTUS could go differently this time, if the Texas law were to be challenged by the Biden administration.
A slighly more optimistic take
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/18/the-one-sentence-from-arizona-v-united-states-that-you-need-to-know-for-texass-new-immigration-law/
and pessimist link in update section
Gov. Abbott’s big win is still in sending illegals to the “sanctuary” cities up north. Mayor of Chicago would strangle Abbott if he could get his hands on him…and that pressure on the Marxists needs to be amped up in 2024 to break the system.
When push comes to shove those already broken cities will crumble and until those redoubts of Marxism are unsustainable…nothing will change.
@ John Guilfoyle > “Gov. Abbott’s big win is still in sending illegals to the “sanctuary” cities up north.”
Indeed.
Too bad no one was able to do it in 2012.
h/t Occam’s Beard
https://www.thenewneo.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-rules-on-arizona-and-immigration/#comment-374582
“Here’s a modest proposal: bus all those caught to Beverly Hills or Malibu, and drop them off there.”
Also on that older post:
holmes on June 25, 2012 at 10:48 pm said:
“I think it will backfire; it’s a lawless administration that believes in ever more government. That is quite scary and the public will take notice.”
The public did notice: that’s the major reason a lot of people voted for Trump in 2016.
In other immigration news today:
Democrats fail once again to connect the dots in the proper order.
https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2023/12/19/chicago-mayor-blames-texas-for-joe-bidens-border-crisis-failures-after-migrant-child-dies/
Biden says banks must make loans to people who are not legally authorized to be in the country, or to legally work in the country, so how are banks going to legally make contracts or collect on defaults?
This is similar to the Catch-22 of having laws that (1) make it illegal to (theoretically, and only if you are a Republican) hire unauthorized immigrants to work; and (2) make if a violation of anti-discrimination laws to check on a job applicant’s immigration status.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/12/19/exclusive-rep-andy-ogles-leads-bill-reversing-bidens-requirement-banks-offer-loans-illegal-aliens/
Who will protect us from predatory, abusive, and illegal practices carried out by our Democrat government?
PS – in the context of Neo’s post, the irony is on.
Actually, the numbers crossing the border illegally have reached 14,000. Per day.
That’s 1.4 million in 100 days.
Exactly when is it an invasion? One of the explicit Federal responsibilities to the States in the Constitution (ie, defending States against invasion).
I believe it was the late George Kennan who foresaw that (illegal) immigration would be a problem for the United States. As I recall, he wrote something to the effect that immigration would cease once the living standard of the USA had been driven down to the level of the sending countries, rendering it pointless for anyone to bother making the trip.
Our problem is not the invading illegal aliens. Our problem is those who won’t let us do anything about it.
The majority of congressional Republicans are beholden to their big donors who embrace the cheap labor the illegals bring. Congressional Democrats embrace the replacement theory as a means to gain permanent political power. Until that disastrous ‘marriage’ is nullified, the gelding of the American public will continue.
Getting rid of these illegals is easy, simply end the benefits and outlaw employment of illegals, then go after the employers with mandatory prison sentences for those who continue to employ illegals. No benefits + No jobs = self-deportation.
Hear, Hear, Geoffrey Britain! Care to run for office?
How much ruin is in a nation?
Democrats demand an answer!
Writing comments here makes us feel good.
Here’s what we all should be doing:
Call 202-456-1111
It’s the Whie House comment line.
Tell President Biden to stop the invasion and defend our borders.
Just do it!
he doesn’t care, thats why he was installed in this office, through Fraud,
And now the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Trump cannot appear on the republican primary ballot.
Ramping up the law fare agenda! can this stand?
AND, Jeffery Epstein’s passenger lists are to be released.
Is the world about to end?
No, of course it will not stand. The Federal Government has sole jurisdiction over immigration/deportation.
I have said this before here and I will write it down again.
The state governments cannot enforce border security at the border. Those border states that wish to maintain their sovereignty must purchase all land within 40 yards of the border, so that the border patrol has room to drive their trucks along the border and continue to fail in their obligation to protect the border. If landowners refuse to sell their property that abuts the border, use Eminent Domain.
Forty yards in, the state government builds it’s own wall, not subject to federal jurisdiction. The state legislature passes laws against trespassing. Something like a misdemeanor punishable by 364 days in the county lockup for first offense, five years in the state pen for second offense, and 20 years for third.
In this fashion, the federal government cannot use their courts to nullify state law. Any attempt by state governments to supersede immigration law at the border will fail.
Erronius
Erronius:
They can challenge the building of such a wall on environmental grounds, just as they challenged the building of a federal border wall. See this, this, and this, for example.
Since i still see that a post gets buried by suddenly making more posts…
i will stop after this
….and they still vote for the party
IF a party can create the KKK, and they still vote for the party.
IF a party can resurrect the KKK, and they still vote for the party.
IF a party can create the knights of the white camelia, who rode through the south murdering, terrorizing and torturing blacks (and poor whites), to prevent voting republican (see congressional testimony), and they still vote for the party.
IF a party can create the trail of tears to buy votes from settlers, and they still vote for the party.
IF a party can put the dogs on black people, make laws to sit at the back of the bus, force a whole block of the US population to feel necessary to march, and they still vote for the party.
IF a party can stop taxing the wealthy to tax the common man, and then raise that tax beyond what was promised, and they still vote for the party.
IF a president can destroy a woman’s life, he had sex with, take her baby, and have her committed, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can side with the woman that called for the extermination of black people, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can ignore the law of the land to facilitate the democide of 100,000 people (double the toll of the Vietnam war that was protested, but each year), and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can break the sanctity of public office, by not having sex with a woman when they had sex with a woman, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can howl about someone’s feet on the couch in the oval office, and yet, pish tosh anal sex in the confirmation halls, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can celebrate the German chancellor as man of the year, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can celebrate the greatest political mass murderer as man of the year, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can celebrate the leader of the land behind the iron curtain as man of the year, and they still vote for the party.
IF the youngest man elected to office can use the CIA to screw up starting a war with a neighbor, cheat on a woman who was the darling of the people as his wife, and they still vote for the party.
IF a president can walk around bragging about the size of his penis, intimidating people with his penis, and manipulating blacks to forever vote for the party, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can destroy the nuclear family, cause below replacement births for decades, forcing the import of people in mass to hide the precipitous numbers, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can fund biological experiments in other countries, and secret ones in their own, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can create bills for laws you’re not allowed to read until voted into law, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can have trials with no ability to present evidence, cross examine, and negates most of due process, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can fund false dossiers on the opposition, keep secret servers, destroy evidence, and never come to court, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can spy on the candidate, and the president in office, and it comes to nothing, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can order soldiers to stand down from defending a place to let the people there die, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party can scream and holler about fascism, but side with the group that the German chancellor sided with to exterminate people and call for extermination, and they still vote for the party.
If the party can openly side with communist (Europe), Fabian (UK), or progressive (USA), moving towards a dictatorship while lamenting an end to a democracy that is a republic, and they still vote for the party.
IF a president can ride the Lolita express 26 times, get a massage on camera, and be the one who defiled the oval office, ruining a interns life ignoring the asymmetry of power, and they still vote for the party.
IF the party whose offices were unsuccessfully broken into, later spies on the opposition successfully, and they still vote for the party.
IF the people can forget the Keating five, and they still vote for the party.
IF the lion of the senate and leader of the party can murder a woman, let her drown, and not call for help, and they still vote for the party.
IF the lion of the senate can ask for help from the Soviet Union KGB to defeat an opposition president, and they still vote for the party.
IF one party dominates the list of illegitimate children and hurting the children, and they still vote for the party.
IF one party can extend a depression, and have much of its policies rules unconstitutional, and be celebrated, and they still vote for the party.
IF one party can intern japanes people in camps, and claim that the other party will do it eventually, and they still vote for the party.
And all the other things, and they still vote for the party.
Then why would that party do anything that the people voting for them want them to do?
Why would they stop doing things like that, or refusing to fulfill oaths of office and uphold law, fund riots and protect the brutal class as their heroes did..
IF the people who vote for the democrat will vote no matter what they do or have done, including turning the US into a banana republic and destroying the system as it stands, and continue to vote, and not see the history – then there is absolutely no reason for them to stop and continue making this a place like the places they have openly admired, and who their voters have empowered.
Gov. Abbott needs to sends dozens and dozens of buses full of illegal immigrants to Washington DC, to the White House and Capitol and to the homes of Majorcas and other pro-open border demokrats, and to Biden’s home in Maryland.
The difference between the Texas law and the Arizona law was that the Arizona law gave state officials the power to enforce federal law while the Texas law makes it a state crime to enter Texas illegally.
A way to look at it is it would be to view how California emissions law is stricter than Federal emissions laws. That’s allowed. State laws can be stricter than Federal laws. National drinking age is 21, but some states could ban alcohol consumption entirely if they wish. I know Oklahoma limited beer to 3.2% for a long time even though the rest of the country allowed higher proof beer.
Note also that Texas is not enforcing deportation. Someone found guilty of illegally entering Texas will go to jail, unless they voluntarily choose to return to their country of origin. It’s a neat sidestepping of federal authority.
Of course, if this fails to pass Constitutional muster, the next step is for Texas to declare an invasion and simply imprison all illegal border jumpers as illegal combatants and hold them as prisoners of war. Indefinite arrest until the invasion ends. Of course you could be paroled if you agree to return to your country of origin. If you get caught breaking parole (returning to Texas), you get held indefinitely until the invasion ends.
Don’t see how the courts get around that one without hamstringing the US military in future conflicts.
}}}a state can’t pass its own laws that are more stringent than the federal ones on the books.
But, Neo, doesn’t it hinge on the emphasized (by me) part?
If the law provides the exact same sanctions, BUT enables state LEOs to do what is currently done (or not done!) by Fed LEOs, then it can be argued as passing muster while not “overriding precedent”, can’t it?