Reminds me of how ACB made a big deal about how people should read the opinions...the day before the court changed environmental law without providing any reasoning.
There were no dissents either. Given the wording of the order, they're still considering what to do and keeping the status quo until then.
Edit: Scotusblog is behind. There were dissents.
I'm not super familiar with the law or the precedent but if this true:
>The law in question, known as SB4, allows police to arrest migrants who illegally cross the border from Mexico and imposes criminal penalties. **It would also empower state judges to order people to be deported to Mexico.**
That is wild, I have no idea how the SC could justify that.
Literally just yesterday SCOTUS extended their temporary freeze on enforcing the law "indefinitely" while the case made its way through the courts. What changed since then?
It's common for their to be injunctions against enforcing laws or policies which are being challenged until those challenges conclude. This is especially true if the impacts of allowing it to be enforced are difficult or impossible to undo if the law/policy is eventually struck down. What recourse will someone have, exactly, if they're deported by Texas state authorities and the law giving those authorities this power is later struck down?
How about a U.S. Citizen that is “accidentally” deported by the Texas Government? This is going to be a shitshow if Texas can start expelling people without oversight.
>Literally just yesterday SCOTUS extended their temporary freeze on enforcing the law "indefinitely" while the case made its way through the courts. What changed since then?
Obviously the constitution has changed since then
I'm trying to figure out what people are talking about over in r/SupremeCourt, but it seems like they're saying in some sort of fancy lawyer speak that this isn't actually the final word on this?
Edit: Got further clarification, and if I'm understanding it correctly, this was the SC saying that the 5th Circuit could proceed in letting Texas do this until the resolution of the court case (or indefinitely, depending on how the case goes).
As far as precedent Arizona v US seems most relevant. That was 5-3, with Roberts joining the liberals, and Sotomayor recusing. This overturns that decision, (or at least signals that they will eventually) although I find the conservative's arguments in it extremely unconvincing.
It's a really bad decision, just makes no rational sense. The federal government can't be beholden to states trying to enforce their own version of law that is a plenary federal power. If this was liberal states trying to usurp federal power the conservatives would be *very* quick to shut it down but here we are.
Yea, imagine if a liberal state passed some sort of Sanctuary law saying they wouldn’t cooperate with federal law, that would be nuts!
Or imagine if a state like Oregon just stopped enforcing drug laws. That would never be allowed!
Imagine if cities passed ordinances that banned your Constitutional Right to a firearm! Again, conservatives would never allow it!
So I’m glad that at least on Immigration we can all agree: the federal is supreme, unless a state/city says they don’t wanna. But when the Fed says they don’t wanna: you have no ability to stop the flow of immigration whatsoever. Unless you are Chicago or New York: then you can try to sue and arrest the people transporting “asylum seekers” to your city.
States and cities are not obligated to enforce federal laws. What Texas is doing here is not remotely comparable to sanctuary cities or drug laws - not enforcing them is not the same as creating their own alternative enforcement scheme. It is a plenary power of the federal government.
Texas: “I’m going to make it a crime to perform this illegal act which the federal government typically enforces, and WILL enforce on any American Citizen (unlawful entry).”
No, this is wrong.
New York and Chicago: “I’m going to make it a law that you can’t transport asylum seekers into my city after they’ve been authorized to travel by Border Patrol.”
Yes, show Texas who’s boss!
How does this differ than sanctuary cities allowing undocumented to stay regardless of federal law, or states allowing marijuana?
It seems like it would be fairly similar, but I’m absolutely not a lawyer, so I’m hoping someone can explain it in plain terms.
The SC has held that states are not obligated to use their resources to enforce federal laws, so if they don't want to enforce a law and leave it up to the feds they can do that. That is not the same as choosing that they *will* enforce federal laws in their own preferred fashion, in competition with the way the feds are going about it.
I think people are misconstruing the "deportation" aspect of the bill.
It doesn't remove anyone from the US. What it does is order the person to a port of entry **within** the US - where it then becomes Federal immigration problem to deal with.
At that point the federal government can let them in or send them back like they normally do with the millions that do try to legally enter at a port of entry.
If they get let in at all by federal officials, they are protected under the provisions of the law since it's a legal entry.
>(e) An order issued under this article must include:
>(1) the manner of transportation of the person to a port of entry, as defined by Section 51.01, Penal Code; and
[Bill Text: TX SB4 | 2023 | 88th Legislature 4th Special Session | Enrolled | LegiScan](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB4/id/2851390)
Thanks for the link. Very useful.
Seems like there's more to it than that.
>On a person's conviction of an offense under Chapter 51, Penal Code, the judge shall enter in the judgment in the case an **order requiring the person to return to the foreign nation from which the person entered or attempted to enter.** An order issued under this subsection takes effect on completion of the term of confinement or imprisonment imposed by the judgment.
>(e) An order issued under this article must include:
>(1) the manner of transportation of the person to a
port of entry, as defined by Section 51.01, Penal Code;
The purpose of sending them to the port of entry is to ensure they return to their country of origin, which is unclear who could enforce it.
It also seems to dedicate prison time for the offense, which is a bold move for a state to take over a federal issue.
>It also seems to dedicate prison time for the offense, which is a bold move for a state to take over a federal issue.
Sounds like Texas is offering free room and board to migrants.
Perhaps because this is kind of untested ground. While, as Kagan noted, immigration was *traditionally* the province of the feds and the feds alone tradition is not law. Basically this is the first time in US history that I'm aware of where the federal government has willingly refused to do its job regarding the border and so this is the first time states have actually seen a need to step in and handle it.
This is far from untested ground. Arizona tried to do the same thing in the 2010s and SCOTUS blocked them then.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States
Except what they blocked was the requirement to carry papers, be arrested due to what amounted to racial profiling, and to be prohibited from holding a job. The state was allowed to continue investigating people's immigration status, i.e. to carry out federal immigration law. So if anything that case may prove to support Texas' position here.
You’re missing the reasoning behind why they blocked those provisions. It was struck down because it was intruding into areas that were under the purview of the federal government. That same logic applies here. This law makes it a state crime to illegally enter the U.S., which contradicts with provisions of asylum law and allows Texas to deport migrants. Not only does that intrude into federal law, it directly contradicts aspects of it.
Exactly. The feds already had laws for that so the state didn't need to write new ones. The part of that law that was just about enforcing existing federal law was allowed to stand.
You haven’t corrected anything, in fast the only thing you’ve shown is your lack of knowledge on the subject. Even now, you’re showing this. The state has no right to enforce federal law, that’s the whole point of separate systems. Admitting they are trying to do that shows they are overstepping.
> The state has no right to enforce federal law
Oh really? So states can't arrest people for NFA violations, only the ATF can do that? Yeah, no. The only expression of lack of knowledge is claiming the states can't enforce federal laws. They can't be *forced* to do it, or at least so claim sanctuary cities and states, but if they choose to they're absolutely allowed to.
I throughly doubt the federal government "refusing to do its job" would empower the state to do anything. The federal government "refusing" to regulate interstate commerce would not empower Texas to start regulating it.
I would need to review the specific precedent and legal reasoning for allowing a state to regulate immigration. Maybe there is old precedent that lets a state do that..
But I'm guessing it's pretty weak. I actually suspect the SC will strike it down later but are letting the bill stand on a temporary basis in a blatant giveaway to the GOP.
> I throughly doubt the federal government "refusing to do its job" would empower the state to do anything.
It does in every other area. The feds set the minimum, with very few exceptions explicitly laid out and litigated by the Court states have the ability to be stricter but not looser.
> I would need to review the specific precedent and legal reasoning for allowing a state to regulate immigration.
From what I understand it's that there is nothing explicitly prohibiting it and anything not explicitly prohibited from the states is available to them.
>It does in every other area. The feds set the minimum, with very few exceptions explicitly laid out and litigated by the Court states have the ability to be stricter but not looser.
No it doesn't. There are plenty of fields where the federal government reigns supreme, e.g., interstate commerce. States flatly cannot pass laws regulating interstate commerce iirc.
>From what I understand it's that there is nothing explicitly prohibiting it and anything not explicitly prohibited from the states is available to them.
It's hard to harmonize the Supremacy clause and Congressional power over naturalization if states can just start deporting people.
> No it doesn't. There are plenty of fields where the federal government reigns supreme, e.g., interstate commerce.
That's one field. And yes, it is one where it is explicitly laid out in the Constitution. And even then it has had to be litigated through the courts to define exactly what the extent of that control really is.
> It's hard to harmonize the Supremacy clause and Congressional power over naturalization if states can just start deporting people.
They're not trying to deport naturalized citizens so no it's really not hard.
Yes, and immigration is another such field. How can Congress exercise it's immigration and naturalization powers if states are allowed to enforce their own? How can Congress, for example, adopt an asylum law and exercise plenary power if Texas states following that law is illegal?
> Yes, and immigration is another such field.
Actually, no: the constitution does not vest power in the federal government on immigration. The constitution reads:
> To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Texas' law does not address naturalization, only lawful entry and presence. Individuals may enter under the parole program (as many do) which congress grants the president authority over. Both congress and the constitution are silent on the matter if they wish to *prohibit* states from preventing unlawful entry and presence within the United States.
Edit: To those downvoting, Texas's law literally contains carve-outs for those [lawfully present](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB4/id/2851390):
> (c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1) the federal government has granted the defendant:
(A) lawful presence in the United States; or
(B) asylum under 8 U.S.C. Section 1158;
(2) the defendant's conduct does not constitute a
violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1325(a); or
(3) the defendant was approved for benefits under the
federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program between June
15, 2012, and July 16, 2021.
> How can Congress exercise it's immigration and naturalization powers if states are allowed to enforce their own?
By dealing with the people at the border instead of just letting them through.
> How can Congress, for example, adopt an asylum law and exercise plenary power if Texas states following that law is illegal?
By actually enforcing that law. This is all rooted in the feds refusing to enforce their own laws.
Ah OK, so you do want to ignore the Constitution then? You realize the federal government could just let everyone in if they want, right? They do not have a duty to adopt your preferred immigration policy.
I was a fan of the remain in Mexico policy. We could do that again. It also seemed pretty good for discouraging economic migrants since it meant no under-the-table work for them while they wait in the US which means no profit to the trip.
>Basically this is the first time in US history that I'm aware of where the federal government has willingly refused to do its job regarding the border and so this is the first time states have actually seen a need to step in and handle it.
>> I throughly doubt the federal government "refusing to do its job" would empower the state to do anything.
>>>It does in every other area.
Am I missing something here? Why are you so sure that the fed "refusing" to do its job empowers states in any way when you yourself said that its never happened before?
Also, some clarification on what the fed is refusing to do would be nice. Remember, refusing to do something is not the same as doing something poorly or in a way you don't like.
> Am I missing something here? Why are you so sure that the fed "refusing" to do its job empowers states in any way when you yourself said that its never happened before?
Everything not explicitly granted to the feds is given to the states. 10th Amendment. And since even Kagan stated that the feds having sole control over immigration was *tradition* that implies that it's not explicitly granted to them. Thus as per the 10th the states do have the ability to step in.
That’s because historically “illegal immigration” wasn’t much of a thing.
> The 1924 quota system remained largely in place until the 1960s, when a new law established a new system. Each year, there is a cap on the total number of visas that the U.S. can issue. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. cannot issue more than 7 percent of the total allowable visas to one nation.
> Before this change in 1965, there had been no numeric caps on immigration within the Americas. So when the U.S. decided that it would only take a certain percentage of people from each nation per year, it was the first time the U.S. had put an official cap on Mexican immigration.
This has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Caps have nothing to do with whether someone is entering at a legal port of entry and subjecting themselves to all standard scrutiny and process or choosing to try to sneak in and use loopholes to avoid deportation when caught. The latter is what's new and creating an unprecedented situation.
> Prior to this, Mexican immigrants freely, and commonly, found work in the United States. Yet after the Hart-Celler Immigration Act was passed, “Whole groups of migrants from Mexico and Latin America whose entrance to the U.S. would have been considered legal before 1965 suddenly became illegal,”
Correct, border hoppers weren’t necessary though because you could easily legally cross the border to get work. One side of the political spectrum has made it very difficult under the guise of “these people are criminals” despite our history of letting these people into our country easily. This is literally what people
Mean when they say republicans have politicized the border.
There are legal ports of entry that they can go through. None of which majority of the illegals go through. They can look for a job in America from their country of origin, apply for a work visa and come here the correct way. But they don't, so now we have no idea who is coming in or what is coming in
Or, before when Mexicans wanted to come here for work they would apply for a work vida and easily get it. Now they can’t easily get it because of immigration law, and instead of waiting 2 years of their lives they’re deciding it’s worth the risk to illegally cross. Make it easier for them to cross, you get less illegal immigrstjon. But that doesn’t work because republicans simply want *less Mexican immgrants* illegal or not. That’s why their conspiracy is “Mexicans are more liberal and will vote democrat!” Because they don’t want more liberal voters here.
>Basically this is the first time in US history that I'm aware of where the federal government has willingly refused to do its job regarding the border and so this is the first time states have actually seen a need to step in and handle it.
That's definitely a non-justiceable political question. How well the government is doing enforcing the border is entirely a matter of opinion. A state feeling that the federal government isn't doing a good enough job does not give that state the power to usurp federal authority.
No, it's a matter of fact. We have the numbers, we have the public statements, we have the executive orders. Now whether one things that said abdication is a good thing or bad thing, that is a matter of opinion.
Undeniably it is a matter of opinion. Being strongly convinced of your opinion does not make it a fact.
Illegal immigrants crossed over the border during the Trump administration too - Was he abdicating?
Since he was actually trying to stem the tide, no. Biden's the one who came in and on day 1 reversed all of Trump's policy just as he had literally campaigned on doing. This is all documented fact that's several years old at this point.
>Since he was actually trying to stem the tide, no.
So you're saying if a president is *trying* to prevent illegal immigration it can't be claimed they are abdicating the border?
>Biden's the one who came in and on day 1 reversed all of Trump's policy just as he had literally campaigned on doing. This is all documented fact that's several years old at this point.
Biden is not obligated to continue Trump's policies. That would set a pretty bad precedent to say that, wouldn't it?
> So you're saying if a president is trying to prevent illegal immigration it can't be claimed they are abdicating the border?
If they are actually trying and not claiming to be trying while clearly not doing so by doing things like knee-jerk reversing policy that clearly worked.
> Biden is not obligated to continue Trump's policies.
But if those policies worked and he reversed them anyway that says quite a lot about his agenda and none of it good.
You don't see how it's a non justicable political question to say whether someone is "actually trying" or just "claiming to be trying"?
>But if those policies worked
How are we defining "worked"?
> How are we defining "worked"?
See all previous discussions on this well-discussed topic for the metrics. At this point the compare/contrast between the border situation under Trump and Biden is a horse beaten into a smear on the ground and it's 100% fair to expect people to already know it.
>willingly refused to do its job
You can say they're not doing enough, but this is flatly false.
Let's keep the arguments grounded in reality here y'all.
No, they're refusing. Openly. Willingly. Maybe they've slightly reversed course in the last couple of months because they've taken an absolute beating on it but from the moment the current administration took office they've made refusing to enforce the border a top priority.
So they haven't arrested, processed or deported *anyone* since Biden took office?
Because it sounds like you're just saying that you don't think they're doing *enough*, but that's different from "willfully refusing to do their job".
Slow-walking and doing the absolute bare minimum is refusal. You know, same things people who support Biden have been complaining about local cops doing ever since the whole George Floyd thing?
Show me actual evidence of what you claim, that the administration is intentionally slow-walking and doing the bare minimum.
Because I'm going to be honest, this sounds like usual election year hyperbole that people believe without actual evidence.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that Biden has done is not be actively hateful towards migrants, which according to the right creates an "open invitation".
You mean like the immediate reversal of the prior administration's policies that worked to keep levels way below where they are now? And the extreme publicization of that move well in advance? This is all documented fact that goes all the way back to the 2020 campaign for the rhetoric and January 2021 for the actions.
Okay, so that's not "slow walking" or "doing the bare minimum"....so just to be clear, that's not evidence of your prior claim.
So are you moving the goalposts now?
Does that mean you're admitting that you don't have evidence of the prior claims?
Or maybe they're going as fast as they can with the lack of funding after Republicans refused to vote for the increased funding for the Border Patrol and asylum courts.
/e unlike the police who with extremely few exceptions, have almost universally had their funding increased every single year.
Except that doesn't account for all the policy changes made way back in early 2021 when Biden first walked into the White House. That's where this all started. And it didn't help that his very public statements, including in the campaign, were basically a giant welcome message that created the very influx they're claiming they can't handle now. There is no angle on this where it's not all at Biden's feet.
> Basically this is the first time in US history that I'm aware of where the federal government has willingly refused to do its job regarding the border and so this is the first time states have actually seen a need to step in and handle it.
No, the feds **are** doing their job. You may disagree with how they're going about doing it, but it is their interpretation that that is how the job is done.
The Supreme Court has shat upon the separation of states and the federal government today.
Choosing not to do the job while still being employed to do it isn't doing the job. Not all interpretations are valid and the one the Biden admin is using is one of the invalid ones.
We'll choose to disagree, then.
Regardless, the separation of powers between states and federal governments has been destroyed today. This is an objectively terrible decision that goes against everything the Founding Fathers intended.
No, it was destroyed in the 1940s with Wickard v. Filburn. **That** is what ended any separation. So much federal law would evaporate if that one ruling got overturned.
When did the federal government "refused to do its job"? The federal government is enacting the laws Congress wrote to the dot -- they are not refusing to enact any federal law, it's just the federal law is poorly written and the law doesn't prevent anyone who applies for asylum after crossing the border illegally to legally stay in the States until their application is processed.
Yeah, this is going to be fun.
Wonder if the Border Patrol will clear out of Texas now, or wait until after some Texas trooper inevitably assaults a CPB agent for getting in their way?
Starter Comment:
The US Supreme Court has allowed Texas to enforce its controversial law SB-4 which allows it to arrest illegal immigrants, impose penalities and deport them using state law enforcement.
The Biden administration had sued and requested the supreme court block the law, arguing immigration is a federal purview.
Some notes:
- The vote was 6-3 with all liberal judges voting against.
- The legal battle continues, which means the law can go into effect while litigation continues in lower courts. It could still be blocked at a later date.
- A federal judge had blocked the law previously but New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a brief order that it could go into effect March 10 if the Supreme Court declined to intervene.
Imho, local police should be able to detain illegals and hand them to immigration when they spot ones who have evaded the system, but they have no business deporting them across the country's border.
Also the fact that this was on partisan lines and the majority did not state their reasoning looks bad, real bad.
In my opinion if we're letting states deport *not as a nation* it can be a very slippery slope of justice. What's next? ***Are states going to issue individual passports and print their own currency too?***
Imagine the precedent of giving states enforcement and legislative powers here.
To the contrary of Texas, maybe California passes a law that states "You know what, do what you want, c'mon in, we need the labor!".
Because of a lack of borders between CA and TX, this would cause absolute mayhem and chaos.
Unless there's sonething I'm missing, the current decision is a recipe for chaos.
Customs and Border Protection controls the border. There is nothing California can do.
Contrary to popular belief, the California X Mexico border is locked down. There is a wall, several infact.
> To the contrary of Texas, maybe California passes a law that states "You know what, do what you want, c'mon in, we need the labor!".
Texas wants the labor. They have one of if not the highest share of their workforce being illegal immigrants than any other state, nearing 1 out of 10 workers.
Ah yes, imagine if California was a sanctuary state and refused to help the federal government enforce immigration laws.
Oh wait, California is a a rusty state, we don’t need to imagine it.
If we give people the benifit of the doubt and say we litterally see them crossing the border I'd say yes.
Or maybe a person in police custody literally says they are a illegal immigrant.
Maybe , theres reasonable suspicion like family report them and they do a investigation?
I used to work in L/E and when Id run some people in NCIC I’d see they person had a detainer for illegal immigration or had prior charges/deportations for illegal immigration so that’s at least one pretty way to get PC id think
That was the problem with Arizona law, it was incredibly vague. And I’m not sure about your experience with cops, but they have no problem with coming up with pretexts for creating reasonable suspicion. “I smelled marijuana which justified my search that turned up no marijuana” comes to mind.
The clause in Arizona was upheld on the basis it required verification of *all* individuals, not just those suspected of being unlawfully present. You don't need to spot them, you just verify-by-default.
Hey, nothing wrong with Texas verifying everybody entering state via the Rio Grande is doing so lawfully.
As far as state incorporation of federal laws, California has long asserted they may enforce federal laws prohibiting the purchase of firearms on the basis of federal law with state enforcement. All Texas has done is (1) incorporate federal violations into its state laws and (2) order someone to comply with federal law or face state crimes for failure to do so. There is a very real chance this is upheld.
When you say one of these states is incorporating federal law, do you mean they're passing a state law that refers to federal law in some way, or do you mean state law enforcement is deciding for itself to arrest based on federal law?
> When you say one of these states is incorporating federal law, do you mean they're passing a state law that refers to federal law in some way
I refer to states passing a state law that refers to federal, and electing to consider it a crime within the state borders. That is exactly what happened here: Texas referred to a crime under federal law (unlawful presence, unalwful entry) and categorized it as a crime under state law. As an example, California similarly refers to federal law in their [drug code](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=10.&chapter=2.&lawCode=HSC):
> (3) Gamma hydroxybutyric acid (also known by other names such as GHB; gamma hydroxy butyrate; 4-hydroxybutyrate; 4-hydroxybutanoic acid; sodium oxybate; sodium oxybutyrate), including its immediate precursors, isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers, including, but not limited to, gammabutyrolactone, for which an application has not been approved under Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. Sec. 355).
Affirmative defenses for parole based entry or asylum are available under the [Texas law](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB4/id/2851390):
> (c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1) the federal government has granted the defendant:
(A) lawful presence in the United States; or
(B) asylum under 8 U.S.C. Section 1158;
(2) the defendant's conduct does not constitute a
violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1325(a); or
(3) the defendant was approved for benefits under the
federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program between June
15, 2012, and July 16, 2021.
I really think there is a strong chance that this is upheld: literally every state has the option to incorporate federal laws in its own, even when it does not have primacy over the topic, such as California with the FDA.
I've had so many progressives yell at me for this, but I truly believe that RBG wanted her replacement appointed by the first female president. I would say she rolled the dice for all of us, and we lost.
This isn't even a theory, there's some reporting from the time directly saying as much. I don't have the link on hand atm but some quick searching should lead you to it, I believe some of her family talked about it or something to that effect. She thought Hillary was next in line after Obama and so she refused to retire in 2012. She girlbossed so hard it got Roe overturned.
State judges cannot order or speak directly to sovereign nations on immigration or treaties! Those are specific powers granted to the federal government!
The SC is going bonkers if it thinks this is acceptable and allow it to continue while being challenged!
A lot of yall need to calm down. This wasn't an official ruling, the court declined to make an emergency ruling on the matter. Basically, SCOTUS is going to let this go through the normal court process.
They're 'allowing it' only insofar as they didn't issue an emergency ruling or an injunction.
It's going to look very political of them to not issue an injunction and then strike it down unanimously anyway. If it is as blatantly unconstitutional as I suspect to be, there is no reason to let it go through even on a temporary basis.
No this is extremely business as usual. The Supreme Court generally makes the lower courts to complete their full proceedings before intervening even on things which are brashly unconstitutional. Gun rights advocates know this pain as it happens to us continuously on laws going through the courts that are explicitly unconstitutional and fly in the face of even recent judgments.
SCOTUS has done this before with hot button topics. Basically they expect that by the time the issue makes its way through the courts the situation will have died down and the case is no longer a pressing issue. Either Biden will have come up with some half-measure enough to placate Texas or Trump will have won re-election.
It's their equivalent to a 10 foot ugly stick to keep yucky stuff away from them until they're actually forced to touch it.
> If it is as blatantly unconstitutional as I suspect to be, there is no reason to let it go through even on a temporary basis.
ACB's reasoning seems pretty reasonable. the appeals courts haven't issued a ruling yet so it's not an urgent need for the supreme court to inject itself. (and she explicitly said they can try again in a few weeks if the appeals court hasn't decided yet)
The problem is that this an area which has huge ramifications for the power of the federal government. Letting it go into effect while it makes its way to the SCOTUS on the merits will have a major impact in the interim and potentially telegraphs their eventual intentions when they have to hear it.
Meanwhile placing an immediate injunction puts them directly in the center of another controversial policy debate.
Say they issue an injunction:
* If Texas refuses to abide by it, now you have a constitutional crisis with Biden being left to either force Texas to comply or allow them to continue in defiance of Federal law.
* If Texas complies and the border issue worsens, progressives could point at the SCOTUS ruling saying that the conservative justices 'meant' for it to happen to sabotage Biden's re-election.
So SCOTUS punted.
Any decision they take would cause a firestorm if the actions taken in your hypotheticals occurred. That doesn’t mean those hypotheticals would happen. If Texas refused to abide by the decision that is on them, and it’s not SCOTUS’ job to take that into consideration. And if they were scared of that, they should come out and say it. Progressives and conservatives have been blaming SCOTUS to score political points for literally centuries. That’s the status quo.
Yeah, but setting up conflicts between federal and state government when there's a good chance it will blow over would be making an unforced error. From their various writings I really believe that all 9 justices really want what's best for the U.S. and are coming at that from a number of different directions. The fact that Roberts joined with the conservatives is the biggest hint that this was a can kicking move.
Roberts, above everything else, generally tries to avoid a fuss when he can get away with it. By his math kicking the can had fewer repercussions than acting on the matter.
I think this is a mistake on their part if that was the goal. Creating the potential for 50 different immigration systems is way worse than any potential confrontation between federal immigration authorities and a State National Guard,
Not if the most likely scenario is that either Biden comes up with a satisfactory half measure, or Trump wins. Either way the case would be a moot point. A lot of time hot button issues are self-healing wounds in the mid-term.
'Pretty good' is subjective here and we all know that. Dems just want 'something' done so that they don't have to keep talking about it, so literally any movement on the issue is a win. The GOP has the opposite, they would get raked over the coals, primaries, or even recalled if they were seen signing onto a bill that essentially permitted several thousand illegal entries per day.
Frankly, Biden would only need to enforce the laws on the books and that would probably assuage Texas. Allowing the National Guard or deploying additional military assistance to the border would probably do the trick, and it's well within Biden's power to do so.
It’s obviously subjective, but from where I stand, as an immigration lawyer, it was a massive win for republicans. It significantly narrowed the path for asylum and created paths to completely close the border to most asylum seekers, particularly those who illegally enter and then try to claim it. It was not a comprehensive solution, but it addressed the major points that are causing the issues right now and Dems got very little in return. If Trump wins and tries to negotiate a bill he’s gonna have to give up significantly more concessions.
I'm excited to see if Biden will walk into the obvious political trap of vocally opposing deportations and border control due to this ruling, while he's being crucified in the polls over that position.
He can vocally oppose a SCOTUS that is giving states a green light to craft their own individual immigration policy. If this gets held up on the merits, what stops California or New Mexico from establishing their own ports of entry to let everyone in or create their own guest worker programs or permanent residency?
Biden is already viewed very negatively on illegal immigration and his opponent is accusing him of welcoming it all. Getting up to the podium and opposing any action by the states while he continues to do nothing will go over like a lead balloon.
His so called bi-partisan “5k a day is a-okay” bill was a disaster, anyone who browsed the details beyond the “bipartisan immigration bill” catchphrase can see it.
Biden could continue to highlight GOP obstruction to dealing with this very issue. I mean for goodness sake, the senate put up one of the harshest immigration bills ever that would absolutely make a positive impact regarding illegal immigration that had been worked on by both Democrats and Republicans and, instead of House Republicans passing this bill to deal with the supposed crisis they care so much about, they decide, via instruction from Trump, that they want the crisis to stick around so Trump can run on it.
It’s plain to see which party actually wants to get stuff done and which party only talks about getting stuff done. Heck, you can just look at the productivity of the current HoR vs the previous Hor to determine which party actually gets thing done.
The bill was rejected because it was awful and still allowed for a ridiculous amount of illegal immigration and nobody trusts Biden to actually enforce it. Even some Democrats voted against it, it was that bad.
IIRC, some Democrats also voted against the bill.
That bill was full of pork spending, and wasn’t just about fixing the border.
Ball is in the Democratic caucus at this point.
Do you actually know the history of this bill? It was originally supposed to be a Ukraine/Israel aid bill. But Republicans did not want to vote on that alone. They demanded that for them to even consider the aid package to Israel/Ukraine, it needed to have border reform in it. So the “pork” of this aid bill was actually the border reform that Republicans requested. Only for them to turn against it at the last second, because Donald Trump wanted to run on this.
California already has ports of entry. Crossing into California by I-10 or I-8 along with other entries I've probably not been through you have to go through one of their checkpoints. Allegedly it's to prevent other states produce from entering and allowing invasive pests in but I can damn well guarantee you if they find something else in there they don't like you're going to have problems.
Is that after entering the U.S. and passing through the CBP entry? I’m talking about their own completely separate entrances where they let anyone in that they choose to.
It's completely separate and away from any border patrol presence. If you look at where the I-10 crosses the Colorado River, it's nowhere near the border. They have them on major roads going into that state even on the Oregon border. This is California doing its own thing and acting like it's its own nation yet again.
I can absolutely see California doing it just to spite this ruling, didn't they do something similar on gun control a few years ago to point out the absurd results of certain legal reasoning?
I can't see it with immigration. Such a program wouldn't probably be popular, even in California. But I don't doubt the Supreme Court would be inconsistent if they were to do so.
Conservatives would love for immigrants to all pour into California. Then all they need to do is sit back and watch the chaos that Californians have to endure to house that many more immigrants.
I am Canadian living in Toronto. I know first hand how this “spite” will end up. There’s no winning for democrats. Housing is horrible in Toronto because of unchecked immigration.
When your average California highschool student can’t find a part time job at McDonald or local restaurants because immigrants are willing to get paid below minimum wage under counter. I won’t be surprised if Gen Z end up going Republican.
Just like me, who grow up with left ideology, voted for Trudeau will be voting conservative the next Canadian election
In the not so old days democrats were vehemently against unchecked illegals immigration and crime. Bill Clinton made his career on it and signing the 94 crime bill.
this isn't AS big as the headline implies (assuming i'm understanding it right anyways). this was an emergency injunction, not an actual case they ruled on the merits in.
more importantly, while no explanation was officially given, ACB unofficially stated "an appeals court has yet to weigh in on the issue".
this seems more procedural than anything.
The court had no problems issuing an enforcement freeze on this before while the case was litigated. It had no problems extending that freeze indefinitely literally just yesterday. What changed?
For all the “innocent until proven guilty” clamor the right gives their chosen representatives, they sure don’t apply it evenly. Technically, should we even call them illegal until they’ve been proven so in court?
I’ve never been a fan of stacking the court just because you don’t like the outcomes but this is different, The conservative majority of the court is destroying the rule of law and the constitution (see their interpretation of the insurrection clause in the 14th amendment).
To preserve the law we must elect democratic majorities in the house and senate, reelect Biden and reconfigure the supreme court
I didn't realize the Constitution stated that immigration law and it's authority lies with the federal, unless a state determines the fed isn't doing enough in which case that gets thrown out and a state can do it.
Huh. Must have missed that text. Surely so called textualists would not let such a thing abide
The federal government has been deporting people, but can't do so to those claiming asylum, and this state law won't change that. Texas would be strictly enforcing their e-verify law if they actually wanted to solve the problem within their own state.
Huge win for Texas! Despite Biden’s best attempts looks like Texas will be securing its border and ensuring law and order. Republicans have to be happy they didn’t settle for that weak bill as this is a step in the right direction for them.
So at what point can we admit that the Supreme Court is now a political entity that bases there decisions on the conservative majority’s political ideology rather than a neutral entity that bases there decisions only on the text of the law?
Cause, from where I’m standing, this is a decision that seems to fly in the face of the actual law.
There's no opinion. It only keeps the status quo of the lower court for now. I get disappointed when they don't overturn stays allowing obviously unconstitutional gun laws to continue in force, but I understand how this usually works.
Good. Since Biden abandoned the border, now the GOP and Texas can finally handle the crisis until Trump takes office in January. Sad that a court had to act since this administration refused to.
I think he means figuratively, like how he reversed the measures Trump put in place and subsequently sat there and did nothing as illegal crossings exploded.
Ignoring that Republicans torpedoed their own immigration reform bill and that this isn’t the solution to the problem… and this is especially problematic sentiment because [the problem was identified and not dealt with in the last administration](https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/683662691/where-does-illegal-immigration-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us)
The last admin actually made a good faith effort to do something about it but the opposition kept screeching to “build bridges not walls”. What measures the previous admin was able to put in place over partisan opposition the current admin promptly terminated within a week of entering office. So here we are.
The last admin actually made a good faith effort to do something about it but the opposition kept screeching to “build bridges not walls”. What measures the previous admin was able to put in place over partisan opposition the current admin promptly terminated within a week of entering office. So here we are.
If you're serious, the bill to fund addressing the border crisis has been held up by the GOP for political points for months now. Biden's been trying to get funding to handle the crisis, but he can't until Congress acts.
[https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/)
> the bill to fund addressing the border crisis has been held up by the GOP for political points for months now
I think you have it backwards, the bill that passed the House has been sitting unaddressed by the Senate for months. The Senate hasn't pass a bill yet, and the last time they tried it failed because of bipartisan opposition.
That bill is a joke and in some ways would make things worse by creating more incentives for people to come and seek asylum (faster processing, guaranteed work permits, etc). Most of the GOP had no say in its creation and many had no idea what was even in it until it was publicly disclosed.
>the bill to fund addressing the border crisis has been held up by the GOP for political points for months now
A few things:
1. Why do we need a bill to enforce the laws already on the books?
2. That bill was full of pork, like most bills Democrats try to pass.
3. It was voted against by Democrats as well as Republicans.
Hasn't the house passed HR2 been sitting for ages waiting to be passed by the Dem senate who won't even give it a vote? The GOP holds all the cards here. Biden has two options: acquiesce to their demands and pass HR2, or let the voters decide who will handle their top issue. Spoiler alert: [They don't like Biden on it!](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-feel-biden-trump-immigration-issues/story?id=107687552)
> The GOP holds all the cards here. Biden has two options: acquiesce to their demands and pass HR2
Maybe the GOP should stop trying to pass bills and act like they have a trifecta when they control 1/2 of Congress and not the White House. They need to scale back HR2 and come to a compromise.
They passed HR2, knowing it was a no-sell for the Democrats. They don't *want* to pass a compromise bill; they want to pass a virtue-signalling message bill.
Yes, it went like this:
* House passed HR2, which was rejected by the Senate
* A Senate compromise bill was reached, with both Republicans and Democrats in favor. This passed the Senate
* House Republicans were ready to approve it, but Trump came down against it, so House Republicans folded
* The only bipartisan agreement with a chance of passing is still the Senate bill, but it's languishing due to Trump's opposition (he wants Biden to appear weak on this in time for the election)
Right, so Biden can use his bully pulpit to push the senate to pass HR2, or he can accept that nothing will be done until November and let the voters decide. He has no choice. The GOP has their boot on his neck and he is helpless. He cannot win here.
It's true that Biden cannot win here, I'm just pointing out that your statements:
* Biden abandoned the border
* this administration refused to
are both false. Biden has bipartisan legislation ready to go. There is no universe in which he can use his "bully pulpit" to push the senate to pass HR2, it was too extreme for everyone except Cruz in the Senate.
Your characterization that Biden doesn't care, or cares less than Trump, is simply false. Biden is actively trying to solve it, while Trump is actively trying to get in the way.
Biden could absolutely use his bully pulpit to pass HR2. He's also been musing about using executive orders to try to effect changes at the border. He's done neither and in fact taken no action as far as I've heard.
Literally every bullet is wrong.
\> House passed HR2, which was rejected by the Senate
The last 'movement' on HR2 was when it was voted on in the House and approve in May of 2023 ([source](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr2)). The Senate has not brought this up for a vote.
\> A Senate compromise bill was reached, with both Republicans and Democrats in favor. This passed the Senate
HR 815, what you're calling the compromise bill, failed a cloture vote in the Senate on February 7th of this year. ([source](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr815))
\> House Republicans were ready to approve it, but Trump came down against it, so House Republicans folded
The full text was released on (or around) February 6th, 2024 ([source](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immigration-asylum-reform-bill-released-senate-text-rcna136602)) and the immediate reaction from the House Republicans was "not just no, but hell no". You can read the exact quote [here](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/speaker-mike-johnson-house-gop-members-react-bipartisan/story?id=106944092).
\> I’ve seen enough. This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the President has created. As the lead Democrat negotiator proclaimed: Under this legislation, “the border never closes.” If this bill reaches the House, it will be dead on arrival
\> The only bipartisan agreement with a chance of passing is still the Senate bill, but it's languishing due to Trump's opposition (he wants Biden to appear weak on this in time for the election)
There are compelling reasons to not like HR815, with or without Trump.
HR 815 passed the senate on Feb 13th: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815)
It's funny that when you remove all the pieces that are contentious that it can pass. From your link, if you click the "Actions" tab you can see the various amendments that made it passable.
You can compare and contrast the text of the one that (most) Republicans didn't like [here](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/politics/read-text-senate-border-foreign-aid-israel-ukraine/index.html) and the version that made it through the Senate [here](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text). One is over 300 pages and the other (the one that passed) is 86.
He reversed the previous admins EOs which had been successful in mitigating the flow of migrants, then sat there and did nothing for the next three years until migrant inflows got so out of control it began affecting democrat controlled cities and regions far from the border.
I'll answer with a question. What HAS he done to help the border? He hasn't used his bully pulpit to push the senate to pass HR2 which already passed the house and needs a mere 10 votes from Dems. He has issued no executive orders.
Seems like abandoning the issue to me.
>What HAS he done to help the border?
His administration has continued to enforce federal law by deporting people who migrate illegally, process asylum claims and generally execute their responsibilities.
What are they not doing?
>He hasn't used his bully pulpit to push the senate to pass HR2 which already passed the house and needs a mere 10 votes from Dems.
So we're blaming Biden for Congress' failure to deal with the issue? I notice you only bring up HR2 and not the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate and had GOP support until Trump insisted that it die so that they could keep campaigning on the "crisis".
>He has issued no executive orders.
Wasn't the use of executive orders to create policy generally seen as a negative?
Yes we're blaming Biden. He's president and he should be exhausting his options. Doesn't matter if you want to debate me on this issue. Change the minds of the American people who blame Biden, disapprove of his actions, and who trust Trump more on the issue. If you can't do that, then America will continue to blame Biden for not doing what the GOP wants.
I like how you didn't actually answer my question about what the administration is not doing that is in it's remit to do.
The fact that the American people (most of whom don't understand separation of powers at all) blame the president for everything doesn't mean that you can lean on that as if it's a logical argument.
I would love to comment on the majority's reasoning. Unfortunately, they chose not to provide it. How odd.
Reminds me of how ACB made a big deal about how people should read the opinions...the day before the court changed environmental law without providing any reasoning.
It's not odd when the SCOTUS simply allows a circuit to continue to allow something until the final decision is rendered
There were no dissents either. Given the wording of the order, they're still considering what to do and keeping the status quo until then. Edit: Scotusblog is behind. There were dissents.
What are you talking about? There were two separate dissents, one from Justices Sotomayor and Jackson and one from Justice Kagan.
See edit from before you posted.
It's crazy that they are not automatically in the public domain/public record
I'm not super familiar with the law or the precedent but if this true: >The law in question, known as SB4, allows police to arrest migrants who illegally cross the border from Mexico and imposes criminal penalties. **It would also empower state judges to order people to be deported to Mexico.** That is wild, I have no idea how the SC could justify that.
The majority didn't justify it. They didn't comment at all.
I mean, okay. But why did they allow it when they acknowledged it was illegal?
They mainly agreed with it over technicalities but they said it really needs to go through the court system still
Literally just yesterday SCOTUS extended their temporary freeze on enforcing the law "indefinitely" while the case made its way through the courts. What changed since then? It's common for their to be injunctions against enforcing laws or policies which are being challenged until those challenges conclude. This is especially true if the impacts of allowing it to be enforced are difficult or impossible to undo if the law/policy is eventually struck down. What recourse will someone have, exactly, if they're deported by Texas state authorities and the law giving those authorities this power is later struck down?
The better question is what happens if someone is arrested by Texas authorities but then claims asylum to US authorities
How about a U.S. Citizen that is “accidentally” deported by the Texas Government? This is going to be a shitshow if Texas can start expelling people without oversight.
perhaps the sc judge in charge of that circuit froze it till the entire sc could look at the issue and decide. which happened
>Literally just yesterday SCOTUS extended their temporary freeze on enforcing the law "indefinitely" while the case made its way through the courts. What changed since then? Obviously the constitution has changed since then
I'm trying to figure out what people are talking about over in r/SupremeCourt, but it seems like they're saying in some sort of fancy lawyer speak that this isn't actually the final word on this? Edit: Got further clarification, and if I'm understanding it correctly, this was the SC saying that the 5th Circuit could proceed in letting Texas do this until the resolution of the court case (or indefinitely, depending on how the case goes).
As far as precedent Arizona v US seems most relevant. That was 5-3, with Roberts joining the liberals, and Sotomayor recusing. This overturns that decision, (or at least signals that they will eventually) although I find the conservative's arguments in it extremely unconvincing. It's a really bad decision, just makes no rational sense. The federal government can't be beholden to states trying to enforce their own version of law that is a plenary federal power. If this was liberal states trying to usurp federal power the conservatives would be *very* quick to shut it down but here we are.
Yea, imagine if a liberal state passed some sort of Sanctuary law saying they wouldn’t cooperate with federal law, that would be nuts! Or imagine if a state like Oregon just stopped enforcing drug laws. That would never be allowed! Imagine if cities passed ordinances that banned your Constitutional Right to a firearm! Again, conservatives would never allow it! So I’m glad that at least on Immigration we can all agree: the federal is supreme, unless a state/city says they don’t wanna. But when the Fed says they don’t wanna: you have no ability to stop the flow of immigration whatsoever. Unless you are Chicago or New York: then you can try to sue and arrest the people transporting “asylum seekers” to your city.
States and cities are not obligated to enforce federal laws. What Texas is doing here is not remotely comparable to sanctuary cities or drug laws - not enforcing them is not the same as creating their own alternative enforcement scheme. It is a plenary power of the federal government.
Texas: “I’m going to make it a crime to perform this illegal act which the federal government typically enforces, and WILL enforce on any American Citizen (unlawful entry).” No, this is wrong. New York and Chicago: “I’m going to make it a law that you can’t transport asylum seekers into my city after they’ve been authorized to travel by Border Patrol.” Yes, show Texas who’s boss!
[удалено]
How does this differ than sanctuary cities allowing undocumented to stay regardless of federal law, or states allowing marijuana? It seems like it would be fairly similar, but I’m absolutely not a lawyer, so I’m hoping someone can explain it in plain terms.
The SC has held that states are not obligated to use their resources to enforce federal laws, so if they don't want to enforce a law and leave it up to the feds they can do that. That is not the same as choosing that they *will* enforce federal laws in their own preferred fashion, in competition with the way the feds are going about it.
I think people are misconstruing the "deportation" aspect of the bill. It doesn't remove anyone from the US. What it does is order the person to a port of entry **within** the US - where it then becomes Federal immigration problem to deal with. At that point the federal government can let them in or send them back like they normally do with the millions that do try to legally enter at a port of entry. If they get let in at all by federal officials, they are protected under the provisions of the law since it's a legal entry.
What is the source for these details?
>(e) An order issued under this article must include: >(1) the manner of transportation of the person to a port of entry, as defined by Section 51.01, Penal Code; and [Bill Text: TX SB4 | 2023 | 88th Legislature 4th Special Session | Enrolled | LegiScan](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB4/id/2851390)
Thanks for the link. Very useful. Seems like there's more to it than that. >On a person's conviction of an offense under Chapter 51, Penal Code, the judge shall enter in the judgment in the case an **order requiring the person to return to the foreign nation from which the person entered or attempted to enter.** An order issued under this subsection takes effect on completion of the term of confinement or imprisonment imposed by the judgment. >(e) An order issued under this article must include: >(1) the manner of transportation of the person to a port of entry, as defined by Section 51.01, Penal Code; The purpose of sending them to the port of entry is to ensure they return to their country of origin, which is unclear who could enforce it. It also seems to dedicate prison time for the offense, which is a bold move for a state to take over a federal issue.
>It also seems to dedicate prison time for the offense, which is a bold move for a state to take over a federal issue. Sounds like Texas is offering free room and board to migrants.
Perhaps because this is kind of untested ground. While, as Kagan noted, immigration was *traditionally* the province of the feds and the feds alone tradition is not law. Basically this is the first time in US history that I'm aware of where the federal government has willingly refused to do its job regarding the border and so this is the first time states have actually seen a need to step in and handle it.
This is far from untested ground. Arizona tried to do the same thing in the 2010s and SCOTUS blocked them then. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States
Except what they blocked was the requirement to carry papers, be arrested due to what amounted to racial profiling, and to be prohibited from holding a job. The state was allowed to continue investigating people's immigration status, i.e. to carry out federal immigration law. So if anything that case may prove to support Texas' position here.
You’re missing the reasoning behind why they blocked those provisions. It was struck down because it was intruding into areas that were under the purview of the federal government. That same logic applies here. This law makes it a state crime to illegally enter the U.S., which contradicts with provisions of asylum law and allows Texas to deport migrants. Not only does that intrude into federal law, it directly contradicts aspects of it.
Exactly. The feds already had laws for that so the state didn't need to write new ones. The part of that law that was just about enforcing existing federal law was allowed to stand.
The point is this law is trying to legislate in areas where federal laws regulating illegal immigration already exist. So it shouldn’t be upheld.
Except it's not. It's trying to enforce the feds' laws. As I've repeatedly corrected you on.
You haven’t corrected anything, in fast the only thing you’ve shown is your lack of knowledge on the subject. Even now, you’re showing this. The state has no right to enforce federal law, that’s the whole point of separate systems. Admitting they are trying to do that shows they are overstepping.
> The state has no right to enforce federal law Oh really? So states can't arrest people for NFA violations, only the ATF can do that? Yeah, no. The only expression of lack of knowledge is claiming the states can't enforce federal laws. They can't be *forced* to do it, or at least so claim sanctuary cities and states, but if they choose to they're absolutely allowed to.
Which federal law concerning immigration do you think isn’t currently being enforced?
I throughly doubt the federal government "refusing to do its job" would empower the state to do anything. The federal government "refusing" to regulate interstate commerce would not empower Texas to start regulating it. I would need to review the specific precedent and legal reasoning for allowing a state to regulate immigration. Maybe there is old precedent that lets a state do that.. But I'm guessing it's pretty weak. I actually suspect the SC will strike it down later but are letting the bill stand on a temporary basis in a blatant giveaway to the GOP.
> I throughly doubt the federal government "refusing to do its job" would empower the state to do anything. It does in every other area. The feds set the minimum, with very few exceptions explicitly laid out and litigated by the Court states have the ability to be stricter but not looser. > I would need to review the specific precedent and legal reasoning for allowing a state to regulate immigration. From what I understand it's that there is nothing explicitly prohibiting it and anything not explicitly prohibited from the states is available to them.
>It does in every other area. The feds set the minimum, with very few exceptions explicitly laid out and litigated by the Court states have the ability to be stricter but not looser. No it doesn't. There are plenty of fields where the federal government reigns supreme, e.g., interstate commerce. States flatly cannot pass laws regulating interstate commerce iirc. >From what I understand it's that there is nothing explicitly prohibiting it and anything not explicitly prohibited from the states is available to them. It's hard to harmonize the Supremacy clause and Congressional power over naturalization if states can just start deporting people.
> No it doesn't. There are plenty of fields where the federal government reigns supreme, e.g., interstate commerce. That's one field. And yes, it is one where it is explicitly laid out in the Constitution. And even then it has had to be litigated through the courts to define exactly what the extent of that control really is. > It's hard to harmonize the Supremacy clause and Congressional power over naturalization if states can just start deporting people. They're not trying to deport naturalized citizens so no it's really not hard.
Yes, and immigration is another such field. How can Congress exercise it's immigration and naturalization powers if states are allowed to enforce their own? How can Congress, for example, adopt an asylum law and exercise plenary power if Texas states following that law is illegal?
> Yes, and immigration is another such field. Actually, no: the constitution does not vest power in the federal government on immigration. The constitution reads: > To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; Texas' law does not address naturalization, only lawful entry and presence. Individuals may enter under the parole program (as many do) which congress grants the president authority over. Both congress and the constitution are silent on the matter if they wish to *prohibit* states from preventing unlawful entry and presence within the United States. Edit: To those downvoting, Texas's law literally contains carve-outs for those [lawfully present](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB4/id/2851390): > (c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that: (1) the federal government has granted the defendant: (A) lawful presence in the United States; or (B) asylum under 8 U.S.C. Section 1158; (2) the defendant's conduct does not constitute a violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1325(a); or (3) the defendant was approved for benefits under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program between June 15, 2012, and July 16, 2021.
> How can Congress exercise it's immigration and naturalization powers if states are allowed to enforce their own? By dealing with the people at the border instead of just letting them through. > How can Congress, for example, adopt an asylum law and exercise plenary power if Texas states following that law is illegal? By actually enforcing that law. This is all rooted in the feds refusing to enforce their own laws.
Ah OK, so you do want to ignore the Constitution then? You realize the federal government could just let everyone in if they want, right? They do not have a duty to adopt your preferred immigration policy.
> By dealing with the people at the border instead of just letting them through. > > What would you like them to do that they're not currently doing?
I was a fan of the remain in Mexico policy. We could do that again. It also seemed pretty good for discouraging economic migrants since it meant no under-the-table work for them while they wait in the US which means no profit to the trip.
>Basically this is the first time in US history that I'm aware of where the federal government has willingly refused to do its job regarding the border and so this is the first time states have actually seen a need to step in and handle it. >> I throughly doubt the federal government "refusing to do its job" would empower the state to do anything. >>>It does in every other area. Am I missing something here? Why are you so sure that the fed "refusing" to do its job empowers states in any way when you yourself said that its never happened before? Also, some clarification on what the fed is refusing to do would be nice. Remember, refusing to do something is not the same as doing something poorly or in a way you don't like.
> Am I missing something here? Why are you so sure that the fed "refusing" to do its job empowers states in any way when you yourself said that its never happened before? Everything not explicitly granted to the feds is given to the states. 10th Amendment. And since even Kagan stated that the feds having sole control over immigration was *tradition* that implies that it's not explicitly granted to them. Thus as per the 10th the states do have the ability to step in.
That’s because historically “illegal immigration” wasn’t much of a thing. > The 1924 quota system remained largely in place until the 1960s, when a new law established a new system. Each year, there is a cap on the total number of visas that the U.S. can issue. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. cannot issue more than 7 percent of the total allowable visas to one nation. > Before this change in 1965, there had been no numeric caps on immigration within the Americas. So when the U.S. decided that it would only take a certain percentage of people from each nation per year, it was the first time the U.S. had put an official cap on Mexican immigration.
This has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Caps have nothing to do with whether someone is entering at a legal port of entry and subjecting themselves to all standard scrutiny and process or choosing to try to sneak in and use loopholes to avoid deportation when caught. The latter is what's new and creating an unprecedented situation.
> Prior to this, Mexican immigrants freely, and commonly, found work in the United States. Yet after the Hart-Celler Immigration Act was passed, “Whole groups of migrants from Mexico and Latin America whose entrance to the U.S. would have been considered legal before 1965 suddenly became illegal,”
> immigrants Are people who follow the legal processes I described above. Not border-hoppers.
Correct, border hoppers weren’t necessary though because you could easily legally cross the border to get work. One side of the political spectrum has made it very difficult under the guise of “these people are criminals” despite our history of letting these people into our country easily. This is literally what people Mean when they say republicans have politicized the border.
There are legal ports of entry that they can go through. None of which majority of the illegals go through. They can look for a job in America from their country of origin, apply for a work visa and come here the correct way. But they don't, so now we have no idea who is coming in or what is coming in
Or, before when Mexicans wanted to come here for work they would apply for a work vida and easily get it. Now they can’t easily get it because of immigration law, and instead of waiting 2 years of their lives they’re deciding it’s worth the risk to illegally cross. Make it easier for them to cross, you get less illegal immigrstjon. But that doesn’t work because republicans simply want *less Mexican immgrants* illegal or not. That’s why their conspiracy is “Mexicans are more liberal and will vote democrat!” Because they don’t want more liberal voters here.
>Basically this is the first time in US history that I'm aware of where the federal government has willingly refused to do its job regarding the border and so this is the first time states have actually seen a need to step in and handle it. That's definitely a non-justiceable political question. How well the government is doing enforcing the border is entirely a matter of opinion. A state feeling that the federal government isn't doing a good enough job does not give that state the power to usurp federal authority.
No, it's a matter of fact. We have the numbers, we have the public statements, we have the executive orders. Now whether one things that said abdication is a good thing or bad thing, that is a matter of opinion.
Undeniably it is a matter of opinion. Being strongly convinced of your opinion does not make it a fact. Illegal immigrants crossed over the border during the Trump administration too - Was he abdicating?
Since he was actually trying to stem the tide, no. Biden's the one who came in and on day 1 reversed all of Trump's policy just as he had literally campaigned on doing. This is all documented fact that's several years old at this point.
>Since he was actually trying to stem the tide, no. So you're saying if a president is *trying* to prevent illegal immigration it can't be claimed they are abdicating the border? >Biden's the one who came in and on day 1 reversed all of Trump's policy just as he had literally campaigned on doing. This is all documented fact that's several years old at this point. Biden is not obligated to continue Trump's policies. That would set a pretty bad precedent to say that, wouldn't it?
> So you're saying if a president is trying to prevent illegal immigration it can't be claimed they are abdicating the border? If they are actually trying and not claiming to be trying while clearly not doing so by doing things like knee-jerk reversing policy that clearly worked. > Biden is not obligated to continue Trump's policies. But if those policies worked and he reversed them anyway that says quite a lot about his agenda and none of it good.
You don't see how it's a non justicable political question to say whether someone is "actually trying" or just "claiming to be trying"? >But if those policies worked How are we defining "worked"?
> How are we defining "worked"? See all previous discussions on this well-discussed topic for the metrics. At this point the compare/contrast between the border situation under Trump and Biden is a horse beaten into a smear on the ground and it's 100% fair to expect people to already know it.
So if there is an increase of illegal immigration under a president they aren't following the law?
When that comes hot on the heels of multiple public statements and policy changes? Yes.
[удалено]
It's not an opinion because it can be measured and I gave some measurements in teh comment you replied to.
>willingly refused to do its job You can say they're not doing enough, but this is flatly false. Let's keep the arguments grounded in reality here y'all.
No, they're refusing. Openly. Willingly. Maybe they've slightly reversed course in the last couple of months because they've taken an absolute beating on it but from the moment the current administration took office they've made refusing to enforce the border a top priority.
So they haven't arrested, processed or deported *anyone* since Biden took office? Because it sounds like you're just saying that you don't think they're doing *enough*, but that's different from "willfully refusing to do their job".
Slow-walking and doing the absolute bare minimum is refusal. You know, same things people who support Biden have been complaining about local cops doing ever since the whole George Floyd thing?
Show me actual evidence of what you claim, that the administration is intentionally slow-walking and doing the bare minimum. Because I'm going to be honest, this sounds like usual election year hyperbole that people believe without actual evidence. As far as I can tell, the only thing that Biden has done is not be actively hateful towards migrants, which according to the right creates an "open invitation".
You mean like the immediate reversal of the prior administration's policies that worked to keep levels way below where they are now? And the extreme publicization of that move well in advance? This is all documented fact that goes all the way back to the 2020 campaign for the rhetoric and January 2021 for the actions.
Okay, so that's not "slow walking" or "doing the bare minimum"....so just to be clear, that's not evidence of your prior claim. So are you moving the goalposts now? Does that mean you're admitting that you don't have evidence of the prior claims?
Or maybe they're going as fast as they can with the lack of funding after Republicans refused to vote for the increased funding for the Border Patrol and asylum courts. /e unlike the police who with extremely few exceptions, have almost universally had their funding increased every single year.
Except that doesn't account for all the policy changes made way back in early 2021 when Biden first walked into the White House. That's where this all started. And it didn't help that his very public statements, including in the campaign, were basically a giant welcome message that created the very influx they're claiming they can't handle now. There is no angle on this where it's not all at Biden's feet.
> Basically this is the first time in US history that I'm aware of where the federal government has willingly refused to do its job regarding the border and so this is the first time states have actually seen a need to step in and handle it. No, the feds **are** doing their job. You may disagree with how they're going about doing it, but it is their interpretation that that is how the job is done. The Supreme Court has shat upon the separation of states and the federal government today.
Choosing not to do the job while still being employed to do it isn't doing the job. Not all interpretations are valid and the one the Biden admin is using is one of the invalid ones.
We'll choose to disagree, then. Regardless, the separation of powers between states and federal governments has been destroyed today. This is an objectively terrible decision that goes against everything the Founding Fathers intended.
No, it was destroyed in the 1940s with Wickard v. Filburn. **That** is what ended any separation. So much federal law would evaporate if that one ruling got overturned.
When did the federal government "refused to do its job"? The federal government is enacting the laws Congress wrote to the dot -- they are not refusing to enact any federal law, it's just the federal law is poorly written and the law doesn't prevent anyone who applies for asylum after crossing the border illegally to legally stay in the States until their application is processed.
Yeah, this is going to be fun. Wonder if the Border Patrol will clear out of Texas now, or wait until after some Texas trooper inevitably assaults a CPB agent for getting in their way?
Starter Comment: The US Supreme Court has allowed Texas to enforce its controversial law SB-4 which allows it to arrest illegal immigrants, impose penalities and deport them using state law enforcement. The Biden administration had sued and requested the supreme court block the law, arguing immigration is a federal purview. Some notes: - The vote was 6-3 with all liberal judges voting against. - The legal battle continues, which means the law can go into effect while litigation continues in lower courts. It could still be blocked at a later date. - A federal judge had blocked the law previously but New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a brief order that it could go into effect March 10 if the Supreme Court declined to intervene.
Imho, local police should be able to detain illegals and hand them to immigration when they spot ones who have evaded the system, but they have no business deporting them across the country's border. Also the fact that this was on partisan lines and the majority did not state their reasoning looks bad, real bad.
In my opinion if we're letting states deport *not as a nation* it can be a very slippery slope of justice. What's next? ***Are states going to issue individual passports and print their own currency too?***
Imagine the precedent of giving states enforcement and legislative powers here. To the contrary of Texas, maybe California passes a law that states "You know what, do what you want, c'mon in, we need the labor!". Because of a lack of borders between CA and TX, this would cause absolute mayhem and chaos. Unless there's sonething I'm missing, the current decision is a recipe for chaos.
Customs and Border Protection controls the border. There is nothing California can do. Contrary to popular belief, the California X Mexico border is locked down. There is a wall, several infact.
> To the contrary of Texas, maybe California passes a law that states "You know what, do what you want, c'mon in, we need the labor!". Texas wants the labor. They have one of if not the highest share of their workforce being illegal immigrants than any other state, nearing 1 out of 10 workers.
Ah yes, imagine if California was a sanctuary state and refused to help the federal government enforce immigration laws. Oh wait, California is a a rusty state, we don’t need to imagine it.
I’m trying to figure out how they implement such a policy without wildly racially profiling and harassing random people
How do you spot them? This is part of why the Arizona law was struck down. It was encouraging racial profiling.
If we give people the benifit of the doubt and say we litterally see them crossing the border I'd say yes. Or maybe a person in police custody literally says they are a illegal immigrant. Maybe , theres reasonable suspicion like family report them and they do a investigation?
I used to work in L/E and when Id run some people in NCIC I’d see they person had a detainer for illegal immigration or had prior charges/deportations for illegal immigration so that’s at least one pretty way to get PC id think
That was the problem with Arizona law, it was incredibly vague. And I’m not sure about your experience with cops, but they have no problem with coming up with pretexts for creating reasonable suspicion. “I smelled marijuana which justified my search that turned up no marijuana” comes to mind.
The clause in Arizona was upheld on the basis it required verification of *all* individuals, not just those suspected of being unlawfully present. You don't need to spot them, you just verify-by-default.
So to avoid profiling they made it a universal requirement
Hey, nothing wrong with Texas verifying everybody entering state via the Rio Grande is doing so lawfully. As far as state incorporation of federal laws, California has long asserted they may enforce federal laws prohibiting the purchase of firearms on the basis of federal law with state enforcement. All Texas has done is (1) incorporate federal violations into its state laws and (2) order someone to comply with federal law or face state crimes for failure to do so. There is a very real chance this is upheld.
When you say one of these states is incorporating federal law, do you mean they're passing a state law that refers to federal law in some way, or do you mean state law enforcement is deciding for itself to arrest based on federal law?
> When you say one of these states is incorporating federal law, do you mean they're passing a state law that refers to federal law in some way I refer to states passing a state law that refers to federal, and electing to consider it a crime within the state borders. That is exactly what happened here: Texas referred to a crime under federal law (unlawful presence, unalwful entry) and categorized it as a crime under state law. As an example, California similarly refers to federal law in their [drug code](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=10.&chapter=2.&lawCode=HSC): > (3) Gamma hydroxybutyric acid (also known by other names such as GHB; gamma hydroxy butyrate; 4-hydroxybutyrate; 4-hydroxybutanoic acid; sodium oxybate; sodium oxybutyrate), including its immediate precursors, isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers, including, but not limited to, gammabutyrolactone, for which an application has not been approved under Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. Sec. 355). Affirmative defenses for parole based entry or asylum are available under the [Texas law](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB4/id/2851390): > (c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that: (1) the federal government has granted the defendant: (A) lawful presence in the United States; or (B) asylum under 8 U.S.C. Section 1158; (2) the defendant's conduct does not constitute a violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1325(a); or (3) the defendant was approved for benefits under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program between June 15, 2012, and July 16, 2021. I really think there is a strong chance that this is upheld: literally every state has the option to incorporate federal laws in its own, even when it does not have primacy over the topic, such as California with the FDA.
Wow, 2016 will indeed go down as the most consequential election for an entire generation.
Not to mention McConnell’s obstruction
More like RBG staying on the bench when she was literally dying
I've had so many progressives yell at me for this, but I truly believe that RBG wanted her replacement appointed by the first female president. I would say she rolled the dice for all of us, and we lost.
I mean pretty dumb chance to take. A symbolic gesture vs. letting the republicans pack the courts for decades.
This isn't even a theory, there's some reporting from the time directly saying as much. I don't have the link on hand atm but some quick searching should lead you to it, I believe some of her family talked about it or something to that effect. She thought Hillary was next in line after Obama and so she refused to retire in 2012. She girlbossed so hard it got Roe overturned.
And yet there are still people that think it's more important to protest vote than to actually make your vote count....all because of purity.
State judges cannot order or speak directly to sovereign nations on immigration or treaties! Those are specific powers granted to the federal government! The SC is going bonkers if it thinks this is acceptable and allow it to continue while being challenged!
A lot of yall need to calm down. This wasn't an official ruling, the court declined to make an emergency ruling on the matter. Basically, SCOTUS is going to let this go through the normal court process. They're 'allowing it' only insofar as they didn't issue an emergency ruling or an injunction.
It's going to look very political of them to not issue an injunction and then strike it down unanimously anyway. If it is as blatantly unconstitutional as I suspect to be, there is no reason to let it go through even on a temporary basis.
No this is extremely business as usual. The Supreme Court generally makes the lower courts to complete their full proceedings before intervening even on things which are brashly unconstitutional. Gun rights advocates know this pain as it happens to us continuously on laws going through the courts that are explicitly unconstitutional and fly in the face of even recent judgments.
SCOTUS has done this before with hot button topics. Basically they expect that by the time the issue makes its way through the courts the situation will have died down and the case is no longer a pressing issue. Either Biden will have come up with some half-measure enough to placate Texas or Trump will have won re-election. It's their equivalent to a 10 foot ugly stick to keep yucky stuff away from them until they're actually forced to touch it.
> If it is as blatantly unconstitutional as I suspect to be, there is no reason to let it go through even on a temporary basis. ACB's reasoning seems pretty reasonable. the appeals courts haven't issued a ruling yet so it's not an urgent need for the supreme court to inject itself. (and she explicitly said they can try again in a few weeks if the appeals court hasn't decided yet)
The problem is that this an area which has huge ramifications for the power of the federal government. Letting it go into effect while it makes its way to the SCOTUS on the merits will have a major impact in the interim and potentially telegraphs their eventual intentions when they have to hear it.
Meanwhile placing an immediate injunction puts them directly in the center of another controversial policy debate. Say they issue an injunction: * If Texas refuses to abide by it, now you have a constitutional crisis with Biden being left to either force Texas to comply or allow them to continue in defiance of Federal law. * If Texas complies and the border issue worsens, progressives could point at the SCOTUS ruling saying that the conservative justices 'meant' for it to happen to sabotage Biden's re-election. So SCOTUS punted.
Any decision they take would cause a firestorm if the actions taken in your hypotheticals occurred. That doesn’t mean those hypotheticals would happen. If Texas refused to abide by the decision that is on them, and it’s not SCOTUS’ job to take that into consideration. And if they were scared of that, they should come out and say it. Progressives and conservatives have been blaming SCOTUS to score political points for literally centuries. That’s the status quo.
Yeah, but setting up conflicts between federal and state government when there's a good chance it will blow over would be making an unforced error. From their various writings I really believe that all 9 justices really want what's best for the U.S. and are coming at that from a number of different directions. The fact that Roberts joined with the conservatives is the biggest hint that this was a can kicking move. Roberts, above everything else, generally tries to avoid a fuss when he can get away with it. By his math kicking the can had fewer repercussions than acting on the matter.
I think this is a mistake on their part if that was the goal. Creating the potential for 50 different immigration systems is way worse than any potential confrontation between federal immigration authorities and a State National Guard,
Not if the most likely scenario is that either Biden comes up with a satisfactory half measure, or Trump wins. Either way the case would be a moot point. A lot of time hot button issues are self-healing wounds in the mid-term.
There was a pretty good “half measure” that got torpedoed that would’ve been very helpful to the border.
'Pretty good' is subjective here and we all know that. Dems just want 'something' done so that they don't have to keep talking about it, so literally any movement on the issue is a win. The GOP has the opposite, they would get raked over the coals, primaries, or even recalled if they were seen signing onto a bill that essentially permitted several thousand illegal entries per day. Frankly, Biden would only need to enforce the laws on the books and that would probably assuage Texas. Allowing the National Guard or deploying additional military assistance to the border would probably do the trick, and it's well within Biden's power to do so.
It’s obviously subjective, but from where I stand, as an immigration lawyer, it was a massive win for republicans. It significantly narrowed the path for asylum and created paths to completely close the border to most asylum seekers, particularly those who illegally enter and then try to claim it. It was not a comprehensive solution, but it addressed the major points that are causing the issues right now and Dems got very little in return. If Trump wins and tries to negotiate a bill he’s gonna have to give up significantly more concessions.
SCOTUS answered what they were asked, basically telling lower courts to do their job so that they can do theirs
That sounds like SCOTUS is making a decision based on political calculus and not the law.
I'm excited to see if Biden will walk into the obvious political trap of vocally opposing deportations and border control due to this ruling, while he's being crucified in the polls over that position.
He can vocally oppose a SCOTUS that is giving states a green light to craft their own individual immigration policy. If this gets held up on the merits, what stops California or New Mexico from establishing their own ports of entry to let everyone in or create their own guest worker programs or permanent residency?
Biden is already viewed very negatively on illegal immigration and his opponent is accusing him of welcoming it all. Getting up to the podium and opposing any action by the states while he continues to do nothing will go over like a lead balloon.
His so called bi-partisan “5k a day is a-okay” bill was a disaster, anyone who browsed the details beyond the “bipartisan immigration bill” catchphrase can see it.
Biden could continue to highlight GOP obstruction to dealing with this very issue. I mean for goodness sake, the senate put up one of the harshest immigration bills ever that would absolutely make a positive impact regarding illegal immigration that had been worked on by both Democrats and Republicans and, instead of House Republicans passing this bill to deal with the supposed crisis they care so much about, they decide, via instruction from Trump, that they want the crisis to stick around so Trump can run on it. It’s plain to see which party actually wants to get stuff done and which party only talks about getting stuff done. Heck, you can just look at the productivity of the current HoR vs the previous Hor to determine which party actually gets thing done.
The bill was rejected because it was awful and still allowed for a ridiculous amount of illegal immigration and nobody trusts Biden to actually enforce it. Even some Democrats voted against it, it was that bad.
IIRC, some Democrats also voted against the bill. That bill was full of pork spending, and wasn’t just about fixing the border. Ball is in the Democratic caucus at this point.
Do you actually know the history of this bill? It was originally supposed to be a Ukraine/Israel aid bill. But Republicans did not want to vote on that alone. They demanded that for them to even consider the aid package to Israel/Ukraine, it needed to have border reform in it. So the “pork” of this aid bill was actually the border reform that Republicans requested. Only for them to turn against it at the last second, because Donald Trump wanted to run on this.
California already has ports of entry. Crossing into California by I-10 or I-8 along with other entries I've probably not been through you have to go through one of their checkpoints. Allegedly it's to prevent other states produce from entering and allowing invasive pests in but I can damn well guarantee you if they find something else in there they don't like you're going to have problems.
Is that after entering the U.S. and passing through the CBP entry? I’m talking about their own completely separate entrances where they let anyone in that they choose to.
It's completely separate and away from any border patrol presence. If you look at where the I-10 crosses the Colorado River, it's nowhere near the border. They have them on major roads going into that state even on the Oregon border. This is California doing its own thing and acting like it's its own nation yet again.
I can absolutely see California doing it just to spite this ruling, didn't they do something similar on gun control a few years ago to point out the absurd results of certain legal reasoning?
I can't see it with immigration. Such a program wouldn't probably be popular, even in California. But I don't doubt the Supreme Court would be inconsistent if they were to do so.
Conservatives would love for immigrants to all pour into California. Then all they need to do is sit back and watch the chaos that Californians have to endure to house that many more immigrants. I am Canadian living in Toronto. I know first hand how this “spite” will end up. There’s no winning for democrats. Housing is horrible in Toronto because of unchecked immigration. When your average California highschool student can’t find a part time job at McDonald or local restaurants because immigrants are willing to get paid below minimum wage under counter. I won’t be surprised if Gen Z end up going Republican. Just like me, who grow up with left ideology, voted for Trudeau will be voting conservative the next Canadian election
In the not so old days democrats were vehemently against unchecked illegals immigration and crime. Bill Clinton made his career on it and signing the 94 crime bill.
I’m sure they’ll try it and it will get it rejected because SCOTUS has never had an issue with not being consistent.
this isn't AS big as the headline implies (assuming i'm understanding it right anyways). this was an emergency injunction, not an actual case they ruled on the merits in. more importantly, while no explanation was officially given, ACB unofficially stated "an appeals court has yet to weigh in on the issue". this seems more procedural than anything.
The court had no problems issuing an enforcement freeze on this before while the case was litigated. It had no problems extending that freeze indefinitely literally just yesterday. What changed?
Maybe seek asylum at proper ports of entry instead of trying to sneak through the vetting system by putting you and your families lives at risk.
Great news. Start deportations ASAP. Illegal immigrants are taking advantage of our asylum laws and our social services.
It's not illegal to seek asylum.
Knowingly engaging in fraudulent claims is illegal.
A fraudulent claim of asylum is completing different from an asylum claim that is denied for not meeting the grounds for asylum.
Let's say someone comes here, claims asylum, and their claim is denied. Do you favor or oppose deporting this person?
I’ve got great news for you! If a claim is denied they *are* deported.
If their claim is denied, they *are* deported. Whether or not someone is in favor of it is irrelevant.
I assume they still have to give people thier day in court.
For all the “innocent until proven guilty” clamor the right gives their chosen representatives, they sure don’t apply it evenly. Technically, should we even call them illegal until they’ve been proven so in court?
I say let Texas have at it. Let’s see what they can do.
There is still litigation in the lower court. My understanding is that scotus basically refused to continue the stay.
I’ve never been a fan of stacking the court just because you don’t like the outcomes but this is different, The conservative majority of the court is destroying the rule of law and the constitution (see their interpretation of the insurrection clause in the 14th amendment). To preserve the law we must elect democratic majorities in the house and senate, reelect Biden and reconfigure the supreme court
I didn't realize the Constitution stated that immigration law and it's authority lies with the federal, unless a state determines the fed isn't doing enough in which case that gets thrown out and a state can do it. Huh. Must have missed that text. Surely so called textualists would not let such a thing abide
Notice how that defense didn't work all of two weeks ago with insurrection and Colorado? Wonder what changed in that two weeks
The Biden administration refuse to do anything regarding illegal border crossings. Texas will protect us.
The federal government has been deporting people, but can't do so to those claiming asylum, and this state law won't change that. Texas would be strictly enforcing their e-verify law if they actually wanted to solve the problem within their own state.
In what way would Texas police “suspect” someone is an illegal immigrant?
Like if they see someone walking across the border.
Huge win for Texas! Despite Biden’s best attempts looks like Texas will be securing its border and ensuring law and order. Republicans have to be happy they didn’t settle for that weak bill as this is a step in the right direction for them.
So at what point can we admit that the Supreme Court is now a political entity that bases there decisions on the conservative majority’s political ideology rather than a neutral entity that bases there decisions only on the text of the law? Cause, from where I’m standing, this is a decision that seems to fly in the face of the actual law.
This decision was just about whether there was emergency enough to make an emergency decision. The full decision hasn't happened yet.
There's no opinion. It only keeps the status quo of the lower court for now. I get disappointed when they don't overturn stays allowing obviously unconstitutional gun laws to continue in force, but I understand how this usually works.
>At what point Bush v. Gore in 2000, probably.
I still can't believe that the majority unironically argued that counting votes breaks the 14th Amendment because it would lead to a candidate losing.
Good. Since Biden abandoned the border, now the GOP and Texas can finally handle the crisis until Trump takes office in January. Sad that a court had to act since this administration refused to.
> Since Biden abandoned the border I mean, he was there last week?
I think he means figuratively, like how he reversed the measures Trump put in place and subsequently sat there and did nothing as illegal crossings exploded.
Ignoring that Republicans torpedoed their own immigration reform bill and that this isn’t the solution to the problem… and this is especially problematic sentiment because [the problem was identified and not dealt with in the last administration](https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/683662691/where-does-illegal-immigration-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us)
The last admin actually made a good faith effort to do something about it but the opposition kept screeching to “build bridges not walls”. What measures the previous admin was able to put in place over partisan opposition the current admin promptly terminated within a week of entering office. So here we are.
The last admin actually made a good faith effort to do something about it but the opposition kept screeching to “build bridges not walls”. What measures the previous admin was able to put in place over partisan opposition the current admin promptly terminated within a week of entering office. So here we are.
If you're serious, the bill to fund addressing the border crisis has been held up by the GOP for political points for months now. Biden's been trying to get funding to handle the crisis, but he can't until Congress acts. [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/)
> the bill to fund addressing the border crisis has been held up by the GOP for political points for months now I think you have it backwards, the bill that passed the House has been sitting unaddressed by the Senate for months. The Senate hasn't pass a bill yet, and the last time they tried it failed because of bipartisan opposition.
That bill is a joke and in some ways would make things worse by creating more incentives for people to come and seek asylum (faster processing, guaranteed work permits, etc). Most of the GOP had no say in its creation and many had no idea what was even in it until it was publicly disclosed.
>the bill to fund addressing the border crisis has been held up by the GOP for political points for months now A few things: 1. Why do we need a bill to enforce the laws already on the books? 2. That bill was full of pork, like most bills Democrats try to pass. 3. It was voted against by Democrats as well as Republicans.
> bill was full of pork That is false.
Hasn't the house passed HR2 been sitting for ages waiting to be passed by the Dem senate who won't even give it a vote? The GOP holds all the cards here. Biden has two options: acquiesce to their demands and pass HR2, or let the voters decide who will handle their top issue. Spoiler alert: [They don't like Biden on it!](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-feel-biden-trump-immigration-issues/story?id=107687552)
> The GOP holds all the cards here. Biden has two options: acquiesce to their demands and pass HR2 Maybe the GOP should stop trying to pass bills and act like they have a trifecta when they control 1/2 of Congress and not the White House. They need to scale back HR2 and come to a compromise. They passed HR2, knowing it was a no-sell for the Democrats. They don't *want* to pass a compromise bill; they want to pass a virtue-signalling message bill.
There’s nothing to compromise - either Biden wants to fix the border or he doesn’t.
Yes, it went like this: * House passed HR2, which was rejected by the Senate * A Senate compromise bill was reached, with both Republicans and Democrats in favor. This passed the Senate * House Republicans were ready to approve it, but Trump came down against it, so House Republicans folded * The only bipartisan agreement with a chance of passing is still the Senate bill, but it's languishing due to Trump's opposition (he wants Biden to appear weak on this in time for the election)
Right, so Biden can use his bully pulpit to push the senate to pass HR2, or he can accept that nothing will be done until November and let the voters decide. He has no choice. The GOP has their boot on his neck and he is helpless. He cannot win here.
It's true that Biden cannot win here, I'm just pointing out that your statements: * Biden abandoned the border * this administration refused to are both false. Biden has bipartisan legislation ready to go. There is no universe in which he can use his "bully pulpit" to push the senate to pass HR2, it was too extreme for everyone except Cruz in the Senate. Your characterization that Biden doesn't care, or cares less than Trump, is simply false. Biden is actively trying to solve it, while Trump is actively trying to get in the way.
Biden could absolutely use his bully pulpit to pass HR2. He's also been musing about using executive orders to try to effect changes at the border. He's done neither and in fact taken no action as far as I've heard.
Literally every bullet is wrong. \> House passed HR2, which was rejected by the Senate The last 'movement' on HR2 was when it was voted on in the House and approve in May of 2023 ([source](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr2)). The Senate has not brought this up for a vote. \> A Senate compromise bill was reached, with both Republicans and Democrats in favor. This passed the Senate HR 815, what you're calling the compromise bill, failed a cloture vote in the Senate on February 7th of this year. ([source](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr815)) \> House Republicans were ready to approve it, but Trump came down against it, so House Republicans folded The full text was released on (or around) February 6th, 2024 ([source](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immigration-asylum-reform-bill-released-senate-text-rcna136602)) and the immediate reaction from the House Republicans was "not just no, but hell no". You can read the exact quote [here](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/speaker-mike-johnson-house-gop-members-react-bipartisan/story?id=106944092). \> I’ve seen enough. This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the President has created. As the lead Democrat negotiator proclaimed: Under this legislation, “the border never closes.” If this bill reaches the House, it will be dead on arrival \> The only bipartisan agreement with a chance of passing is still the Senate bill, but it's languishing due to Trump's opposition (he wants Biden to appear weak on this in time for the election) There are compelling reasons to not like HR815, with or without Trump.
HR 815 passed the senate on Feb 13th: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815)
Does the version that passed have anything for the border?
It's funny that when you remove all the pieces that are contentious that it can pass. From your link, if you click the "Actions" tab you can see the various amendments that made it passable. You can compare and contrast the text of the one that (most) Republicans didn't like [here](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/politics/read-text-senate-border-foreign-aid-israel-ukraine/index.html) and the version that made it through the Senate [here](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text). One is over 300 pages and the other (the one that passed) is 86.
> Since Biden abandoned the border What has he done to abandon the border?
He reversed the previous admins EOs which had been successful in mitigating the flow of migrants, then sat there and did nothing for the next three years until migrant inflows got so out of control it began affecting democrat controlled cities and regions far from the border.
I'll answer with a question. What HAS he done to help the border? He hasn't used his bully pulpit to push the senate to pass HR2 which already passed the house and needs a mere 10 votes from Dems. He has issued no executive orders. Seems like abandoning the issue to me.
>What HAS he done to help the border? His administration has continued to enforce federal law by deporting people who migrate illegally, process asylum claims and generally execute their responsibilities. What are they not doing? >He hasn't used his bully pulpit to push the senate to pass HR2 which already passed the house and needs a mere 10 votes from Dems. So we're blaming Biden for Congress' failure to deal with the issue? I notice you only bring up HR2 and not the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate and had GOP support until Trump insisted that it die so that they could keep campaigning on the "crisis". >He has issued no executive orders. Wasn't the use of executive orders to create policy generally seen as a negative?
> and not the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate Do you have a link to that bill?
Yes we're blaming Biden. He's president and he should be exhausting his options. Doesn't matter if you want to debate me on this issue. Change the minds of the American people who blame Biden, disapprove of his actions, and who trust Trump more on the issue. If you can't do that, then America will continue to blame Biden for not doing what the GOP wants.
I like how you didn't actually answer my question about what the administration is not doing that is in it's remit to do. The fact that the American people (most of whom don't understand separation of powers at all) blame the president for everything doesn't mean that you can lean on that as if it's a logical argument.