Legal opinions

[pseudonym]

I respect Amy Coney Barrett as a jurist. I was surprised she sided with Biden over the Texas border controversy. Can someone explain the legal argument that Texas doesn’t have the right to secure its border? Or that the Federal Government can interfere with Texas securing the border? I haven’t seen any Supreme Court opinions, just that ACB was the swing vote in favor of Biden. I honestly want to know the two sides of the argument.

 

[The Peeper]

From what I understand border protection is spelled out (somewhat vaguely) in the Constitution for federal enforcement and therefore "trumps" (pun intended) any state legislation regarding border enforcement. I know there's much more to it than that but that's the "treat me like I'm 5 years old" answer that I've pieced together.

 

[POTUS]

See, this is where I am firmly in the State's rights camp. A bureaucrat living in Virginia doesn't really have the authority, in my opinion, to tell people who live on the border how to handle their immigration problem. The border states should have out-sized influence on this kind of policy because they bear the brunt of the decisions.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

I thought they said they had the right to cut razor wire, not that they had to cut it.

 

[dorndawg]

Federal law unambiguously supersedes state law in matters of immigration.

 

[thatsbaseball]

Federal law unambiguously supersedes state law in matters of immigration.

So does federal law actually provide for open borders ?

 

[L4Dawg]

It's a Federal responsibility according to the Constitution. I don't like how the feds are doing it but it is unquestionably their turf.

 

[dorndawg]

So does federal law actually provide for open borders ?

Implementation is a political question.

 

[GloryDawg]

I suspect the DOJ will bring charges against Abbott before this is over. It is going to get really ugly. The only way around it for Biden is to just give in and let Texas protect its boarder or activate and federalize the Texas National Guard taking command of it away from the Governor. Texas and Abbott is not backing down.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

I suspect the DOJ will bring charges against Abbott before this is over. It is going to get really ugly. The only way around it for Biden is to just give in and let Texas protect its boarder or activate the Texas National Guard taking command of it away from the Governor. Texas and Abbott is not backing down.

Just go ahead and create the Republic of Texas. At least the California Leftists will move to Canada.**

 

[GloryDawg]

I thought they said they had the right to cut razor wire, not that they had to cut it.

That's my understanding too.

 

[POTUS]

Federal law unambiguously supersedes state law in matters of immigration.

I understand that is true according to the current laws. What I'm saying is that it should be changed. Asking the people in Brownsville to suffer the consequences of decisions made by Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell or any politician of any stripe safely insulated from the border is as close to taxation without representation as one can get, in my opinion that is.

 

[85Bears]

Tate Reeves is the only southern governor who hasn’t put out a statement of support with Texas, unless I missed it.

 

[dorndawg]

I understand that is true according to the current laws. What I'm saying is that it should be changed. Asking the people in Brownsville to suffer the consequences of decisions made by Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell or any politician of any stripe safely insulated from the border is as close to taxation without representation as one can get, in my opinion that is.

I think most of us know this feeling.

 

[85Bears]

I understand that is true according to the current laws. What I'm saying is that it should be changed. Asking the people in Brownsville to suffer the consequences of decisions made by Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell or any politician of any stripe safely insulated from the border is as close to taxation without representation as one can get, in my opinion that is.

Texas is stating they can act if they declare there is an invasion, not an issue of immigration

 

[Rupert Jenkins]

Federal law does supersede state law but they are not enforcing federal law. It is illegal to cross the border. Its against the law to process illegal aliens all over the country. The states also have rights they can impose if the federal Gov't is not enforcing the law. And they are not. The next 10 months are gonna be extremely entertaining. The federal government is an organized crime syndicate.

 

[goindhoo]

I looked into this yesterday and SCOTUS didn't render a detailed opinion. Its a half page order which states the injunction is lifted. So, we are left to speculate on what legal basis the majority sided with lifting the injunction.

The only issue was the injunction against the Feds from cutting the razor wire. I believe the primary argument was prohibiting the Feds from cutting the wire denied them access to the area around the border which they are in charge of protecting.

 

[theoriginalSALTYdog]

I respect Amy Coney Barrett as a jurist. I was surprised she sided with Biden over the Texas border controversy. Can someone explain the legal argument that Texas doesn’t have the right to secure its border? Or that the Federal Government can interfere with Texas securing the border? I haven’t seen any Supreme Court opinions, just that ACB was the swing vote in favor of Biden. I honestly want to know the two sides of the argument.

Texas fickinta kick off the next secession. . . . . .

 

[dorndawg]

Texas fickinta kick off the next secession. . . . . .

Let 'em have at it. They or any other state would be crawling back with their hat in their hand within 5 years.

 

[The Peeper]

A bureaucrat living in Virginia doesn't really have the authority, in my opinion, to tell people who live on the border how to handle their immigration problem. The border states should have out-sized influence on this kind of policy because they bear the brunt of the decisions.

I'm going to play Lucifers advocate w/ you. Ok, lets give the Northern Blue states authority to regulate immigration into their states from Canada. Do you really want Burney Sanders and his constituents in Vermont, Illhan Abdullahi Connor in Minnesota, Chuck Schumer or Alexandra Ocasio Cortez from New York, Rashida Tlaib from Michigan controlling immigration into their states? You may as well say "come on in brothers and sisters, there is no border up here!"

 

[jethreauxdawg]

I'm going to play Lucifers advocate w/ you. Ok, lets give the Northern Blue states authority to regulate immigration into their states from Canada. Do you really want Burney Sanders and his constituents in Vermont, Illhan Abdullahi Connor in Minnesota, Chuck Schumer or Alexandra Ocasio Cortez from New York, Rashida Tlaib from Michigan controlling immigration into their states? You may as well say "come on in brothers and sisters, there is no border up here!"

Is that not the current playbook?

 

[thekimmer]

I am an armchair legal scholar myself but think about the history of Texas. Texas was an independent sovereign nation that joined the United States. There is no way Texas would ever join the states if that meant they totally ceded the defense of their borders to the US. This has been implied that they have the right to defend against an invasion which this surely seems to be. At the very least the Biden administration is creating a Constitutional crisis by refusing to enforce the law in securing the borders of the US and forcing the states to challenge them over it.

 

[dudehead]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4:

[The Congress shall have Power . . .] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...

Raise hell at your Congressman/woman - it is their responsibility.

 

[The Peeper]

Is that not the current playbook?

Not until they write their own laws in each state, then it will be.

 

[BulldogBlitz]

I'm going to play Lucifers advocate w/ you. Ok, lets give the Northern Blue states authority to regulate immigration into their states from Canada. Do you really want Burney Sanders and his constituents in Vermont, Illhan Abdullahi Connor in Minnesota, Chuck Schumer or Alexandra Ocasio Cortez from New York, Rashida Tlaib from Michigan controlling immigration into their states? You may as well say "come on in brothers and sisters, there is no border up here!"

Those northern blue states are enamored with the idea of an open border, but when they started getting them by the bus load, the tune changed quick.

 

[Drebin]

I suspect the DOJ will bring charges against Abbott before this is over. It is going to get really ugly. The only way around it for Biden is to just give in and let Texas protect its boarder or activate and federalize the Texas National Guard taking command of it away from the Governor. Texas and Abbott is not backing down.

Now that 20 states have lined up behind Abbott, the DOJ isn't going to do anything.

 

[Drebin]

I looked into this yesterday and SCOTUS didn't render a detailed opinion. Its a half page order which states the injunction is lifted. So, we are left to speculate on what legal basis the majority sided with lifting the injunction.

The only issue was the injunction against the Feds from cutting the razor wire. I believe the primary argument was prohibiting the Feds from cutting the wire denied them access to the area around the border which they are in charge of protecting.

This. The "SCOTUS ruled in favor of Biden" is overblown.

 

[dorndawg]

I'm going to play Lucifers advocate w/ you. Ok, lets give the Northern Blue states authority to regulate immigration into their states from Canada. Do you really want Burney Sanders and his constituents in Vermont, Illhan Abdullahi Connor in Minnesota, Chuck Schumer or Alexandra Ocasio Cortez from New York, Rashida Tlaib from Michigan controlling immigration into their states? You may as well say "come on in brothers and sisters, there is no border up here!"

Burney Sanders... I laughed.

 

[Shane of Pisgah]

I'm going to play Lucifers advocate w/ you. Ok, lets give the Northern Blue states authority to regulate immigration into their states from Canada. Do you really want Burney Sanders and his constituents in Vermont, Illhan Abdullahi Connor in Minnesota, Chuck Schumer or Alexandra Ocasio Cortez from New York, Rashida Tlaib from Michigan controlling immigration into their states? You may as well say "come on in brothers and sisters, there is no border up here!"

This is a false equivalency because no one's arguing that states should have the authority to regulate immigration to the exclusion of the federal gov't. The issue is whether states have the ability to enforce immigration law when the federal gov't fails and refuses to do its job. In your example, the states have no authority to open their borders in contravention of federal immigration law. Whether a state like Texas has the authority to protect its borders (by enforcing existing federal immigration law) is not as clear cut as some believe.

 

[The Peeper]

This is a false equivalency because no one's arguing that states should have the authority to regulate immigration to the exclusion of the federal gov't. The issue is whether states have the ability to enforce immigration law when the federal gov't fails and refuses to do its job. In your example, the states have no authority to open their borders in contravention of federal immigration law. Whether a state like Texas has the authority to protect its borders (by enforcing existing federal immigration law) is not as clear cut as some believe.

The poster I was replying to seemed to be arguing for the states right to regulate immigration:

"See, this is where I am firmly in the State's rights camp. A bureaucrat living in Virginia doesn't really have the authority, in my opinion, to tell people who live on the border how to handle their immigration problem. The border states should have out-sized influence on this kind of policy because they bear the brunt of the decisions."

 

[pseudonym]

Can anyone confirm what this guy is saying?

 

[WilCoDawg]

Federal law unambiguously supersedes state law in matters of immigration.

What about the matters of invasions?

 

[WilCoDawg]

Can anyone confirm what this guy is saying?

If this was true, then there would be no need for citizenship requirements and such. “You’re not a tourist! You’re now a US citizen!” “Green cards expired? Silly, you’re in the US and can’t be deported because you’re a citizen!”

 

[WilCoDawg]

I wonder if TX can just simply say that they are requiring immigrants to access/enter the US at authorized points of entry.

 

[pseudonym]

Let 'em have at it. They or any other state would be crawling back with their hat in their hand within 5 years.

That might be true of some states, but the day Texas secedes, it will be the 8th largest economy in the world, just behind France and just ahead of Italy.

 

[mstateglfr]

It's worth pointing out that the Southern border isn't Texas' border. It's the US' border.
Semantics?...maybe to some, but it's a distinction that has meaning here since this seems to be an age old argument of 'states rights'.

 

[mstateglfr]

Can anyone confirm what this guy is saying?

As a general rule, I have found it's best to not read comments on X. You usually end up smarter than you would otherwise be.

 

[WrapItDog]

 

[mstateglfr]

I understand that is true according to the current laws. What I'm saying is that it should be changed. Asking the people in Brownsville to suffer the consequences of decisions made by Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell or any politician of any stripe safely insulated from the border is as close to taxation without representation as one can get, in my opinion that is.

This sort of argument can easily be made for just about anything that someone dislikes at the federal level.
'I don't like how the Fed Gvt is handling this, so it should be a state decision to ensure I get what I want!'

A Federal law or Federal enforcement of a law is not taxation without representation, just because you dislike the law or how it is enforced.




To be very clear, I find the current administration's immigration approach and policies to be largely ineffective and unimpressive.
Additionally, I found the prior administration's approach and policies to be abhorrent and embarrassing.
Trump reduced LEGAL immigration, but was ineffective for illegal immigration. This is according to a CATO paper(not exactly a liberal thinktank). https://www.cato.org/blog/president...gration-he-did-not-reduce-illegal-immigration

Our country's immigration actual policies and procedures are a joke. They are slow, limiting, and conflicting. A genuine reform of the entire immigration process needs to happen, but won't.

 

[Hugh's Burner Phone]

Tate Reeves is the only southern governor who hasn’t put out a statement of support with Texas, unless I missed it.

He has now come out in support.