Fifth Circuit Hears Arguments From Texas About Immigration Law
I bet the ruling comes today.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson about the state’s immigration law after it paused its implementation.
Senate Bill 4 allows state law enforcement to arrest and detain illegal immigrants who cross the border outside of legal ports of entry.
Nielson argued that “Texas has a right to defend itself.” He also mentioned “that the district court had acknowledged that ‘sometimes those associated with the cartels cross over the border with malicious intent.'”
Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, a George W. Bush appointee, noted that states don’t have police power to remove people from the U.S.
“This is the first time, it seems to me, that a state has claimed that they had the right to remove illegal aliens,” Richman said.
Nielson responded, “I think that it’s certainly true that a state doesn’t generally have the power to, you know, admit or exclude. But what S.B. 4 does here is you get the order from the judge, and the person is taken to the port of entry.”
The Texas solicitor general argued that the state aimed to be consistent with federal law.
“What we’re trying to do is to make sure that Congress, who sets the national immigration laws, that those laws are followed, and to the extent that we can’t enforce federal law, which we’re not claiming to do, we have laws that are the same as that with respect to these important provisions.”
Chief Justice Andrew Oldham, who dissented on Tuesday to pause the law, wanted to know why the DOJ thinks only the feds can arrest people crossing the border.
DOJ lawyer Daniel Tenny told Oldham that SCOTUS has always recognized immigration enforcement belongs to the feds.
The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to pause the law right after the Supreme Court vacated the stay it placed on the law.
As said above, Oldham dissented.
“A stay preserves the status quo while an appellate court reviews the lawfulness of that alteration,” wrote Oldham. “earlier today, the Supreme Court of the United States restored an administrative stay under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Democrats decided that we did not have enough slums, enough crime and enough unassimilated no-go zones. So, they are importing more.
“You can have Open Borders or a Modern Welfare State. One or the other. But, you cannot have both.” Milton Friedman
Always interesting to watch the 1st class dining room passengers on the Titanic stoically playing Pinochle as the ship first heels, and then slips softly, into the dark chill of the deeps.
Meanwhile, the peasants in steerage …
Anyone else noticed a trend lately? We read about these cases and at some point we see a photo of the judges involved, along with a short bio. Nine times out of ten they are total freaks.
You may want to look into a mirror.
Dip S
“A Republic, if you can keep it”.
Women getting the vote wasn’t contemplated.
I’ve often wondered if expanding the franchise actually did any good for the quality of governance. Just a whole lot more people with the opportunity to vote for the wrong people and things.
I’d say that other groups, such as people who don’t pay taxes, getting the vote is much more dangerous. Don’t let the overlap between women and non-taxpayers fool you. Married women are not the problem, because they also tend to be net taxpayers whereas single women tend to take more than they give.
When you don’t share the cost, then spending isn’t at all an issue. This is even worse when people figure out that they can vote themselves benefits from the treasury.
Playing fife ought to be part of judicial training, with all the local decrees.
So based on the comments from the DOJ – if only the Feds can enforce federal laws then the local constable would not be allowed to arrest someone guilty of murder unless there was a state or local law against murder.
Wow…..
Go back and take a civics class again, and pay attention this time. Every state has laws against murder. Usually it’s the federal cops that don’t have jurisdiction over murders and other state crimes. Federal murder laws apply only to federal territories (DC, Indian reservations, and some islands), maybe a murder in a federal building, and the murder of a federal employee in connection with his duties (I think that’s a separate law).
There is one famous historical case of a murder conviction and death sentence being overturned because it was tried under the wrong law. In November 1873 Alferd Packer (that’s how he spelled his name) claimed to be a guide and led five men on a trek over the mountains in Colorado. They didn’t arrive. Next spring Packer emerged alone, looking better fed than people expected from a man who’d been snowed in over the winter in the Rockies, and carrying several of the other men’s belongings and a lot of cash for a man who’d been broke when he went into the mountains. He told several different stories of the other men murdering and eating each other. After months of searching, the bodies were found, grouped together inconsistently with _any_ of Packer’s stories, and showing signs of violence and of butchering with tools. But Packer had let himself out of jail and disappeared.
In 1883 Packer was found in Wyoming and brought back to Colorado. He was tried with the prosecution claiming that he had led the group astray with the intention of murdering and robbing them. He was convicted, and sentenced to death in a Colorado state court. Apocryphally, the judge condemned him not only for murder, but for killing all 5 Democrats in Hinsdale County – as if Democrats were an endangered species – which is still remembered by Colorado Republicans.
But on appeal, it was pointed out that Colorado only became a state in 1876 and the murders were in 1874. Colorado’s murder law was an ex post facto law as applied to Packer, so the convictions were overturned, Packer was retried under the old territorial law in 1886, and with a better idea of which stories a jury wouldn’t believe, his defense succeeded in creating doubt about murder, and he was “only” convicted of 5 counts of manslaughter. The judge gave him the maximum sentence of 5 counts x 8 years = 40 years, and he was paroled in 18. He lived 6 more years and died at age 65, possibly of a stroke.
Modern forensics experts have reviewed the skeletons, and come to the conclusion that Packer tried to murder all five men in their sleep with a hatchet. When three of them awoke, he shot each one in the hip to immobilize them and finished them with a hatchet. If this evidence had been available back then, any jury would have found for murder and recommended death under almost any 19th century murder law. (Michigan had abolished the death penalty after a man hanged in public turned out to be innocent, but AFAIK this was unique among the states as well as all countries and colonies that derived from Europe culturally.)
Open borders biden says police are racist to puruse cartels and human traffickers??
“….SCOTUS has always recognized immigration enforcement belongs to the feds.”
True, but if the Feds do not or cannot enforce – either from malice, or incompetence – the duly elected government of Texas (any state) must simply declare themselves impotent to protect and defend their border and citizens from this invasion of murderers, drug cartels, human traffickers, and squaters??
No. Hell NO. The states created the federal govt., not vice versa. NO state would’ve moved on from the articles of confederation to the supremacy of the US Constitution under that dystopia. 9th & 10th amendment anyone?
Moreover, scotus opined Texas can enforce its law, yet a lower court now reverses the highest court? WTF are we doing, people?
I’ll wait here for Milhouse to tell me we the people must submit to any tyranny from unelected lawyers in robes without recourse from our duly elected state governments…
That is simply not true, and invalidates everything else you have to say.
Milhouse is always on the side of evil and tryranny….with a huge side of narcissistic superiority thrown in as a bonus
You filthy liar. Talk about evil, you are pure evil.