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.”
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY