Surprising in the sense that immigration is a Federal issue, and now States can take over and so things in their own way, which will cause confusion. But the USSC has spoken so it is what it is. Personally I don't have a problem with Texas doing it Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce immigration law https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...lows-texas-enforce-immigration-law-rcna142971 WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that it will allow Texas to enforce for now a contentious new law that gives local police the power to arrest migrants. The conservative-majority court, with three liberal justices dissenting, rejected an emergency request by the Biden administration, which said states have no authority to legislate on immigration, an issue the federal government has sole authority over. That means the law can go into effect while litigation continues in lower courts. It could still be blocked at a later date.
As I understand it, any powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to it, are vested in the states or the people. (10th Amendment) So if the US govt is not interested in controlling the Southern border then it is up to the states on the US side of the Southern border, or the people in them, to set up suitable protections. That means fences, walls, militia.
Immigration is delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, but this ruling overrides the Constitution. Now every State can enforce it any way they want, which will probably invite confusion and create more problems than it solves. Texas can shut down, and Arizona can open the border, - literally by abolishing the border checks complete.
Maybe more problems by number but not more by damage. The open border is a complete disaster, equal to Joe's war in Ukraine.
What if some States announce that people don't need visas or passports anymore to fly to US, or if they demolish the border checkpoints?
The potential workaround is via a mirror image statute. If the state law mirrors the federal law, they can theoretically enforce it. States have been doing this for a while now with varying success. Normally, this wouldn't be a big deal, assuming both the state and federal governments have a similar interest in enforcing the law. However, when the federal government has little or no interest in enforcing the law, as with Biden's administration on border enforcement, it creates these conflicts. It's something that will likely need to be determined by the SCOTUS.
The obvious problem is that if even one State decides to open the border literally, by removing passport / visa control, then the whole nation could see the effect, given the fact that 140 000 international visitors arrive in US every day.
I didn't know an appeals court can overturn Supreme Court ruling, but that seems to have happened. We live in an era where Congress is incapable of passing laws, and the courts have taken over running the country. Appeals court blocks Texas immigration law shortly after Supreme Court action The decision comes just hours after the Supreme Court said the measure, known as SB4, could go into effect while litigation continues. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...migration-law-supreme-court-action-rcna144193 A federal appeals court Tuesday night ordered that a contentious new Texas immigration law be paused just hours after the Supreme Court said it could go into effect. A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals split 2-1 in saying in a brief order that the measure, known as SB4, should be blocked. The same court is hearing arguments on the issue Wednesday morning.
That conflicts with federal law. Detainment of illegal immigrants who do not cross at a port of entry is following federal law.
SCOTUS seems to want to play "pass the hot potato", same thing they are doing in the DC Trump case as an example. Regardless, some form of mayhem will ensue. The shot clock is being eaten up a a result.
Even the USSC members say they are getting tired of tall the political BS being thrown at them by the 5th circuit court
Yes but that pales in comparison to the confusion and harm done by open borders. Yes it not settled law. It just a decision to allow it until it is settled.
Seems like the SC is saying that fedgov is sposed to do it, but states can do it if they dont like how fedgov does it (or doesnt do it). Which sounds correct to me.
A state breaking federal law would get shut down for violating federal law. Texas's state law simply mirrors the Federal laws which the Biden admin is refusing to follow or enforce. Fact. Ergo, the SC ruled Texas's law doesn't violate federal law. They simply are volunteering to enforce the law which Democrats refuse to do.
They didn't comment on what Fed Govt should or should not do, what what it is, or what it's not doing. However, the other courts have already nullified this ruling. Texas State has immigration laws? What does it say? Refuse people from applying for asylum across the board?
Maybe you should educate yourself so you actually know what you are talking about? There is a first time for everything.
Sure, same to you. Back to topic, as I said, when States write their own immigration laws, then its obvious there will be confusion as to which laws they should enforce, the State laws, or the Federal laws. The Texas SB4 authorizes the local LE to arrest and deport people before they have a chance to apply for asylum with the CBP, which is in conflict with Federal law, and it also allows for people to be investigates if they look like illegals. And the biggest problem is the fact that now other States will start writing their own immigration laws, which might end up being the opposite of TX, and allow just about anyone to enter.
