Immigration Watch International (2): Feds Threaten to Sue Texas Over State Law Enabling Arrest of Illegal Immigrants

Sunday, January 7, 2024

Feds Threaten to Sue Texas Over State Law Enabling Arrest of Illegal Immigrants

The Justice Department threatened to sue Texas if the state enforces a new law empowering local officials to arrest migrants who enter illegally, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton told Texas Gov. Greg Abbott that the law is unconstitutional because the federal government is responsible for controlling international borders, according to the letter obtained by Hearst Newspapers. The Justice Department will “pursue all appropriate legal remedies” if Abbott declines to halt enforcement of the law by Jan. 3, the Chronicle reported.

Abbott signed the bill into law, along with other border security legislation, on Dec. 18.

“President [Joe] Biden has repeatedly refused to enforce federal immigration laws already on the books and do his job to secure the border,” Abbott previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “In his absence, Texas has the constitutional authority to secure our border through historic laws like SB 4. Texas will take this fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to protect Texans from President Biden’s dangerous open-border policies.”

The Justice Department’s letter cites a 2012 Supreme Court ruling that found Arizona’s state immigration laws, including one that made it a crime to be in the state without authorization, were preempted by federal law, according to the Houston Chronicle.

“Indeed, the Supreme Court has confirmed that ‘the removal process’ must be ‘entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government’ because a ‘decision on removability’ touches ‘on foreign relations and must be made with one voice,’” the letter states, per the newspaper.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Texas the day after Abbott signed the law, arguing in the lawsuit filed on behalf of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, American Gateways, and the County of El Paso, Texas, that the law oversteps federal authority.

Chuck DeVore, chief national initiatives officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation in November that the measures in Texas’ bill are “fundamentally different” than the ones in the Arizona law that the Supreme Court struck down. Texas’ law offers those crossing illegally the choice of returning to Mexico or facing the threat of arrest for being in the state illegally, while Arizona’s law was “essentially affirmatively enforcing federal immigration law insofar as asking people for their status and then acting upon that,” he said.

Abbott’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/12/29/feds-threatens-sue-texas-state-law-enabling-arrest-illegal-immigrants

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Sunday, January 7, 2024

Feds Threaten to Sue Texas Over State Law Enabling Arrest of Illegal Immigrants

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors