Immigration Watch International (2): Texas AG Responds After SCOTUS Sides With Biden Admin in Razor Wire Dispute

Wednesday, January 24, 2024

Texas AG Responds After SCOTUS Sides With Biden Admin in Razor Wire Dispute

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton vowed to continue fighting after the Supreme Court on Monday allowed Border Patrol to continue cutting razor wire Texas had installed to deter illegal border crossers.

“The Supreme Court’s temporary order allows Biden to continue his illegal effort to aid the foreign invasion of America,” Attorney General Paxton said in a statement. “The destruction of Texas’s border barriers will not help enforce the law or keep American citizens safe. This fight is not over, and I look forward to defending our state’s sovereignty.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberal justices on the bench in the 5-4 decision.

Paxton had sued the administration in October over its damaging of the wire, accusing the administration of disrupting state efforts to secure the border and damaging the ability to deter illegal entry.

The Biden administration has argued that once migrants are on U.S. soil, Border Patrol agents must apprehend them, and has claimed the wire "inhibits Border Patrol’s ability to patrol the border." The administration has also argued that federal immigration law supersedes Texas' own efforts to control the border.

A Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel had granted a request for a preliminary injunction. The DOJ had asked the Supreme Court for temporary relief so that it could remove razor fence at the federal government’s discretion.

"The court of appeals’ contrary ruling inverts the Supremacy Clause by requiring federal law to yield to Texas law," its application to the Court argued. "If accepted, the court’s rationale would leave the United States at the mercy of States that could seek to force the federal government to conform the implementation of federal immigration law to varying state-law regimes." (Fox News)

The release from Paxton’s office emphasized the order is temporary since the appeal is ongoing. The Attorney General will argue the case on Feb. 7 before the Fifth Circuit.

This is not the only conflict between Texas and the Biden administration over immigration. The federal government is also suing the state over a recently signed law making illegal border crossing a state crime.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2024/01/23/texas-paxton-vows-to-keep-fighting-n2634050

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

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)

Wednesday, January 24, 2024

Texas AG Responds After SCOTUS Sides With Biden Admin in Razor Wire Dispute

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors