Not sure this will pass constitutional muster. Anyway he told Maria about it.
Post Reply
1 of 1
Abbott to sign law a crime to illegally enter the state from another country
2,836 Views |
32 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by EMY92
Isn't it already a crime to illegally enter the US?
Thus the term illegally.
Does this allow the state to prosecute? Not sure what would be unconstitutional to pass a law saying something already against the law is against the law.
Thus the term illegally.
Does this allow the state to prosecute? Not sure what would be unconstitutional to pass a law saying something already against the law is against the law.
Science Denier said:
Isn't it already a crime to illegally enter the US?
Thus the term illegally.
Does this allow the state to prosecute? Not sure what would be unconstitutional to pass a law saying something already against the law is against the law.
Unconstitutional in that it assigns powers, at the state level, that are strictly the purview of the Feds.
Yeah, he wants to make it a state crime.
Science Denier said:
Isn't it already a crime to illegally enter the US?
Thus the term illegally.
Does this allow the state to prosecute? Not sure what would be unconstitutional to pass a law saying something already against the law is against the law.
What would this allow Texas to do that it can't do now? And if it does allow the state to do something new, why has he waited eight years to do it?
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
you guys really should listen to yallitics
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/yall-itics/id1486881900?i=1000636502559
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/yall-itics/id1486881900?i=1000636975501
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/yall-itics/id1486881900?i=1000636502559
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/yall-itics/id1486881900?i=1000636975501
Making it a state crime enables any licensed peace officer to arrest them. But under Obama, Jan Brewer, AZ Gov tried something similar and it was struck down as being a federal matter only, as I recall.Science Denier said:
Isn't it already a crime to illegally enter the US?
Thus the term illegally.
Does this allow the state to prosecute? Not sure what would be unconstitutional to pass a law saying something already against the law is against the law.
Hence my question.
Good Abbott
Hopefully this means they'll actually do something, unlike after he declared an "invasion" which didn't seem to change anything.
Hopefully this means they'll actually do something, unlike after he declared an "invasion" which didn't seem to change anything.
No, I don't care what CNN or MSNBC said this time
Ad Lunam
Ad Lunam
Even as a political stunt this is a good move. It's gonna get struck down and we're gonna have democrats screaming racism but it keeps the disaster that is the border in the news.
The federal government was never meant to be this powerful.
Does Ellegally mean they crossed the border in a tesla?
But he won't lift a finger to have any law enforcement do a raid on Colony Ridge where so many illegals live because the developers contribute too much to his campaign. Until he does that he is full of empty promises and rhetoric.
Live ammo is a MUCH more effective deterrent.
Moot point. Border is secure.
/Not even moderately concerned Concerned Moderates.
/Not even moderately concerned Concerned Moderates.
LOL. My computer froze while I was posting. I had to restart it and then it was too late to edit the title.Pluralizes Everythings said:
Does Ellegally mean they crossed the border in a tesla?
Now do California (former Bear Republic)aggiehawg said:
Not sure this will pass constitutional muster. Anyway he told Maria about it.
LOYAL AG said:
Even as a political stunt this is a good move. It's gonna get struck down and we're gonna have democrats screaming racism but it keeps the disaster that is the border in the news.
With the current court, who knows.
Big Bucks said:
But he won't lift a finger to have any law enforcement do a raid on Colony Ridge where so many illegals live because the developers contribute too much to his campaign. Until he does that he is full of empty promises and rhetoric.
Good point.
I mean, does anyone with an IQ over zero honestly believe any politician in our state capital, from Abbott down to local congressmen, don't already know where the illegals work and live? It's not as is the companies that hire them move from location to location.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
If the Rio Grande is ruled to be "not a navigable stream", a great many landowners in the state with streams across their property are going to rejoice.
On the other hand, a great many hikers, campers, canoe users, fishermen, off roaders, ... are likely to be really unhappy.
On the other hand, a great many hikers, campers, canoe users, fishermen, off roaders, ... are likely to be really unhappy.
I don't think anyone can really dissect that legally without seeing the actual law. Making it a state crime to "be here illegally" would be unconstitutional under the reasoning of Arizona v US but I presume the actual law would be much more narrower and nuanced, and probably very different than how Abbott or anyone would describe it on the Sunday talk shows.
A reasonable take.LOYAL AG said:
Even as a political stunt this is a good move. It's gonna get struck down and we're gonna have democrats screaming racism but it keeps the disaster that is the border in the news.
Being in TexAgs jail changes a man……..no, not really
aggiehawg said:Making it a state crime enables any licensed peace officer to arrest them. But under Obama, Jan Brewer, AZ Gov tried something similar and it was struck down as being a federal matter only, as I recall.Science Denier said:
Isn't it already a crime to illegally enter the US?
Thus the term illegally.
Does this allow the state to prosecute? Not sure what would be unconstitutional to pass a law saying something already against the law is against the law.
Hence my question.
According to Scalia's dissent in the Arizona case:
Quote:
It is beyond question that a State may make violation of federal law a violation of state law as well. We have held that to be so even when the interest protected is a distinctively federal interest, such as protection of the dignity of the national flag, see Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U. S. 34 (1907), or protection of the Federal Government's ability to recruit soldiers, Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U. S. 325 (1920). "[T]he State is not inhibited from making the national purposes its own purposes to the extent of exerting its police power to prevent its own citizens from obstructing the accomplishment of such purposes." Id., at 331 (internal quotation marks omitted). Much more is that so when, as here, the State is protecting its own interest, the integrity of its borders. And we have said that explicitly with regard to illegal immigration: "Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation's borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without any power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns." Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 228, n. 23 (1982).
I think Arizona was doing things other than simply making illegal immigration a state offense.
Additionally, the court has changed. Only Roberts and Sotomayor remain from the original majority opinion. Kagan didn't take part, but will likely rule similarly. That leaves us to guess on the rest IF a Texas vs. US type case were to get to the USSC.
Thank you for that clarification.
It won't pass but it will call attention to the fact that Biden does not want to stop illegal immigration which is the real point
Scalia'a dissent about making it a crime to be in Arizona "if removable under federal law" was decently narrow. And what he actually only concludes was Arizona should at least be able to arrest removable aliens and bring them to federal officials.
(And Kagan didn't take part in that case.)
(And Kagan didn't take part in that case.)
And then he died under weird circumstances.TXAggie2011 said:
Scalia'a dissent about making it a crime to be in Arizona "if removable under federal law" was decently narrow. And what he actually concludes was Arizona should at be able to arrest removable aliens and bring them to federal officials.
Thank you for the information. I particularly liked the statement;91AggieLawyer said:According to Scalia's dissent in the Arizona case:aggiehawg said:Making it a state crime enables,,..,,..,,..Science Denier said:
Isn't it already a crime to illegally enter the US?
……,,,,,,Quote:
…,,,,,,….
borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without any power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns." Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 228, n. 23 (1982).
I think Arizona was doing things other than simply making illegal immigration a state offense.
,,…,,,..
- we cannot conclude that the States are without any power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns." Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 228, n. 23 (1982).
- increase in human trafficking
- increased burden on the tax payers in providing illegal aliens medical treatment, education, housing, etc.
- increase in drug trafficking
- increase in gang activity
- increase in potential terrorist activities
I would love to see a judge rule the federal government doesn't have standing to challenge since they have been neglecting their duties enforcing the border.
Wishful thinking and won't happen but it's good to see Abbott finally trying to do something after so many years of near nothing.
Wishful thinking and won't happen but it's good to see Abbott finally trying to do something after so many years of near nothing.
Could you enhance all current criminal fines and penalties? Just add an enhancement doubling a fine or jail sentence if a convict is unable to prove legal residency
Hmm. Let me ponder that for a second. Would that be an equal protection issue? IDK.AggieMD95 said:
Could you enhance all current criminal fines and penalties? Just add an enhancement doubling a fine or jail sentence if a convict is unable to prove legal residency
Yep the feds will stop this before it starts.BigRobSA said:Science Denier said:
Isn't it already a crime to illegally enter the US?
Thus the term illegally.
Does this allow the state to prosecute? Not sure what would be unconstitutional to pass a law saying something already against the law is against the law.
Unconstitutional in that it assigns powers, at the state level, that are strictly the purview of the Feds.
BigRobSA said:
Unconstitutional in that it assigns powers, at the state level, that are strictly the purview of the Feds.
Now do gun laws
This x 100! Abbott is so full of sheet.Big Bucks said:
But he won't lift a finger to have any law enforcement do a raid on Colony Ridge where so many illegals live because the developers contribute too much to his campaign. Until he does that he is full of empty promises and rhetoric.
And arresting people there with state or local LEOs will get the cases tossed just like this will. It's a federal issue that the feds are refusing to enforce.Big Bucks said:
But he won't lift a finger to have any law enforcement do a raid on Colony Ridge where so many illegals live because the developers contribute too much to his campaign. Until he does that he is full of empty promises and rhetoric.
Featured Stories
See All
Jones aspires to join A&M's lineage of great defensive ends
by Olin Buchanan
Surging Aggies bump up to No. 18 in latest D1Baseball rankings
by Richard Zane
14:22
2d ago
8.3k
Doubleheader sweep clinches second straight SEC series victory
by Richard Zane
Spring Football Snippets: Practice No. 8
by Olin Buchanan
13:35
2d ago
3.6k
Ford & Co. wins top-15 SEC series with UGA
by Kayla Gaither