People keep saying Texas has no right to take the Federal immigration authority,
but that is NOT what Texas is doing.
This is an EMERGENCY - Texas is defending against an INVASION!
No Federal Judge has the authority to tell us we cannot defend ourselves.

Why does Texas not have a law that states, "Personswho have illegally entered the United States, and are discovered in The State of Texas, will be charged with trespassing and deported to their country of origin to await trial."

This would not be an enforcement of federal law.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Trump ... neither respects ... nor understands (the Constitution).

---

Honestly, I have never seen a lack of "respect."

I just see him as having an even-lower level of UNDERSTANDING the Constitution than 90% of individuals with his same level of education ... because he just has no intellectual curiosity, at all.

For his entire life, his sole focus was amassing money and power. He could not be bothered with trivialities like taking time to try and understand the Constitution.

taxpreparer said:

---

Why does Texas not have a law that states, "Personswho have illegally entered the United States, and are discovered in The State of Texas, will be charged with trespassing and deported to their country of origin to await trial."

This would not be an enforcement of federal law.

---

Yes it would. Deportation is a federal decision under a comrehensive immigration program. That's assuming we have a functioning one.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Ignore Antoninus and barbacoa taco. They are pulling the classic liberal tactic of telling conservatives to hold themselves to a standard that the liberals don't hold themselves to. Liberals cause the problems and then use this tactic on conservatives when they try to fight back.

---

CDUB98 said:

---

And? This isn't the gotcha you think it is.

However, your concern is noted.

---

I don't doubt you think it isn't. Your point was that 'if he's so old Reagan hired him, he needs to retire'. By your own logic Trump fits that.

Some of us can hate a courts decision, without having a fit because it didn't go our way and coming up with any excuse to blame the judge (a conservative one at that). Being a conservative judge means you follow the law, not what other conservatives think they should.

However, your emotion is noted

TA-OP said:

---

Appointed by Reagan for what it's worth.

---

still alive?

aggiehawg said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

Why does Texas not have a law that states, "Personswho have illegally entered the United States, and are discovered in The State of Texas, will be charged with trespassing and deported to their country of origin to await trial."

This would not be an enforcement of federal law.

---

Yes it would. Deportation is a federal decision under a comrehensive immigration program. That's assuming we have a functioning one.

---

Got it. So, jail without bail until trial; then prison if convicted. This would probably need to be a specially designated form of trespassing.

Let me show you the error of your ways:

1) You have mistaken me for a Trump supporter, Pay attention a little more and you'll find I despise Trump and also think he's too old to be running.

2) Note that I explicitly say that the ruling is legally correct due to immigration being purview of the Feds.

But, please do go on on

Already appealed.

Quote:

---

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has immediately appealed a ruling against SB 4 by which a federal court blocked the border security measure from taking effect on March 5.
SB 4 was adopted to address the ongoing disaster at our southern border by making it a state crime to cross the border illegally. This would enable Texas law enforcement to detain and order illegal aliens to return to the country they illegally entered from. An individual's first violation would be a misdemeanor, while those who repeatedly attempt to illegally enter Texas would be subject to felony charges.
"We have appealed this incorrect decision. Texas has a clear right to defend itself from the drug smugglers, human traffickers, cartels, and legions of illegal aliens crossing into our State as a consequence of the Biden Administration's deliberate policy choices," said Attorney General Paxton. "I will do everything possible to defend Texas's right to defend herself against the catastrophic illegal invasion encouraged by the federal government."

To read the filing, click here.

---

LINK

CDUB98 said:

---

Let me show you the error of your ways:

1) You have mistaken me for a Trump supporter, Pay attention a little more and you'll find I despise Trump and also think he's too old to be running.

2) Note that I explicitly say that the ruling is legally correct due to immigration being purview of the Feds.

But, please do go on on

---

Then why should the Judge be removed if he's a Reagan appointee? If I completely misunderstood, I apologize for the assumptions.

Where did I say he should be removed? You'll spend a while looking for that one.

He should "be retired." As in, he should have already voluntarily removed himself from work to enjoy life after work....ya know...that thing that most of us hope to achieve.

I don't see any reason to attack the judge. He was following a SCOTUS precedent. He likely did not even agree with the result of his decision but was following the currrent law.

Now, if and when this case winds up in the Supreme Court will they current Court modify the Arizona decision?

Who knows?

outofstateaggie said:

---

Yep, ignore it. It's ridiculous, but that's where we're at right now.

---

Well when the lawyer no longer respect the spirit of the law why should they expect anyone else to do so.

The rule of law in this country is breaking down right before our eyes. The next steps are lawlessness->civil violence->war.

Its an old, deadly, well known progression continually repeated throughout history.

aggiehawg said:

---

I don't see any reason to attack the judge. He was following a SCOTUS precedent. He likely did not even agree with the result of his decision but was following the currrent law.

?

---

Fat chance of that! He's a lib. Go look up his other cases.

aggiehawg said:

---

I don't see any reason to attack the judge. He was following a SCOTUS precedent. He likely did not even agree with the result of his decision but was following the current law.

Now, if and when this case winds up in the Supreme Court will they current Court modify the Arizona decision?

Who knows?

---

On f16, every judge should be a Far Right political activist. Stare Decisis, be damned.

Rapier108 said:

---

Judge was originally appointed by Reagan.

---

Everyone makes mistakes

Also Reagan left office 31 years ago

FWIW, the judge already took Senior status.

I'm sure if Thomas and Alito were to provide votes 4 and 5 to uphold the Texas law, their mid-70 geriatric-ness won't be a bother

Tea Party said:

---

Abbott should ignore it. Texas must protect itself from the invasion, especially since we have bad actors domestically enabling the invasion like this judge.

---

This.

Between these judges and SCOTUS, they're all screwing America can't believe this is real.

Seems our lib lawyers are extremely underworked (trying to be nice here). Or they are billing Texags by the hour. I think I know which and why.

TA-OP said:

---

Appointed by Reagan for what it's worth.

---

It isn't worth anything... there are plenty of conservative judges who have been appointed by Democrat presidents (e.g., Judge Mazzant in Sherman) and plenty of liberal judges who have been appointed by Republican presidents (e.g., Justice Souter).

Sometimes as in the case of Justice Souter the person you nominate isn't the type of jurist you think they are. In other instances, it is politically driven where liberal members of Congress will agree to support a more conservative judge appointment for Republicans' reciprocating support for a more liberal judge's appointment.

Someone has photos or video on this judge.

Im Gipper said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

Appointed by Reagan for what it's worth.

---

Not worth much!

That was a time where President deferred to senators choices for district courts.

---

Thank you for the insight, I was not aware of that fact.

jja79 said:

---

A judge blocked the enforcement of the law? Send a couple hundred to his drive way.

---

Not a couple of hundred, thousands.

I'm good with that too.

Now let the judge enforce this on Texas with his army.

tunefx said:

---

Someone has photos or video on this judge.

---

Because he followed the rule of stare decisis? Like EVERY district court judge should do, since it is a foundational premise of our entire legal system?

OK. Whatever you say.

Either ignore his ruling or bus migrants to his door step and tell them it's a migrant sanctuary.

This is the way

Gov Abbott's statement is that an appeal was always expected to be...
and that Texas is defending against an invasion.

Judge blocks Texas law allowing us to arrest & deport migrants.

Not worried—this was fully expected.

The trial judge said from the bench that this case will be decided by SCOTUS.

I agree.

Texas has solid legal grounds to defend against an invasion. https://t.co/If5AivJQY4

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) February 29, 2024

Antoninus said:

---

Quote:

---

I am perfectly fine with Texas going all John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

---

Ah, Andrew Jackson. Perennial candidate for every "Top 5 most-Dictatorial Presidents of all Time" list.

---

Ok...so.

FDR
LBJ
Jackson
Lincoln


Who else rounds out the top 5?

Ag with kids said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Quote:

---

I am perfectly fine with Texas going all John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

---

Ah, Andrew Jackson. Perennial candidate for every "Top 5 most-Dictatorial Presidents of all Time" list.

---

Ok...so.

FDR
LBJ
Jackson
Lincoln


Who else rounds out the top 5?

---

Wilson...not sure how you dont have him at number 2 behind FDR.

Antoninus said:

---

tunefx said:

---

Someone has photos or video on this judge.

---

Because he followed the rule of stare decisis? Like EVERY district court judge should do, since it is a foundational premise of our entire legal system?

OK. Whatever you say.

---

Ok, whatever. Ignore the laws on the books already.

I am not surprised that U.S. District Judge David Ezra blocked Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants who illegally enter US. I am glad Governor Greg Abbott declared that Texas was under an "invasion," giving the state the constitutional right to defend itself and claimed that President Joe Biden's practice of paroling migrants into the country amounted to a refusal to enforce current immigration laws. At this point, I'm for Texas National Guard and DPS officers forcefully taking over the border. Screw the Federal Government and the Biden administration for intentionally allowing a border invasion. Screw the celebrities pushing for immigration policies that offer a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants.