https://www.wbtv.com/2024/02/29/judge-blocks-texas-law-that-gives-police-broad-powers-arrest-migrants-who-illegally-enter-us/

Quote:

---

A federal judge on Thursday blocked a new Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S., dealing a victory to the Biden administration in its feud with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott over immigration enforcement.

The preliminary injunction granted by U.S. District Judge David Ezra pauses a law that was set to take effect March 5 and came as President Joe Biden and his likely Republican challenger in November, Donald Trump, were visiting Texas' southern border to discuss immigration. Texas officials are expected to appeal.

---

On to the 5th Circuit!



Same clown as here:

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3388450/replies/65565827

Hawaii judge that moved to Texas!

Judge was originally appointed by Reagan.

Appointed by Reagan for what it's worth.

Once again, a perfect meme!


You never disappoint good sir!

Quote:

---

The U.S. Constitution: Preamble


The preamble sets the stage for the Constitution (Archives.gov). It clearly communicates the intentions of the framers and the purpose of the document. The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights.

Establish Justice is the first of five objectives outlined in the 52-word paragraph that the Framers drafted in six weeks during the hot Philadelphia summer of 1787. They found a way to agree on the following basic principles:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

---

LINK

Not the law but the intent of the Constitution to "provide for the common defense."

I like Reagan but a lot of his decisions are really aging like milk nowadays

"A federal judge on Thursday blocked a new Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S., dealing a victory to the Biden administration in its feud with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott over immigration enforcement"

Then this federal judge should have mandated the federal govt. adheres to / enforces existing immigration laws.

Just like the courts mandated (back in the 80s?) that undocumented/non-citizen minors were entitled to state-supported education/schooling.

I mean, when it was passed everyone was looking around wondering how it'd pass Supremacy Clause muster in light of Arizona v US, etc.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I mean, when it was passed everyone was looking around wondering how it'd pass Supremacy Clause muster in light of Arizona v US, etc.

---

they're hoping it gets back to SCOTUS and overturned

Quote:

---

In a 5-3 decision issued on June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court held that the first, second, and fourth provisions of SB 1070 were preempted by federal immigration law. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito each wrote separate dissenting opinions. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case.

---

Arizona v. U.S.

LINK

Composition of the Court has changed.

1836er said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Judge was originally appointed by Reagan.

---

If he's that old, he should be retired.

Reality is that the TX arrest law was never going to survive. While I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of Texas taking control and kicking people out, the simple fact is that, per the Constitution, immigration is a Federal matter.


Now, if TX wants to stand it's ground and tell the Feds to "Come and Take It," let's go. Time to get this **** overwith.

---

Hmm. Then I guess that makes all of those sanctuary city laws unconstitutional right? Wonder how many of those have been ruled as such by the courts...

---

Sanctuary cities fall under a different Constitutional posture. Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot force a state (or sub-state governments such as cities) to enforce federal laws.

Therefore, a city is able to say "we're not going to cooperate/enforce federal laws."

1872walker said:

---

Quote:

---

Ezra cited the Constitution's supremacy clause and U.S. Supreme Court decisions as factors that contributed to his ruling. He said the Texas law would conflict with federal immigration law, and the nation's foreign relations and treaty obligations.

---

When the federal government refuses to uphold federal law at the expense of a state and its citizens, then that state must take actions to protect its sovereignty.

Either enforce laws or get out of the way.

---

The judge didn't bother to read other parts of the Constitution, which isn't surprising.

It's funny, I don't remember those leftists judges blocking States from restricting non-citizens from their state lines during COVID.

Quote:

---

Once again, a perfect meme!


You never disappoint good sir!

---

Fackin' ignore it!!!!!

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

Then I guess that makes all of those sanctuary city laws unconstitutional right? Wonder how many of those have been ruled as such by the courts...

---

Absolutely they are all unconstitutional, but therein lies a great example of either the complicity of the Republican party, or the weakness of the Republican party. They should have absolutely lawfared the hell out of all those cities and states into submission.

Democrats routinely flaunt law breaking and Republicans NEVER hold them accountable.

---

Look, everyone knows I am a conservative and extremely right on illegal immigration. I am in favor of utilizing deadly force to stop illegal border crossings.

But this is not an apples to apples comparison. The sanctuary city laws just prevent local and state law enforcement from assisting the feds in enforcing federal immigration laws. Essentially taking away the choke points where the feds normally grab criminal aliens, like jails, court, and probation/parole. If DHS wanted to deploy 100k ICE agents to round every illegal in NYC, there isn't dick the state or locals could do about it.

Texas is actually wanting to utilize state and local law enforcement to essentially enforce federal immigration law since the feds have largely abdicated that role during the Biden administration.

Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.

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

Rapier108 said:

---

Judge was originally appointed by Reagan.

---

The Godfather of Amnesty.

WT FOX said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

Then I guess that makes all of those sanctuary city laws unconstitutional right? Wonder how many of those have been ruled as such by the courts...

---

Absolutely they are all unconstitutional, but therein lies a great example of either the complicity of the Republican party, or the weakness of the Republican party. They should have absolutely lawfared the hell out of all those cities and states into submission.

Democrats routinely flaunt law breaking and Republicans NEVER hold them accountable.

---

Look, everyone knows I am a conservative and extremely right on illegal immigration. I am in favor of utilizing deadly force to stop illegal border crossings.

But this is not an apples to apples comparison. The sanctuary city laws just prevent local and state law enforcement from assisting the feds in enforcing federal immigration laws. Essentially taking away the choke points where the feds normally grab criminal aliens, like jails, court, and probation/parole. If DHS wanted to deploy 100k ICE agents to round every illegal in NYC, there isn't dick the state or locals could do about it.

Texas is actually wanting to utilize state and local law enforcement to essentially enforce federal immigration law since the feds have largely abdicated that role during the Biden administration.

Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.

---

What do you do though when the federal government flat refuses to secure the border? We have never been in a situation like this before.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, the constitution is clear that the role of enforcing immigration laws is within the sole purview of the federal government.

---

Until SCOTUS rules it isn't. Is that going to happen here? IDK.

PaulsBunions said:

---

I like Reagan but a lot of his decisions are really aging like milk nowadays

---

This.

He tried to be a gentleman never fully realizing that he was in a knock down drag out no holds barred street fight.