I genuinely don’t know what to make of the chaos surrounding Texas’s SB 4. Here’s a report at NBC News from Rebecca Shabad and Kyla Guilfoil:
Judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared unreceptive to arguments by Texas’ solicitor general Wednesday that the state’s new immigration law should take effect because it “mirrors” federal law.
A three-judge panel of the court had ruled 2-1 late Tuesday that the measure, known as Senate Bill 4, should be temporarily blocked while the judges hear the case. Earlier Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it could take effect.
“Texas has a right to defend itself,” state Solicitor General Aaron Nielson said, adding that the district court had acknowledged that “sometimes those associated with the cartels cross over the border with malicious intent.”
As flip as it sounds I don’t think that Texas’s argument is entirely without merit. Does the federal government have the right not to defend Texas and to prevent Texas from defending itself? That doesn’t sound reasonable, either.
I suspect the question is not whether there is a line but where the line should be.
“As flip as it sounds I don’t think….”
My reaction as well. I’m not a good enough Constitutional lawyer to lay out the federal vs state authority, responsibility or precedents.
But does the federal branch have the right to abandon a state, and the state must simply sit by, impotently? Its hard to imagine when the federal stance is totally political.
“Does the federal government have the right not to defend Texas and to prevent Texas from defending itself?”
Yes? The only avenue of recourse Texas has is political. The constitution assigns the power of war and peace, foreign relations, and immigration to the Federal Government. Maladministration of those powers doesn’t imply the right to seize those powers. That’s what Texas signed up for when it joined the Union.
“Signed up for”
Under duress.
Fundamental change turned out to be population replacement.
This could get rough.
If…
The Federal Government will NOT deploy troops to protect the border…
But WILL deploy troops to engage Texas National Guard protecting the border…
How do they sell that to the voters?
Biden will need to move on Fla as well, Haitians and probably more Cubans on the way.
How does the ruling by the three judge panel of the Circuit Court of Appeals stand in the face of the Supreme Court ruling? HAs the Circuit Court gone rogue, as so many judges at all levels have?
That’s quite the anachronistic take Curious, when Texas joined the Union immigration law was a state/local government function of police powers. It wasn’t disputed that police powers allowed the removal of people that were liable to become a public charge. Also those police powers could be used to prevent crime and protect public health (quarantines). There was no national immigration law until the Page Act of 1875 (excluding importation of convicts, prostitutes, unfree labor). States also imposed bond requirements on ships as security that passengers wouldn’t become a public charge or violate the law for a period of time.
Federal immigration law became more restrictive from 1875 on and began to obviate local need for employing such police powers. For quarantines, the national government asked the states to voluntarily turn over their responsibilities to the feds, which they slowly did. Texas’ real problem is Arizona v. U.S. (2012) which found most state action is now effectively preempted by the Supremacy Clause. It’s a somewhat “weak” precedent in that it’s a Justice Kennedy decision that probably reflected only his views, but that wouldn’t necessarily mean a different court with a different analysis would be that different.
My understanding is that the SCOTUS stay was pending a review by the 5th Circuit. The 5th Circuit didn’t “go rogue”—they did what the SCOTUS asked and reviewed their decision.
Now I guess it’s up to the SCOTUS again to decide whether the 5th Circuit’s decision was correct or not.
In response to the conversation going on above a difference in degree may indeed be a difference in kind. In 2012 the number of “encounters” per year was around 350,000. Now that’s the number per month.