You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Land of the Free
Supreme Court rules 6-3 to allow Texas to arrest and deport illegals - for now
2024-03-20
[American Thinker] So when are immigration policy and immigration law the exact same thing?

Only when you are the Biden administration, which had been desperate to stop Texas from enforcing federal law on an illegals invasion, while trying to pretend that it wouldn't dream of allowing every illegal into the country who wants in, even though that's exactly what it is doing.

Which brings us to the Supreme Court's clarity on the matter this morning.

According to the Washington Post:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Texas to begin enforcing, for now, one of the nation’s harshest immigration laws, which opponents say would disrupt more than a century of federal control over international borders.

The law, known as S.B. 4, makes it a state crime for migrants to illegally cross the border and allows Texas officials to deport undocumented individuals. It was passed last year amid a historic surge in border crossings — part of Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) push to expand the state’s role in immigration enforcement, which historically has been a federal responsibility.

The Supreme Court’s decision was divided and preliminary, with two justices in the majority urging a lower court to quickly decide whether to allow the law to remain in effect while appeals continue. That approach drew dissent from the three liberal justices, two of whom said the majority was inviting "further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement."

I don't know how it would "disrupt" any "federal control over the border" since there is no federal control over the border. Or more to the point, the federal government, in the name of policy, is literally ignoring the law, which is paramount over policy.

The law says you can't enter illegally.
Posted by:Besoeker

#9  New stay based on a different argument.

I'm not say that's acceptable. Just that it is the explanation.
Posted by: M. Murcek    2024-03-20 15:02  

#8  #6 I really don't get this. After the Supreme Court has spoken, how do these little tinpot dictators issue contradictory orders? I thought the Supreme Court was supposed to be, you know, supreme.
Posted by: Tom   2024-03-20 13:46  

#7  "Spin again!"
Posted by: M. Murcek    2024-03-20 09:51  

#6  And a Federal judge has already issued a stay.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2024-03-20 09:49  

#5  Well, maybe not.
Posted by: Skidmark   2024-03-20 08:29  

#4  Oops, wrong post.
Posted by: Skidmark   2024-03-20 08:28  

#3  Supreme court approves demolition of terrorist's home despite no deaths from attack
Posted by: Skidmark   2024-03-20 08:28  

#2  ...aka Pagan Globalists.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2024-03-20 07:57  

#1  "opponents say would disrupt more than a century of federal control over international borders." These so-called "opponents" are undoubtedly all in favor of federal abandonment of its constitutional obligation to protect the states from INVASION.
Posted by: Elmaper McGurque1612   2024-03-20 05:39  

00:00