The Supreme Court's decision to allow Texas to arrest and jail migrants under its new immigration law, SB4, has sparked controversy and raised concerns about its potential impact on federal-state relations and foreign diplomacy.

 

SB4 grants local and state police the authority to arrest and prosecute individuals suspected of illegally crossing the Mexican border, a power traditionally held by the federal government. The law imposes penalties ranging from misdemeanors to felonies, with potential imprisonment and hefty fines.

 

While Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the decision as a victory against the Biden administration and the ACLU, which challenged the law, critics argue that SB4 undermines the federal government's authority to enforce immigration laws and could strain relations with Mexico. The ACLU has vowed to continue its legal battle to overturn the law, citing concerns about its constitutionality and potential adverse effects on migrant communities.

 

 

The dissenting opinion from the court's liberal justices warned that SB4 could disrupt federal-state power dynamics, hinder efforts to protect vulnerable migrants, and strain diplomatic relations. Additionally, there are concerns that the law may deter migrants from reporting abuse or trafficking out of fear of arrest and prosecution.

 

The implementation of SB4 comes amid heightened public concern over immigration and border security, as evidenced by recent polls showing it as a top issue for many Americans. However, the divisive nature of the law underscores the complexities surrounding immigration policy and the need for comprehensive and humane solutions that prioritize both security and compassion.

 

As the legal battle over SB4 continues, its implications for immigration enforcement and federal-state relations remain uncertain. The upcoming oral arguments in April will provide further insight into the constitutionality of the law and its potential long-term ramifications.

 

20.03.24

Source

 

Not exactly,  SCOTUS has not yet ruled on the policy, it's just allowing the status quo until and unless the issue is elevated for a final ruling.

 

I don't see a problem with the state police enforcing the law - until and unless the police are unable to determine immigration status and deport some legal residents. In other words, if the police demonstrate they aren't competent, then they shouldn't do this particular job.

I'm absolutely astounded that immigrants that commit a crime could not be jailed in the state where they committed the crime. To not allow it is just barking insanity.

 

If this goes ahead, are there enough jail cells to hold them all?

 

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm absolutely astounded that immigrants that commit a crime could not be jailed in the state where they committed the crime. To not allow it is just barking insanity.

 

You are witnessing the key reason why many Independents & Gop 

voters will reject biden! His radicalization far left policy of illegal  newcomers surging the border will cost him his presidency.

25 minutes ago, riclag said:

You are witnessing the key reason why many Independents & Gop 

voters will reject biden! His radicalization far left policy of illegal  newcomers surging the border will cost him his presidency.

 

Republicans seem to have a cognitive dissonance. The dems in the senate passed the strictest bill ever but the House nutcase party refuse to bring it to the floor for a vote because they know it will pass and Trump doesn't want Biden to succeed. Your talking point is nonsense. This fact has been pointed out plenty of times here but the far right refuse to even acknowledge it.

 

edit: unlinked meme edited out.

Edited March 20, 20242 yr by ozimoron

17 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm absolutely astounded that immigrants that commit a crime could not be jailed in the state where they committed the crime. To not allow it is just barking insanity.

 

 

I disagree with everything you post. This is the exception to that rule. 😀

17 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm absolutely astounded that immigrants that commit a crime could not be jailed in the state where they committed the crime. To not allow it is just barking insanity.

 

They can be jailed for committing crimes. Remember the illegal who killed Laken Riley - he had been in jail, but was released because reasons.

 

The issue comes when police, in the absence of any crime, ask them for papers, and then arrest them for not being in the country legally.

Edited March 20, 20242 yr by Danderman123

7 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The dems in the senate passed the strictest bill ever

With bipartisan support from GOP Senators! Credit to the Democrats AND POTUS Biden.

But Trump told House GOP to reject the bill because otherwise Trump had no campaign issue against undocumented immigrants. And the House GOP majority did reject the bill.

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The issue comes when police, in the absence of any crime, ask them for papers, and then arrest them for not being in the country legally

Not exactly.

The issue is that under the Constitution undocumented immigrants that enter the US (vs documented immigrants entering through US border checkpoints) are guaranteed Due Process of Law. Due process requires a judicial finding of guilt or innocence, ie., under federal laws. Federal laws have jurisdiction over state laws. Which is why there is a separate judicial system within the US Department of Homeland Security to adjudicate an undocumented immigrant's entry into the US. It is why the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has the authority to detain undocumented immigrants found in the US for such adjudication.

 

17 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Not exactly.

The issue is that under the Constitution undocumented immigrants that enter the US (vs documented immigrants entering through US border checkpoints) are guaranteed Due Process of Law. Due process requires a judicial finding of guilt or innocence, ie., under federal laws. Federal laws have jurisdiction over state laws. Which is why there is a separate judicial system within the US Department of Homeland Security to adjudicate an undocumented immigrant's entry into the US. It is why the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has the authority to detain undocumented immigrants found in the US for such adjudication.

 

Is that actually in the constitution? I can't believe that the founding fathers ever imagined that thousands of illegals would be crossing the border.

Perhaps is an interpretation by some liberal of something in the constitution, that wasn't actually the case now.

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

he had been in jail, but was released because reasons.

"Reasons" not being an illegal immigrant.

For a timeline of Jose Ibarra presence in the US see: https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/jose-ibarra-accused-killer-laken-riley-georgia-immigration-system/85-0294133e-f5e1-4e2f-a2df-ab017b498508

His and wife's entry into the US near El Paso, Texas had as Venezuelans "special protective status" in the U.S. But when such immigrants subsequently commit crimes in the US, apprehended by state or local police, they are to be handed over to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for adjudication. But when he was apprehended in New York by NYPD, the NYPD released him before ICE could detain him. Further alleged crimes subsequently committed by Jose should have been followed by detention by ICE but there appears to be lack of communication between "local" police and ICE that interferred with his detention by ICE.   

 

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Is that actually in the constitution? I can't believe that the founding fathers ever imagined that thousands of illegals would be crossing the border.

Perhaps is an interpretation by some liberal of something in the constitution, that wasn't actually the case now.

"The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

Remember that before the ratified US Constitution, virtually everyone in the 13 British Colonies (there was no United States) was an undocumented immigrant.

20 hours ago, soi3eddie said:

If this goes ahead, are there enough jail cells to hold them all?

 

The Mexico government has said it would not accept anyone sent back by Texas. Abott may have won a pyrrhic victory over Biden. He now have to spent tax money on human resources and facilities to hold them. Abott is an idiot. 

38 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The Mexico government has said it would not accept anyone sent back by Texas. Abott may have won a pyrrhic victory over Biden. He now have to spent tax money on human resources and facilities to hold them. Abott is an idiot. 

Not a victory at all, the law is on hold.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-migrant-arrests-texas-8e232b8a0c2979943c87c7309652ed34

On 3/20/2024 at 4:45 AM, Social Media said:

SB4 grants local and state police the authority to arrest and prosecute individuals suspected of illegally crossing the Mexican border, a power traditionally held by the federal government. The law imposes penalties ranging from misdemeanors to felonies, with potential imprisonment and hefty fines.

 So they should if proven Illegal. 

23 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm absolutely astounded that immigrants that commit a crime could not be jailed in the state where they committed the crime. To not allow it is just barking insanity.

 

America is strange. Too many states. Only need about 20.

6 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

They can be jailed for committing crimes. Remember the illegal who killed Laken Riley - he had been in jail, but was released because reasons.

 

The issue comes when police, in the absence of any crime, ask them for papers, and then arrest them for not being in the country legally.

Have you read the law that is applicable?   The law allows the arrest of an alien that enters the "State"  (the State in this context being Texas) directly from a foreign country, without legally entering the "State" through legal ports of entry.  There are other "defenses" to being in the United States or the State of Texas that preclude the arrest of an alien.  

The law does not merely allow for the arrest of an alien that is in the United States illegally.   

Edited March 21, 20242 yr by radiochaser

1 hour ago, Dolf said:

America is strange. Too many states. Only need about 20.

You think America is strange.   Have you seen a map of russia and its republics, krais, oblasts, and cities of federal importance?  
More than 20 of those too. 

3 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

You think America is strange.   Have you seen a map of russia and its republics, krais, oblasts, and cities of federal importance?  
More than 20 of those too. 

78 provinces in Thailand. About 70 too many.

19 minutes ago, Dolf said:

78 provinces in Thailand. About 70 too many.

Run for a political position in Thailand and straighten them out.   

Perhaps if the law is passed by a properly constituted legal process, and instituted by an equally properly legal authority it is one (perhaps distasteful) matter.

 

However, if as I suspect, much of the enforcement and detention will end up in the hands of various vigilante groups and dodgy self proclaimed militias, then a different matter.

 

 

 

21 hours ago, digger70 said:

 So they should if proven Illegal. 

How can a state determine immigration status of a person in real time? If a cop detains a person, how can they know if the person is legal or not at that point?

46 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

How can a state determine immigration status of a person in real time? If a cop detains a person, how can they know if the person is legal or not at that point?

 

This would be what they call a clue...

 

Video Shows Illegal Migrants Overwhelming Texas National Guard, Storming Border Wall

 

Of course, the Biden Administration would have Texas authorities step aside and let them in...

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/03/21/video-shows-illegal-migrants-overwhelming-texas-national-guard-storming-border-wall/

12 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

This would be what they call a clue...

 

Video Shows Illegal Migrants Overwhelming Texas National Guard, Storming Border Wall

 

Of course, the Biden Administration would have Texas authorities step aside and let them in...

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/03/21/video-shows-illegal-migrants-overwhelming-texas-national-guard-storming-border-wall/

Didn't get very far, did they? Subsequent videos show these people were detained and processed. Clearly, more resources are needed to deal with the border.

 

Too bad the Republicans refuse to provide full funding for border security.

 

But this has nothing to do with the topic.

Edited March 22, 20242 yr by Danderman123

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Didn't get very far, did they?

 

But this has nothing to do with the topic.

 

They didn't get very far, no thanks to the Biden admin.  They were stopped by the Texas guard, after Biden did his best to force them to stand down.  And continues to try to force Texas to stand down.

 

Which has EVERYTHING to do with the topic.  Without Texas asserting their authority to detain them, they'd be on a bus to Chicago or NYC by now.

 

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

They didn't get very far, no thanks to the Biden admin.  They were stopped by the Texas guard, after Biden did his best to force them to stand down.  And continues to try to force Texas to stand down.

 

Which has EVERYTHING to do with the topic.  Without Texas asserting their authority to detain them, they'd be on a bus to Chicago or NYC by now.

 

If the Border Patrol had full funding, this wouldn't be an issue.

On 3/21/2024 at 3:06 PM, Srikcir said:

Remember that before the ratified US Constitution, virtually everyone in the 13 British Colonies (there was no United States) was an undocumented immigrant.

I would assume back then there was no such beast as an immigration department. Anyone could go anywhere if they were prepared to fight for it.

 

On 3/21/2024 at 3:06 PM, Srikcir said:

"The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

LOL. One assumes that only applied to persons of Caucasian origin. It sure didn't apply to the original inhabitants of the land.

26 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

If the Border Patrol had full funding, this wouldn't be an issue.

LOL. The border patrol are on VDO cutting the wire to allow illegals to illegally enter. Surely you haven't forgotten that, as it was discussed at the time?

36 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

If the Border Patrol had full funding, this wouldn't be an issue.

Seeing as they are being paid to look the other way, help in getting water and supplies, cutting fences etc. more funding would mean more of the same.  Or, would they all of a sudden do their job if they receive more funding?  ( I've got a bridge to sell you if you believe this!)