Biden administration asks Supreme Court to block Texas immigration law

[Valletta]

The Biden administration said allowing Texas’ law to go into effect would harm the government’s relationship with other countries — particularly Mexico which has not agreed to accept deportees from Texas.
“By allowing Texas to remove noncitizens to Mexico without its consent, SB4 would have significant and immediate adverse effects on the United States’ relationship with Mexico — a relationship that is critical to the federal government’s ability to effectively address immigration at the southwest border,” Prelogar wrote.

Biden administration asks Supreme Court to block Texas immigration law

The justices are being asked to jump into another fight between the Biden administration and Texas over immigration.

www.courthousenews.com

This should be of no surprise to anyone that knows what is going on. Joe and his people have no intention of stopping the invasion.

 

[hislegacy]

The remain in Mexico order was working fine. Why did Joe rescind it?

 

[Belk]

The Biden administration said allowing Texas’ law to go into effect would harm the government’s relationship with other countries — particularly Mexico which has not agreed to accept deportees from Texas.
“By allowing Texas to remove noncitizens to Mexico without its consent, SB4 would have significant and immediate adverse effects on the United States’ relationship with Mexico — a relationship that is critical to the federal government’s ability to effectively address immigration at the southwest border,” Prelogar wrote.

Biden administration asks Supreme Court to block Texas immigration law

The justices are being asked to jump into another fight between the Biden administration and Texas over immigration.

www.courthousenews.com

This should be of no surprise to anyone that knows what is going on. Joe and his people have no intention of stopping the invasion.

Remind us again again who scuttled the legislation that was crafted to deal with this issue?

 

[Valletta]

Remind us again again who scuttled the legislation that was crafted to deal with this issue?

Both Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer had the power to see that the Secure the Border Act of 2023 that passed the House last May be made law. They have stalled ever since, for a long time Joe Biden even refused to sit down and discuss it with the Speaker of the House.

 

[BCP1928]

The remain in Mexico order was working fine. Why did Joe rescind it?

Was it? The border problem is a problem, but the Biden administration sees it as a humanitarian crisis rather than an attack on our sovereignty.. Consequently, the solutions offered are not going to be what you want.

 

[Larniavc]

The Biden administration said allowing Texas’ law to go into effect would harm the government’s relationship with other countries — particularly Mexico which has not agreed to accept deportees from Texas.
“By allowing Texas to remove noncitizens to Mexico without its consent, SB4 would have significant and immediate adverse effects on the United States’ relationship with Mexico — a relationship that is critical to the federal government’s ability to effectively address immigration at the southwest border,” Prelogar wrote.

Biden administration asks Supreme Court to block Texas immigration law

The justices are being asked to jump into another fight between the Biden administration and Texas over immigration.

www.courthousenews.com

This should be of no surprise to anyone that knows what is going on. Joe and his people have no intention of stopping the invasion.

Is The US at war with Mexico?

The Biden administration has argued that immigration law is solely the responsibility of the federal government, and not local jurisdictions. It repeated that assertion again in Monday's filing with the Supreme Court.

"This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested 'solely in the Federal Government,'" it wrote.

Texas has argued that it is within its rights to arrest migrants because SB 4 is applicable under the State War Clause of the Constitution, which allows states to act when it is "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Supreme Court pauses strict Texas immigration law ahead of ruling

The Biden administration is taking its fight against Texas' strict immigration law to the Supreme Court.

abcnews.go.com

It's sad when I know more about US law than a genuine USAnian.

 

[hislegacy]

Was it? The border problem is a problem, but the Biden administration sees it as a humanitarian crisis rather than an attack on our sovereignty.. Consequently, the solutions offered are not going to be what you want.

It worked along with the other policies Joe cancels on his first day in office and it has resulted in the crisis we have right now.

Even CNN is reporting it

 

[Valletta]

Was it? The border problem is a problem, but the Biden administration sees it as a humanitarian crisis rather than an attack on our sovereignty.. Consequently, the solutions offered are not going to be what you want.

From secretly flying in illegals to lying about the border being safe, secure, and closed, the one thing for sure is that the Biden administration has been dishonest with the American people. It seems clear to me the idea is to bring in as many illegals as possible, give them government benefits so they will stay here and be counted in the census for more Democrat representatives in Congress, and become citizens so the Democrats can make this a one party dominated country. If they get that far I have no doubt they will try and get rid of the Senate filibuster and pack the Supreme Court.

 

[Belk]

Both Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer had the power to see that the Secure the Border Act of 2023 that passed the House last May be made law. They have stalled ever since, for a long time Joe Biden even refused to sit down and discuss it with the Speaker of the House.

 

[Valletta]

H..R. 2 required that Homeland Security resume activity on building the border wall. You can see why they ran away from that one. Likewise it provided grants to law enforcement for specific border security operations, not PROCESSING illegals into the country.

 

[hislegacy]

H..R. 2 required that Homeland Security resume activity on building the border wall. You can see why they ran away from that one. Likewise it provided grants to law enforcement for specific border security operations, not PROCESSING illegals into the country.

Thank you for using proper terminology - I am the son of a legal immigrant - These are not migrants - they are illegal aliens - if they want to be migrants - there are procedures and laws that they are required to follow -

 

[Arcangl86]

H..R. 2 required that Homeland Security resume activity on building the border wall. You can see why they ran away from that one. Likewise it provided grants to law enforcement for specific border security operations, not PROCESSING illegals into the country.

Which is the problem with the bill. Simply throwing more money on enforcement without legal changes or allocating resources toward the administration of the current law isn't going to solve the problem. Not to mention that H.R. 2 was entirely a conservative wish list without giving Democrats anything they have been asking for.

 

[Valletta]

Which is the problem with the bill. Simply throwing more money on enforcement without legal changes or allocating resources toward the administration of the current law isn't going to solve the problem. Not to mention that H.R. 2 was entirely a conservative wish list without giving Democrats anything they have been asking for.

If there was anything else that the Democrats wanted to secure the border(and I know of no such ideas left out) they should have inserted it into a companion bill in the Senate. That is the regular procedure. Combined with Joe Biden rescinding the border orders Joe had made in the first one hundred days, the problems would very much be solved. There was no "money thrown," the money would be used for specific purposes. H.R. 2 also authorized the removal of illegals to a country other than that individual's last lawful location. For countries like Venezuela that we have no agreement with, that empty prisons or insane asylums and refuse to take them back, that means they could still be deported to a country (such as Mexico) that let them in. And most of all it had provisions to stop the trafficking of children. The Biden administration completely lost track of 85,000 kids.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The title of this thread is based on a false premise. States don't have immigration laws. That's what the judge reminded Texas of when ruling against them.

 

[Valletta]

The title of this thread is based on a false premise. States don't have immigration laws. That's what the judge reminded Texas of when ruling against them.

Federal law applies to the people of ALL states. State laws grant more particular rights, as do local laws. Law enforcement would not go home and stay home if a state didn't have any particular laws.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Federal law applies to the people of ALL states. State laws grant more particular rights, as do local laws. Law enforcement would not go home and stay home if a state didn't have any particular laws.

That has nothing to do with Texas having its own immigration law.

 

[Valletta]

That has nothing to do with Texas having its own immigration law.

Sure it does. Texas can have their own laws, they can add on to what is in the federal law for a subject. But the state laws can't contradict the federal law. For example, if federal law stated that the first two thousand people crossing the border cannot be deported, Texas could not enforce a state law saying any of those two thousand be deported.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure it does. Texas can have their own laws, they can add on to what is in the federal law for a subject.

Not setting immigration requirements. That is a federal domain.

But the state laws can't contradict the federal law. For example, if federal law stated that the first two thousand people crossing the border cannot be deported, Texas could not enforce a state law saying any of those two thousand be deported.

Texas doesn't have the power to pass a deportation law of any kind.

 

[Valletta]

Not setting immigration requirements. That is a federal domain.

Texas doesn't have the power to pass a deportation law of any kind.

The power the states grant to the federal government is limited. States have a right to pass their own laws. Let me choose an example popular with Democrats. Federal law makes marijuana possession illegal. That does not mean that marijuana laws are solely "federal domain." The Biden administration does not contest state regulatory activity of marijuana as long as the states do not violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. This means as long as states don't stop the federal government from enforcing federal law.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The power the states grant to the federal government is limited. States have a right to pass their own laws. Let me choose an example popular with Democrats. Federal law makes marijuana possession illegal. That does not mean that marijuana laws are solely "federal domain." The Biden administration does not contest state regulatory activity of marijuana as long as the states do not violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. This means as long as states don't stop the federal government from enforcing federal law.

What part of "solely vested in the Federal government" do you not understand? (Clearly you are not alone. The Texas legislature and governor has the same problem.)