Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 3
“Supreme Court greenlights Texas law allowing state police to arrest migrants”
SNIP
“The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a Texas law to take effect that enables state law enforcement to arrest people they suspect are illegally entering the United States from Mexico.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/45422...
No. of Recommendations: 1
A small win. The Court didn't actually rule on the law, they just didn't void it. Even your article says it may end up in front of the Court again. I'm sure albaby can comment more intelligently on the nuances of the ruling. If I'm understanding it correctly, the Court refused to get into an "administrative stay" from a lower court.
Given that the Court shot down multiple attempts by Trump and Biden to tighten border requirements, I suspect this was more addressing legal points and court jurisdictions, and less about addressing measures to limit immigration. In fact, given our understanding of federal law and the Geneva Convention, it is a blatant violation of those laws to arrest and deport people once they are on US soil without giving them an asylum hearing (assuming they ask for asylum, and pass an initial interview).
No. of Recommendations: 1
A small win.
Maybe so, but I’m sure the Texans are happy with it.
It should help to divert illegals crossing over into Texas and seek entry elsewhere.
Methinks other border states such as yours will seek simular laws.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I doubt mine will. Doubt CA will. Don't know about NM. Our governor is not happy with the current situation, but she (so far) hasn't shown herself to be rash. She's not bombastic like Abbott or DeSantis. She was in the AZ legislature for years, and also served as Sec of State, so she is a bit more skilled politically, and I think she knows more about the law.
But we'll see.
No. of Recommendations: 0
“I doubt mine will. Doubt CA will. Don't know about NM. Our governor is not happy with the current situation, but she (so far) hasn't shown herself to be rash.
But we'll see.”
Perhaps your governor will change her mind if the illegals start bypassing Texas and
all the more are headed for your state. The states coffers will certainly suffer.
Is your state a sanctuary state?
No. of Recommendations: 4
No, I don't believe so.
And they aren't illegals. There is nothing illegal about requesting asylum, which is what most of them are doing. You may think it's semantics, but it does matter. Accurate publications will call them asylum-seekers. Others will call them "illegals", because that's the slant they want to give the story. But the data show that -of those who pass the initial interview-, around 40% (IIRC) get to court and are granted asylum. Without so much as a lawyer to represent them.
It's a lot different than in the 80s when most of them were genuinely "illegals" trying to find work illegally.
No. of Recommendations: 7
No. of Recommendations: 1
So my "analysis" [cough] was sorta correct?? That's what I gleaned from the articles I read.
Seems the SCOTUS didn't approve the law, but just didn't want to get into the administrative issues that are the purview of the lower courts?
(Which, as an aside, is an example of how a headline can shape an opinion about a topic...it's a big difference "SCOTUS says TX can proceed" versus "SCOTUS refuses to overturn an administrative issue".)
No. of Recommendations: 3
Seems the SCOTUS didn't approve the law, but just didn't want to get into the administrative issues that are the purview of the lower courts?
Yes. The merits of the law were not at the SCOTUS. They were only debating whether there should be an administrative stay during the pendency of the Fifth Circuit's review of the preliminary injunction. These are debates over whether a preliminary ruling should go into effect during the pendency of the appeal of that preliminary ruling - not the merits of the underlying case.
