So over?
(www.wfaa.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (21)
sorted by:
I like how Texas law doesn't try to deport them. They go to jail, but with the option of self-deporting instead.
So Texas isn't actually enforcing immigration.
Of course the liberal justices will overrule it anyway because they want more browns, and the Catholic justices believe in unitary, top-down authority so always side with the feds.
Normally an illegal caught committing a crime would be held based on whether they got bail. They would have an immigration hold, so as soon as they were let out of jail, or sentenced, I guess, they'd be send to ICE for deportation, but ICE doesn't do that any more.
This Texas law makes it a felony to be in Texas illegally, but if the person arranges their own deportation it's reduced to a misdemeanor with no time.
So immigration is not involved in any way and it's not a due process violation since they get their day in court if they so choose.
Legally it seems very clever to avoid easily overturning it.
This seems like the problem right here. The Feds are exclusively empowered to decide who is allowed in the country. If the basis for whether or not someone is arrested is based on Federal immigration status, it's going to look like immigration enforcement.
The only power the feds actually have is "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" and "shall protect each of [the states] against Invasion" and, after 1808, the power to prohibit "Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" (slaves).
Texas isn't deciding who can be a citizen or not, the only federal immigration rights explicitly mentioned are prohibiting people, and it's implied that the states get to choose who they want to admit. In fact I believe the constitution + amendments only prohibits states from refusing to admit citizens (under XIV).
The only constitutional avenue to strike this down is the "Rule of Naturalization", that it allows the government to force states to house asylum seekers and those who are being considered for citizenship - but that's clearly an expansive interpretation of "Rule".
Of course they don't care about what the constitution actually says, so I'm not trying to argue that the Texas law won't be overturned (it will) just that there's no basis for it.