https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/03/19/supreme-court-allows-texas-to-enforce-new-border-law/
march 19 2024 A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a stay on a Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of crossing the border illegally, while a legal battle over immigration authority plays out.
The Biden administration is suing to strike down the measure, arguing it’s a clear violation of federal authority that would hurt international relations and create chaos in administering immigration law.
Texas has argued it has a right to take action over what Gov. Greg Abbott has described as an “invasion” of migrants on the border.
Opponents have called the law, known as Senate Bill 4, the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago, portions of which were struck down by the Supreme Court. Critics have also said the Texas law could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling.
The rules:
If anyone sets foot in America they are allowed to apply for asylum.
The constitution only grants the feds authority to "establish a uniform rule for naturalization." By the tenth amdt everything else re immigration is left to the states. That means the right to arrest and deport these criminal invaders.
The rules:
If anyone sets foot in America they are allowed to apply for asylum. To be eligible they have to be inside the US and be able to demonstrate that they were persecuted
in their homeland due to race, religion, social group, or political opinions.
They are permitted to wait in America for a hearing. The problem is we have so few judges it can take 3 to 5 years.
The immigrants are running to border guards and claiming asylum.
Three to five years? Wow, that’s a long time. If Congress could only pass a bill increasing the number of asylum judges so we could cut that time by 90%. If only such a bill could be agreed on by a bipartisan group of Senators. Surely it would sail through both houses of Congress. Why would anyone ever be against it?
The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the law,
HAHAHA. What congress needs to do is end asylum. None of these invaders needs asylum anyway. They come for the freebies.
That would create the same problem the SC ruled about each state determining who could be on their election ballot.
Does the 10th amendment allow each state to determine who qualified for the ballot?
Each state would have its own laws for immigration, there would be a new business with coyotes bringing immigrants to states with more lenient laws, those immigrants could then move to other states unless each state had borders controlling travel, etc.
That would create the same problem the SC ruled about each state determining who could be on their election ballot.
Does the 10th amendment allow each state to determine who qualified for the ballot?
Each state would have its own laws for immigration, there would be a new business with coyotes bringing immigrants to states with more lenient laws, those immigrants could then move to other states unless each state had borders controlling travel, etc.
Don't respond to him. he is not thinking, he is just hating on a Trumpian level. None of these people need asylum.? What a dumb thing to say. Freebees?. They
do not qualify for assistance. .
Yes , each state can set their own election rules and immigration rules. That's what the tenth amendment is all about. The FF wanted each state to be an independent sovereign country and the feds very weak. Like the EU is now. France is a country.
If you don't like the 10A, then get it changed. Until then, it stands.
If the framers wanted more independent states why didn't they just keep the Articles of Confederation like the Anti-Federalists wanted?