I think that some of the arguments Texas is making are silly but the overall reasoning isn’t ridiculous. State law can’t forbid people to enter who are allowed to enter by federal law (or allow people to enter who are forbidden to enter by federal law) but I don’t see any clear constitutional reason why a state cannot enforce a state law against someone entering in violation of federal law. The federal government still has ultimate authority; it just needs to exercise it by changing the law rather than by failing to enforce existing law.
And, as a practical matter, letting Texas do this may be a way of addressing an issue voters care a lot about while bypassing both obstructionist Republicans in Congress and Democratic activists.
I think that some of the arguments Texas is making are silly but the overall reasoning isn’t ridiculous. State law can’t forbid people to enter who are allowed to enter by federal law (or allow people to enter who are forbidden to enter by federal law) but I don’t see any clear constitutional reason why a state cannot enforce a state law against someone entering in violation of federal law. The federal government still has ultimate authority; it just needs to exercise it by changing the law rather than by failing to enforce existing law.
And, as a practical matter, letting Texas do this may be a way of addressing an issue voters care a lot about while bypassing both obstructionist Republicans in Congress and Democratic activists.
The federal government is the entity who decides who is or is not legal.
This runs afoul of that, because it’s now the state not the Feds making that decision.
It also runs afoul of unreasonable search and seizure because the state has no way to know if they’re illegal or not.
Further, they’re killing people trying to cross, which is grossly illegal.
And unethical. And immoral. And gross. And stupid.
Texas! It’s what’s for dinner!