A judge has blocked a Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrants who illegally enter the US
TL;DW? I don’t digest website news that is entirely video based.
TL;DW: Judge has ruled that a texas state law violates federal treaty obligations and thus is in conflict with the supremacy clause. The law in question would deny immigrants court hearings and/or due process that are required by law.
Thanks, however I reloaded after posting my comment and saw someone else posted the real article. The main thing I wanted to find out was if it was a federal judge, which it was.
This link actually points to the article itself, not just the headline:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-blocks-texas-law-police-broad-powers-arrest-107682501
Thank you.
It was a federal judge, U.S. District Judge David Ezra, who has frequently butted heads with the criminal state governor Greg Abbott.
Would they arrest people who cross the border before or after they detangle themselves from the barbed wire Texas put in the Rio Grande?
That makes no sense. Murder is illegal federally, but states prosecutes murder all the time.
The ruling is because the texas law ran counter to federal law and treaty obligations - I cannot find the specific text, but likely this is beacuse the texas law denied the suspects some facet of due process, like an immigration trial.
Edit: Ah, yes, that would appear to be the case.
The measure would allow state law enforcement officers to arrest people suspected of entering the country illegally. Once in custody, they could agree to a Texas judge’s order to leave the country or face a misdemeanor charge for entering the U.S. illegally. Migrants who don’t leave after being ordered to do so could be arrested again and charged with a more serious felony.
Because they are legal under several international laws and our federal laws. And the vast majority of illegal immigrants be a travel, student, or business visa and just over stay. This law would just be a green light to harass brown people near the boarder. Which would be against the constitution!
I don’t know the specifics of the case but international law which the US is signatory to allows asylum seekers to enter countries via whatever mechanism (ie “illegal” is irrelevant). Not sure if that’s the issue here. But the mention of international obligations in the article makes me imagine it’s something similar
Yep. It’s a human rights violation to criminalize asylum-seekers.
Murder being exclusive to the Fed isn’t in the Constitution but Immigration being the sole responsibility of the Federal Gov. is.