LeviF Posted December 30, 2023 Posted December 30, 2023 Talk about giving away the game. “The solution to tons of third worlders crossing the border is…tons of third worlders crossing the border, but in a more orderly fashion!” These are not serious people, they that repeat regime talking points with no regard for their fellow citizens or neighbors. Another reason why it’s important to never forgive or forget the vile things said and done during peak COVID hysteria by, largely, the exact same people. 2 2
The Frankish Reich Posted December 30, 2023 Posted December 30, 2023 Texas DAs previously prosecuted illegal entrants for trespass. Someone owns the land - public or private - and yes, illegal entrants were trespassing. So that wasn't a problem. There's no general federal "trespass" law, unless it's occurring on federal land. But the new Texas law - or at least the important parts of it - is clearly unconstitutional, as established by U.S. v. Arizona. Charging someone with illegal entry into the United States, and particularly detaining and deporting illegal entrants is a purely federal authority. There's gray areas, like transporting or harboring illegal entrants on state roads, etc. I think those are part of Florida's laws, and I think they would pass the constitutional test. But arresting/deporting for illegal entry? No. 1
LeviF Posted December 30, 2023 Posted December 30, 2023 55 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Texas DAs previously prosecuted illegal entrants for trespass. Someone owns the land - public or private - and yes, illegal entrants were trespassing. So that wasn't a problem. There's no general federal "trespass" law, unless it's occurring on federal land. But the new Texas law - or at least the important parts of it - is clearly unconstitutional, as established by U.S. v. Arizona. Charging someone with illegal entry into the United States, and particularly detaining and deporting illegal entrants is a purely federal authority. There's gray areas, like transporting or harboring illegal entrants on state roads, etc. I think those are part of Florida's laws, and I think they would pass the constitutional test. But arresting/deporting for illegal entry? No. Yeah, and everyone who voted for the law (and Abbott) knows all of this. Why then do you think it happened? Is this a stunt or a path to an actual constitutional crisis? I understand there’s some funny theories regarding Article IV as well but I think that’s mostly silly as compared to the two more realistic outcomes above. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 31, 2023 Posted December 31, 2023 6 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Texas DAs previously prosecuted illegal entrants for trespass. Someone owns the land - public or private - and yes, illegal entrants were trespassing. So that wasn't a problem. There's no general federal "trespass" law, unless it's occurring on federal land. But the new Texas law - or at least the important parts of it - is clearly unconstitutional, as established by U.S. v. Arizona. Charging someone with illegal entry into the United States, and particularly detaining and deporting illegal entrants is a purely federal authority. There's gray areas, like transporting or harboring illegal entrants on state roads, etc. I think those are part of Florida's laws, and I think they would pass the constitutional test. But arresting/deporting for illegal entry? No. I think some people are past the point of caring, and have decided it’s better to push forward and deal with it in court then let this kaleidoscopic horse f%ckery go on, unchecked, unresolved forever. The simple reality seems to be that the border is a border mostly for the compliant, the federal govt—whatever that leviathan actually represents in this scenario—is complicit in the incompetence or at best completely overmatched in the role entrusted to it. So, Abbott busses people to liberal cities and the liberal cities break in what amounts to 20 minutes when considering how long this problem has been a problem. Now, Abbott picks a fight with feds, they say “We’ll sue” and he says…See you in court, we have some things to talk about. I’d be surprised if that message point didn’t resonate with many, many voters across the spectrum—white, black, brown and liberal, conservative and independent.
Recommended Posts