Texas: divisions over illegal immigration law

Open in full screen mode

Migrants who crossed the Rio Grande River are trying to get to the United States, March 20, 2024.

Reuters

In the United States, a controversial Texas law on illegal immigration has just been suspended for a second time by a federal court.

Signed last December by Governor Greg Abbott, S.B. 4 would make illegal first or second entry into Texas from a foreign country a state crime and would allow state judges to order violators to leave the United States, with prison sentences of up to 20 years for those who refuse to comply.

State appeals judge's ruling preventing it from being enforced, pending the outcome of an appeal filed by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration and civil rights groups.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — sometimes called the 5th Circuit — initially stayed the ruling blocking S.B. 4. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling Tuesday, briefly allowing Texas to x27;enforce the law. But hours later, in an unusual move, the 5th Circuit scheduled an emergency hearing for Wednesday and overturned its earlier decision by a 2-1 vote.

LoadingJoly wanted to soften the motion on arms sales to Israel, according to the NDP

Joly wanted to soften the motion on arms sales to Israel, according to the NDP

ELSE ON INFO: Joly wanted to soften the motion on arms sales to Israel, according to the NPDLoading in progressJoly wanted to soften the motion on arms sales to Israel, according to the NDP

Joly wanted to soften the motion on arms sales to Israel, according to the NDP< /h3>ELSEWHERE ON NEWS: Joly wanted to soften motion on arms sales to Israel, according to NPD

A panel of three judges from this New Orleans-based court therefore examined on Wednesday the possibility of authorizing the entry into force of the law.

Critics of the measure point out that migrants who cross the border can already be charged with illegal entry or reentry under federal laws, and immigrant advocates say a state law could fueling racial profiling.

The two justices who spoke during Wednesday's hour of oral arguments were sharply divided on whether S.B. 4 improperly interferes with federal enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, as the Biden administration claims.

Judge Priscilla Richman noted that no other state has asserted the right to deport illegal immigrants, suggesting that the novelty of S.B. 4 may be enough to temporarily prevent its enforcement. /p>

This is not a power that has historically been exercised by states, said Justice Richman, an appointee of the #x27;former Republican President George W. Bush, to Aaron Nielson, who represents the State of Texas.

Mr. Nielson appeared to have difficulty answering Ms. Richman's repeated questions about how the law would work in practice and not hamper the action of federal immigration officials. He argued that S.B. 4 reflected federal law that makes illegal entry into the United States a crime, and that the state's ability to arrest migrants was within its traditional powers. to ensure public safety.

Texas has the right to defend itself.< /p>A quote from Aaron Nielson. attorney representing the State of Texas

Judge Andrew Oldham, appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump, said he doubted the Biden administration could demonstrate that the entire law was arguably invalid, which is necessary to continue blocking it while the court considers the merits of the legal challenge.

When it comes Determining who has the right to enter the United States is an exclusively federal matter. But that's not what we're talking about, Oldham told the Justice Department's Daniel Tenny, who is representing the Biden administration.

Mr. Oldham previously served as general counsel to Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who has repeatedly clashed with the Biden administration over border policies.

In response to Mr. Oldham, Daniel Tenny said the entire law interferes with the enforcement of federal laws and added that the court could limit blocking the law to specific provisions that ;he considers problematic.

The panel includes Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, appointed by Joe Biden, who did not speak during the pleadings.

The fight over the Texas law is part of a series of legal battles between Republican state officials and the Biden administration over the state's ability to provide protection. of the border. Texas officials have blamed Mr. Biden for the surge in illegal border crossings that they say are draining state resources and threatening public safety, but Mr. Biden said interference from Texas and other states was only making the problem worse.

Open in full screen mode

Joe Biden was in Texas on Wednesday.

In ruling to block S.B. 4 last month, Judge David Ezra agreed that the state law was invalid under a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding a law on Arizona Immigration Law which states that states cannot adopt immigration enforcement plans that conflict with federal law.

< p class="StyledBodyHtmlParagraph-sc-48221190-4 hnvfyV">The Justice Department's Daniel Tenny told the 5th Circuit on Wednesday that upholding S.B. 4 would overturn precedent and mean each state could adopt its own policies that could conflict with federal law.

This project is exactly what the Supreme Court warned against in the &x27; Arizona case. […] The federal government must control the immigration system.

A quote from Daniel Tenny, attorney for the Department of Justice

Cody Wofsy of the American Civil Liberties Union joined Mr. Tenny in oral arguments Wednesday. He told the court that about 80,000 people could be arrested in Texas each year if S.B. 4 took effect.

That creates an entirely new system in which people will be subject to a state-created and run system, without access to federal assistance, he said.