[ad_1]
CNN
—
In just a few hours on Tuesday, Texas was able to implement tough immigration laws that critics denounced as human rights violations, thanks to significant support from the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority.
The intervention by the nation’s highest court deepens the confusion surrounding the country’s overwhelming immigration system, intensifying the politicization of the court and sparking new controversy over an issue that threatens President Joe Biden’s reelection. It sparked a day of courtroom drama.
The measure would allow Texas to arrest and even deport people suspected of crossing the border illegally, a blatant challenge to the federal government’s authority in these matters.
The law took effect briefly after the Supreme Court said it could move forward while the appeals process was underway in lower courts. But late Tuesday night, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals again put the law on hold, silencing celebrations in the Lone Star State. The panel of judges who handed down the ruling late at night is already scheduled to hear arguments on the law, known as SB 4, on Wednesday morning.
The new uncertainty surrounding the law will only intensify the heated immigration debate fueled by Republican nominee Donald Trump as the general election heats up. And although it was later reversed, the Supreme Court’s move allowed Republicans to tout tough immigration policies and claim that Biden had lost control of the border.
The legal dispute will also set off further conflicts between Washington and the ultra-conservative government of Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott over policy and enforcement.
Republicans in Congress have ruled out conservative compromise proposals that would have strengthened border and asylum policies and included significant concessions from Mr. Biden to reduce exposure on the issue at the risk of alienating progressives. Weeks later, the Supreme Court intervened in the controversy. Some Republican leaders accused Trump of plotting to override measures that would deprive Biden of a key election-year victory.
A federal judge in Austin has blocked the state from enforcing the Texas law. However, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of the lower court’s ruling, prompting the Biden administration to file two emergency appeals. The Supreme Court said Tuesday that the law could remain in effect while the 5th Circuit appeals the case.
On Tuesday night, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit voted 2-1 for a brief order vacating an earlier ruling by another panel that temporarily put the law into effect. did. And so, a day of changing legal fortunes ended with the Texas law still not in effect.
Texas Republicans argue that this enforcement mechanism is well within the state’s constitutional rights. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, for example, hailed the Supreme Court’s move in X as a “huge victory.” But if the law were to go into effect again, it would be unclear how law enforcement officials, many in Texas and more conservative jurisdictions within the state, would enforce the law and arrest people suspected of being illegal immigrants. Much will depend on whether the law is used to its fullest extent to deport them.
Immigrant advocacy groups have warned that the law could lead to racial profiling, civil rights violations and arrests, and terrorize undocumented immigrants far from border areas. “Today, March 19, will become infamous as “Show Me Your Newspaper Day,” said Domingo García, national president of LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens). But Abbott insisted that Texas police officers know racial profiling is wrong.
Supreme Court justices are supposed to make decisions only on the law, not on potential political consequences. Agreeing with the decision, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that the court should not intervene when a lower court, like the 5th Circuit, issues a suspension of a sentence.
But the Supreme Court’s intervention was the latest foray into fraught political territory. This will play into criticism within the Democratic Party that the court is favoring the interests of the conservatives who helped it win the majority and is in tacit alliance with right-wing lawmakers, governors and candidates. In its most controversial recent move, the court agreed to hear President Trump’s broad presidential immunity claims, delaying a federal election interference trial and delaying the former president’s 2024 election interference trial before he faces voters again in 2024. It is now possible that he can avoid responsibility for trying to overturn the 2018 election.
A similar argument was made when the Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent and overturned the constitutional right to abortion nationwide in 2022. The ruling led to the current patchwork of state regulations and policies that have wreaked havoc on the health care system. The reversal of Roe v. Wade also had subsequent legal consequences. For example, some IVF fertility treatments in Alabama were suspended after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children.
Immigration reform advocates say a similar web of contradictory state laws and tensions between federal and state powers could await immigration issues if the Texas law is ultimately allowed to remain in place long-term. I am concerned.
The White House issued a scathing response to the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing that it would make Texas less safe, burden law enforcement and “bring chaos and confusion to our southern border.” Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre warned that SB4 is “another example of Republican officials politicizing the border and blocking real solutions.”
Sen. Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, predicted on CNN Tuesday that the Supreme Court’s decision would cause “chaos.” “You can’t have two immigration enforcement systems, one run by the federal government and one run by the state governments,” he told Wolf Blitzer. And Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, warned in a statement that the “Supreme Court has chosen to give trial to a constitutional crisis.”
The Texas law has constitutional and even international significance beyond politics. It would give local and state law enforcement the power to arrest immigrants and give state judges the power to order their removal to Mexico. The Justice Department sued the states, arguing that the federal government has exclusive authority to enforce immigration laws. There is also the possibility that Texas could deport migrants to Mexico, and the possibility that individual states will take actions that could have a significant impact on the relationship between the United States and other sovereign countries is also increasing. Under the constitution, foreign affairs are reserved to the federal government.
The controversy over the Texas law follows several previous attempts by conservative-run states to take action to implement their own hard-line immigration policies, sparking conflict with the federal government. Last year, for example, Florida organized a flight of illegal immigrants from Texas to the liberal jurisdiction just as Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis was running for president. If Texas ultimately succeeds in enacting its own new law that counters the federal government’s immigration control powers, it would be no surprise to see other states follow suit.
John Sandweg, who served as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Obama administration, told CNN he was surprised by the Supreme Court’s decision to ignore long-standing precedent. He argued that when other states tried to implement their own border security plans, “the courts blocked them.”
The president is under enormous pressure to address glaring weaknesses on immigration. A CNN poll released last month found that only 30% of Americans approve of his performance on this issue, and 79% of voters, including a bipartisan majority, say the border situation represents a crisis. I answered. While conservative media and politicians have spent years egging the president on with misleading reports about invading migrant caravans and open borders, the high level of interference from border crossers also deeply concerns many non-conservative voters. I’m letting you do it.
Biden is expected to argue that his hard-line policies are making matters worse, as he did recently when Congressional Republicans blocked border legislation. Even before Tuesday’s ruling, the president had significantly toughened his own rhetoric on immigration, slamming the tone of his predecessor and rival over the weekend.
“He separated children from parents at the border and locked up children. He is planning a mass deportation of literally millions of people here in this country. Millions of people. And he has removed birthright citizenship. We want to end it,” Biden said on Univision Radio on Tuesday.
“So this guy has contempt for Latinos,” the president said on his way to a tour of battleground states Arizona and Nevada. Immigration is a top priority in both states, and both states need to strengthen their defenses against Trump.
[ad_2]
Source link
