The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday let a Republican-backed Texas law take effect allowing state law enforcement authorities to arrest people suspected of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, rejecting a request by President Joe Biden’s administration.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and its three liberal justices dissented on Tuesday. The administration had asked the justices to freeze a judicial order allowing the Texas law to take effect while its challenge to the statute proceeds in the lower courts.

The law violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law by interfering with the U.S. government’s power to regulate immigration, the administration has argued.

  • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    781·
    8 months ago

    So what stops New York and California from issuing citizenship certificates and work permits to immigrants? After all SCROTUS just accepted immigration can be under state jurisdiction

      • nac82@lemm.ee
        11·
        8 months ago

        Texas and Florida have been using state emergency funds to pay private companies 10000x markup to ship illegal immigrants around the nation for over a year and have not been charged for it. They are lying about jobs to trick migrants into this plot. This falls under the terms for human trafficking.

        So no, it’s perfectly legal for a state to move migrants around. Especially if you are not coercing them.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      201·
      8 months ago

      I’m sad to say that we had roughly 50 years of sensible judges. This is SCOTUS gone back to normal.

      • Omega@lemmy.world
        22·
        8 months ago

        They have repeatedly deemed that states can overrule the federal government when it’s the federal government’s jurisdiction. They have repeatedly deemed the constitution is not enforceable. They have deemed that if they can argue vagueness in wording, it is either all encompassing or entirely non-binding based on the political leanings of issue. They have taken null cases with hypothetical damages in order to make rulings. The 3 Trump appointees deemed Roe v Wade settled law before overturning it.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            102·
            8 months ago

            Okay. You’re not a citizen anymore. And you no longer have any rights.

            See why rights have to extend to everyone within our borders now?

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                52·
                8 months ago

                Nope. Big government over there says you’re here illegally now. The guys with guns will be along anytime now to enforce your deportation. If you resist you’re going to be arrested and sentenced to work in the factory for no pay for several years and then dumped in Mexico.

          • theherk@lemmy.world
            81·
            8 months ago

            To say nothing of RvW, do you really think the constitution doesn’t provide some rights beyond citizens? For context, check out the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. More importantly, you won’t find this delineation in the Bill of Rights. Immigrants are granted due process, as written in the 14th as “any person”. There are many protections granted to all, precisely because we believed all are equal. This is well established constitutional law.

                • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
                  6·
                  8 months ago

                  It never ceases to amaze me how citizens of a nation can be so utterly wrong about what’s in their own constitution and bill of rights.

                  And I say this as a Canadian, because we’ve got Canadians quoting the Second Amendment like it’s law up here.

                  sigh

              • gallopingsnail@lemmy.sdf.org
                41·
                8 months ago

                Hang on, hang on, I think you missed it. It applies to “ALL PERSONS.” You’ll note that it does not include “unless you’re an illegal immigrant.”

          • Omega@lemmy.world
            21·
            8 months ago

            Funny, I didn’t even comment on immigrant rights or the validity of RvW.

  • no banana@lemmy.world
    17·
    8 months ago

    Isn’t this just gonna effectively move the federal border outside of Texas in terms of migration?

  • Gerudo@lemm.ee
    182·
    8 months ago

    Thankfully, some cities have already come out and said they won’t enforce the law. It’s just a lawsuit away from bankrupting some of the bordertowns.

  • Madison420@lemmy.world
    205·
    8 months ago

    If immigration is a state issue then I recognize Texas as an adversarial state and their citizens illegal immigrants, about half of my state would have to go back to Texas. So much Texas pride in the Midwest and not one single one of those fucks wants to go back because they know it’s a dystopian shit hole only barely supported by a port that is economically necessary for the nation.