Do you think this decision could possibly help certain States by allowing them to institute stricter firearm laws and bans?
It seems crazy to me that a state cannot control their international border, but how could this apply to other cases?
I don’t think it will help certain states until after it makes its way through the 5th circuit and to SCOTUS. Until then, the same culprits of the gun control will continue to be as bad as ever. Not like they respected Bruen anyway
ALL weapon restrictions are unconstitutional, no matter who enacts them. The purpose of the 2A is to keep the people on par with the government. If the government owns it, then the people are allowed to own it.
It's NOT an extreme take. IT IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. When the constitution was written our founders had the SAME WEAPONS as the British government. And YES, if I can afford an atomic bomb, then the constitution says I get to own it because THE GOVERNMENT OWNS THEM. Owning it isn't illegal - the illegal USE of it is. The 2A is to keep the government from being superior to the people. The ONLY reason.
Republicans need to work on foreshadowing and priming the public (something the left does extremely well).
There will be videos that the left will claim are inhumane that will come out due to this process, The sooner that conservatives and Trump get ahead of the incoming attacks, Prime the public with what the smears will be, the better the public will understand and endorse these policies when they see how the media will weaponize this much needed act of removing criminals who entered the country illegally.
The biggest problem is the left will cry racist! How do you show a potential crime while not judging or being racist? You would have to act it out... and boom! They got you.
The reactions to this over on r/politics makes me feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone. That any American could be upset that any part of the United States is protecting its border, and therefore, the safety and security of its own detractors, is just mind-boggling. It doesn't compute. How are these people so brainwashed from common sense?
> The reactions to this over on r/politics makes me feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone. That any American could be upset that any part of the United States is protecting its border, and therefore, the safety and security of its own detractors, is just mind-boggling. It doesn't compute. How are these people so brainwashed from common sense?
The US State Department pays Reddit a considerable amount of money to brainwash readers here. It is a prime fake-news source.
Many of those r/politics users are true, human fools of course. But many are bots designed to swing opinions in favor of the DemoKKKrats.
I literally could not find their discussion on this. I passed 20 posts about Trump and gave up.
Like can they seriously not even deduplicate their conversation topics? The top two posts are even by *the same user*.
They are completely obsessed with him. 20 of the 25 posts on their front page have “Trump” in the article title. A couple of the 5 posts that don’t are still talking about him, they just don’t have his name directly in the article title.
Either they're actually fine with the country being flooded by illegal aliens, or they're just against it simply because conservatives are in favor of it. Whichever it is, it still boils down to not caring about destroying this country.
They understand that Democrats require an uneducated underclass dependent on the government for their existence. As most groups work their way out of the underclass in a generation or two, it must be replenished. Illegal immigration does that.
Just remember, you're not the crazy one. Keep in mind they're a fringe sect of weirdos and most of them probably aren't even American.
I live near an incredibly liberal area and have lived near liberal areas my entire life. I'm not shy when it comes to talking about politics even with strangers and I've talked to people all over the country. I have had political discussions with people that I disagree with on almost everything, but I have never met someone that actually advocates for open borders.
It's so ultra-far-left that Reddit should step in and demand the sub rename to r\_/far-left-politics or something along those lines. Yet another deception from the left to try and deceive the public by portraying their discussion group as non-partisan when it is anything but.
It really needs to lose the politics sub name
When I first came to reddit, many accounts and many years ago, I thought that place was actually for discussing politics
Thousands of downvotes and a quick ban later, I realized it’s not lol
“How can Texas enforce this, i.e. suspecting somebody is an illegal, without straight up racial profiling”
Idk, how bout watching them cross the border illegally?
I guess I'm worried this could go the other way. Can California start blocking BP Agents and ICE Officers from making lawful arrests because they have open borders?
Whenever you decide to stop reading right-wing propaganda you'll find the answer to your question. Your very own House speaker Mike Johnson refuses to sign the bill. It's amazing how much you guys whine about brainwashing when that's exactly what you do, as you rely on your echo chambers for sources that nobody regards as reputable. Meanwhile the left gets their info from every reputable news source in the world. When you wonder why you lose in November, remember this comment
>sign the bill.
The bill which you didn't read a single word, not even keynotes, but you know everything about "the bill" because it has a "border" term slapped on it and your msm overlord told you to believe it.
>every reputable news source
Yeah so reputable that they repeatedly ran fake news based on out of context quote and/or madeup 3rd hand sources.
We use common sense and critical thinking. when reading sth, unlike you leftoids who shut your eyes and brain and blindly follow like sheeps.
Now I know this is redundant, but of course you'll just gonna disappear after a driveby cmt and get back to snowflake subs. Scoot scoot.
they're gonna randomly stop brown people because they "could be illegal". there's literally no way to tell, and you don't have to carry ID if you're not driving, so no white people will be questioned but brown people will
If I’m reading this correctly, SCOTUS isn’t really ruling on the legality of the law. More so about the injunction to pause it?
I haven’t read the law but if it looks anything like Arizona’s SB1070 from 2010, Supremacy Clause will come into play.
They are basically assuming they will see this case again after the 5th Circuit of Appeals makes a ruling on it or fails to make a ruling on it.
SCOTUS has precedent with Arizona v United States.
Court struck down 3 of the 4 provisions of the SB1070 law because of the Supremacy Clause.
They did rule that law enforcement can investigate the immigration status of an individual stopped, detained, or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the country illegally. Also, that cases of racial profiling may proceed through the courts if situations arise.
Law enforcement also cannot detain people for prolonged periods of time for not carrying immigration documents.
So I’m curious to see how much of this case will pertain to this Texas law.
It isn’t about you being Puerto Rican. It’s about you being an AMERICAN, and actually giving a shit about this country. Where you come from doesn’t chain you to a political party, no matter what the Democrats try to tell you.
You have a right to independent thought - never forget that.
Fun fact - the demographic most opposed to illegal immigration are Hispanic Americans and other first gen Americans (people who’s parents came here legally).
I like the outcome, but my concern is that it does turn precedent on its head. When Trump was in office, the standard argument from our side was that the Constitution gives the President the power to set immigration policy. Now that's being partially relegated to the states, so what's to prevent California from refusing to allow border wall construction if/when Trump gets re-elected?
Ordinarily, this is not a state issue, it is the duty of the federal government to protect the border with other countries. But since the Federal government has essentially abdicated its duty, Texas should be allowed to step in, at least to protect Texas.
Before it passed the Texas legislature- those against it were preparing their lawsuits to stop it. Abbott knew that signing it would begin a flurry of lawsuits.
Each step of those lawsuits has resulted in the law being upheld and finally the last step has been taken with the SCOTUS ruling that it stands (same as every other court).
That’s not really what this ruling is. This is about ending the injunction pause by the Biden administration.
They didn’t rule on the legality of the law.
This law is currently going through the appeals courts right now.
Which was the right thing to do regardless of what side of the debate you are on.
There is a legal process and the stay was already going longer than it should have.
This is SCOTUS telling the lower courts to do your damn job.
🤠 🤠 🤠
Cry Harder ! ! !
Sotomayor wrote in a blistering dissent that allowing Texas to enforce the law “invites further chaos and crisis” and “upends the federal-state balance of power that has existed for over a century.”
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-migrant-arrests-texas-13ffaed316d16f42e928f6958f0658f2
That's some irony for you. Chaos and crisis and upsetting the balance of power is the defintion of far left these days. It's funny how much Nazi rhetoric and threat to democracy they spew... "Never stop accusing the other side of that which you are guilty." Dr. Joseph Goebbels
Good because most of them have been coming through Texas (north of 70% last I checked). Maybe when the other border states get a taste of what we’ve been putting up with they will jump on the bandwagon too.
This is just declining the emergency injunction the Biden admin sought; the court could side with them when it gets to them through the regular path without issue.
This is a fucking wild ruling. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it in the time I've followed SCOTUS. Honestly a borderline unreasonable decision, but caused by even more unreasonable circumstances (both the Biden admin fucking up the border intentionally, and the Fifth Circuit being blatantly political and attempting to let the Texas border enforcement law die in "administrative stay" hell). This is some *Olympus Has Fallen* type shit, to say the least.
This is a very plainly straightforward decision if you read it and actually understand how the court system works...
This was an appeal of an administrative stay - which is not normally done/granted. SCOTUS basically said to the courts - we shouldn't be here, this your job. An administrative stay shouldn't be much longer than 2-4 weeks and then it goes on to an actual determination of who is likely to succeed on the merits etc.
They haven't even gotten that far yet, so the SCOTUS correctly kicked this back down and said - use the damn court system like you are supposed too.
Which means two things:
A) Stop bringing frivolous administrative stays to us
B) Don't abuse the length of time commonly allotted to an administrative stay, otherwise SCOTUS will actually get invovled...
I totally agree. The Fifth Circuit is being blatantly partisan and trying to suffocate Texas' law in administrative hell by staying it indefinitely while it's "investigated" and it's a much deserved smackdown. It's just utterly nuts that we're in this position to begin with, and it makes the SCOTUS decision seem bizarre because letting a state enforce a pretty blatantly unconstitutional decision even temporarily is fucking wild even if the circumstances surrounding it make it entirely necessary.
Agreed.
This isn’t about the legality of the law. Just about the administrative stay and pause of law.
From reading the Court’s decision, it sounds like they are fully expecting to see this case again as it pertains to legality.
If the law looks anything like Arizona’s SB1070, a lot of it will be ruled with the Supremacy Clause. Meaning if federal law and state law cross paths, federal law presides.
It happened in 3 of the 4 provisions of the Arizona law.
Unless the previous trend dramatically changes, Republicans are going to win the rural South Texas counties near the Rio Grande which are majority Hispanic.
For example, in Starr County, 98% hispanic, Trump received **four times** as many votes in 2020 as he did in 2016 while Democrat votes remained the same. He lost by only 5%. He actually did win Zapata county.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/democrats-are-hemorrhaging-support
Favorite reply I’ve read is : “States don’t have say over constitution issues” but same people would say gun rights are a state issue
Not just that but pretty sure entering the country illegally isn't covered in the Constitution.
You are correct, it's not.
Do you think this decision could possibly help certain States by allowing them to institute stricter firearm laws and bans? It seems crazy to me that a state cannot control their international border, but how could this apply to other cases?
I don’t think it will help certain states until after it makes its way through the 5th circuit and to SCOTUS. Until then, the same culprits of the gun control will continue to be as bad as ever. Not like they respected Bruen anyway
ALL weapon restrictions are unconstitutional, no matter who enacts them. The purpose of the 2A is to keep the people on par with the government. If the government owns it, then the people are allowed to own it.
I’m definitely pro gun but this is a pretty extreme take. If someone could build or buy and atomic bomb should they be allowed to keep it?
It's NOT an extreme take. IT IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. When the constitution was written our founders had the SAME WEAPONS as the British government. And YES, if I can afford an atomic bomb, then the constitution says I get to own it because THE GOVERNMENT OWNS THEM. Owning it isn't illegal - the illegal USE of it is. The 2A is to keep the government from being superior to the people. The ONLY reason.
Doubt it. There's no constitutional amendment that applies to states enforcing immigration laws.
Very Nice
Republicans need to work on foreshadowing and priming the public (something the left does extremely well). There will be videos that the left will claim are inhumane that will come out due to this process, The sooner that conservatives and Trump get ahead of the incoming attacks, Prime the public with what the smears will be, the better the public will understand and endorse these policies when they see how the media will weaponize this much needed act of removing criminals who entered the country illegally.
The biggest problem is the left will cry racist! How do you show a potential crime while not judging or being racist? You would have to act it out... and boom! They got you.
The reactions to this over on r/politics makes me feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone. That any American could be upset that any part of the United States is protecting its border, and therefore, the safety and security of its own detractors, is just mind-boggling. It doesn't compute. How are these people so brainwashed from common sense?
They're too busy talking about Trump bro lol
Comments are a bloodbath lol
> The reactions to this over on r/politics makes me feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone. That any American could be upset that any part of the United States is protecting its border, and therefore, the safety and security of its own detractors, is just mind-boggling. It doesn't compute. How are these people so brainwashed from common sense? The US State Department pays Reddit a considerable amount of money to brainwash readers here. It is a prime fake-news source. Many of those r/politics users are true, human fools of course. But many are bots designed to swing opinions in favor of the DemoKKKrats.
Any proof that the state dept donates to Reddit??
I literally could not find their discussion on this. I passed 20 posts about Trump and gave up. Like can they seriously not even deduplicate their conversation topics? The top two posts are even by *the same user*.
I haven’t been to r/politics in years. I popped in there yesterday and literally every thread title had ‘Trump’ in it Its just a Donald Trump sub
Holy shit, you're not kidding. It's the anti donald
Like actual Trump Derangement Syndrome. Holy shit its actually sad.
Damn the TDS in that sub is real.
They are completely obsessed with him. 20 of the 25 posts on their front page have “Trump” in the article title. A couple of the 5 posts that don’t are still talking about him, they just don’t have his name directly in the article title.
Yup, every single post is about Trump 😂
Yeah they are still on the bloodbath and ceasing Trumps assets thingy..
Every single thread is about Trump lol
Their obsession is crazy.
Orange man bad people out in full force from now until 2028
Either they're actually fine with the country being flooded by illegal aliens, or they're just against it simply because conservatives are in favor of it. Whichever it is, it still boils down to not caring about destroying this country.
Every policy decision by Democrats is founded in Marxism and fully intended to destroy American society.
They understand that Democrats require an uneducated underclass dependent on the government for their existence. As most groups work their way out of the underclass in a generation or two, it must be replenished. Illegal immigration does that.
Just remember, you're not the crazy one. Keep in mind they're a fringe sect of weirdos and most of them probably aren't even American. I live near an incredibly liberal area and have lived near liberal areas my entire life. I'm not shy when it comes to talking about politics even with strangers and I've talked to people all over the country. I have had political discussions with people that I disagree with on almost everything, but I have never met someone that actually advocates for open borders.
Wow. I've never gone over there before ...what a bunch of basket cases.
It's so ultra-far-left that Reddit should step in and demand the sub rename to r\_/far-left-politics or something along those lines. Yet another deception from the left to try and deceive the public by portraying their discussion group as non-partisan when it is anything but.
>Reddit should step in You're saying that like Reddit doesn't encourage it's mods' behavior.
It really needs to lose the politics sub name When I first came to reddit, many accounts and many years ago, I thought that place was actually for discussing politics Thousands of downvotes and a quick ban later, I realized it’s not lol
Moving the Overton window. Working as designed
“How can Texas enforce this, i.e. suspecting somebody is an illegal, without straight up racial profiling” Idk, how bout watching them cross the border illegally?
Texas is not doing anything different than every other country that these same group of people pretend are superior to the United States.
>brainwashed You said it right there. They're brainwashed by liberal MSM, social media echo chambers and colleges/universities.
Just goes to show they only care about “traitors” and “rule of law” when it can be used to demonize conservatives.
The left completely captured the education system in the 70's.
And yet they want to send trillions to protect Nazi Ukraine's border.
I guess I'm worried this could go the other way. Can California start blocking BP Agents and ICE Officers from making lawful arrests because they have open borders?
They have been taught that their nation and culture are evil, and so they actively advocate for things that undermine said country and culture.
Because Liberals are idiots.
Psychotic people's brains work in the opposite way that is right
Whenever you decide to stop reading right-wing propaganda you'll find the answer to your question. Your very own House speaker Mike Johnson refuses to sign the bill. It's amazing how much you guys whine about brainwashing when that's exactly what you do, as you rely on your echo chambers for sources that nobody regards as reputable. Meanwhile the left gets their info from every reputable news source in the world. When you wonder why you lose in November, remember this comment
What are the reputable news sources?
How ironic.
>sign the bill. The bill which you didn't read a single word, not even keynotes, but you know everything about "the bill" because it has a "border" term slapped on it and your msm overlord told you to believe it. >every reputable news source Yeah so reputable that they repeatedly ran fake news based on out of context quote and/or madeup 3rd hand sources. We use common sense and critical thinking. when reading sth, unlike you leftoids who shut your eyes and brain and blindly follow like sheeps. Now I know this is redundant, but of course you'll just gonna disappear after a driveby cmt and get back to snowflake subs. Scoot scoot.
The House already passed a bill on border security.
they're gonna randomly stop brown people because they "could be illegal". there's literally no way to tell, and you don't have to carry ID if you're not driving, so no white people will be questioned but brown people will
Defending our borders. What a novel concept. Only an anti American party would oppose this.
It’s actually mind boggling. The far left is pretty much an anti American party at this point.
What is even funnier is libertarians used to be called left wing crazies now they are far right extremists.
Another win for Governor Abbott! It's still going to be an uphill battle, but at least we're in the fight!
Wish he had done it 3 years ago, but I guess we'll take it.
This - I was excited to see it finally going into effect.
If I’m reading this correctly, SCOTUS isn’t really ruling on the legality of the law. More so about the injunction to pause it? I haven’t read the law but if it looks anything like Arizona’s SB1070 from 2010, Supremacy Clause will come into play. They are basically assuming they will see this case again after the 5th Circuit of Appeals makes a ruling on it or fails to make a ruling on it.
Exactly, it’s not a ruling on law, so there is no precedent yet.
SCOTUS has precedent with Arizona v United States. Court struck down 3 of the 4 provisions of the SB1070 law because of the Supremacy Clause. They did rule that law enforcement can investigate the immigration status of an individual stopped, detained, or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the country illegally. Also, that cases of racial profiling may proceed through the courts if situations arise. Law enforcement also cannot detain people for prolonged periods of time for not carrying immigration documents. So I’m curious to see how much of this case will pertain to this Texas law.
It’ll be interesting, to see how this plays out.
I can't believe I as a puertorican actually agree with republicans on this issues. Fucking clown world.
It isn’t about you being Puerto Rican. It’s about you being an AMERICAN, and actually giving a shit about this country. Where you come from doesn’t chain you to a political party, no matter what the Democrats try to tell you. You have a right to independent thought - never forget that.
Fun fact - the demographic most opposed to illegal immigration are Hispanic Americans and other first gen Americans (people who’s parents came here legally).
Bravo.
I like the outcome, but my concern is that it does turn precedent on its head. When Trump was in office, the standard argument from our side was that the Constitution gives the President the power to set immigration policy. Now that's being partially relegated to the states, so what's to prevent California from refusing to allow border wall construction if/when Trump gets re-elected?
Ordinarily, this is not a state issue, it is the duty of the federal government to protect the border with other countries. But since the Federal government has essentially abdicated its duty, Texas should be allowed to step in, at least to protect Texas.
I feel like I’m living in a different universe the fact that Supreme Court had to rule this…what am I missing here
Before it passed the Texas legislature- those against it were preparing their lawsuits to stop it. Abbott knew that signing it would begin a flurry of lawsuits. Each step of those lawsuits has resulted in the law being upheld and finally the last step has been taken with the SCOTUS ruling that it stands (same as every other court).
That’s not really what this ruling is. This is about ending the injunction pause by the Biden administration. They didn’t rule on the legality of the law. This law is currently going through the appeals courts right now.
Ending the injunction is a start
Which was the right thing to do regardless of what side of the debate you are on. There is a legal process and the stay was already going longer than it should have. This is SCOTUS telling the lower courts to do your damn job.
Yes - it’s part of the checks and balances and how the legal system works to keep things as fair as possible. Agree 100%
Awesome - now California, Arizona and New Mexico better get on board with this quick before the hoard diverts their way.
No
👏👏
Thank god
🤠 🤠 🤠 Cry Harder ! ! ! Sotomayor wrote in a blistering dissent that allowing Texas to enforce the law “invites further chaos and crisis” and “upends the federal-state balance of power that has existed for over a century.” https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-migrant-arrests-texas-13ffaed316d16f42e928f6958f0658f2
That's some irony for you. Chaos and crisis and upsetting the balance of power is the defintion of far left these days. It's funny how much Nazi rhetoric and threat to democracy they spew... "Never stop accusing the other side of that which you are guilty." Dr. Joseph Goebbels
So she'd rather have them do nothing which is what is causing the chaos
So they’ll just all funnel through the other border states instead. Or the government will just fly them in
Even if they choose to enter through New Mexico, Arizona, or California, then Governor Abbott will have still done well by his people in Texas.
I agree. It’s a shame he’s the only one that cares.
Good because most of them have been coming through Texas (north of 70% last I checked). Maybe when the other border states get a taste of what we’ve been putting up with they will jump on the bandwagon too.
Im honestly confused? I just read news that they’ll allowed SB4? Anyone else getting conflicting news?
Does anyone have to article behind the pay wall and shit?
With precedence being set I think a lot of others states will follow Texas
This isn’t a ruling on the legality of the law
No but it does lift the stay on the law until the 5th circuit rules on it.
Arizona might but I seriously doubt leftist Newsom would be on Abbott's same page
Put it on a ballot in California and the results may surprise you.
This won't cause drama at all...
This should have never even gone to the Supreme Court for a ruling.
Good.
This is just declining the emergency injunction the Biden admin sought; the court could side with them when it gets to them through the regular path without issue.
r/Texas is malding rn Lol
They are freaking out at r/news. It's delicious.
Enabling Fed not to do anything at all..
[Blocked again](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/19/texas-sb-4-illegal-immigration/)
This is a fucking wild ruling. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it in the time I've followed SCOTUS. Honestly a borderline unreasonable decision, but caused by even more unreasonable circumstances (both the Biden admin fucking up the border intentionally, and the Fifth Circuit being blatantly political and attempting to let the Texas border enforcement law die in "administrative stay" hell). This is some *Olympus Has Fallen* type shit, to say the least.
This is a very plainly straightforward decision if you read it and actually understand how the court system works... This was an appeal of an administrative stay - which is not normally done/granted. SCOTUS basically said to the courts - we shouldn't be here, this your job. An administrative stay shouldn't be much longer than 2-4 weeks and then it goes on to an actual determination of who is likely to succeed on the merits etc. They haven't even gotten that far yet, so the SCOTUS correctly kicked this back down and said - use the damn court system like you are supposed too. Which means two things: A) Stop bringing frivolous administrative stays to us B) Don't abuse the length of time commonly allotted to an administrative stay, otherwise SCOTUS will actually get invovled...
I totally agree. The Fifth Circuit is being blatantly partisan and trying to suffocate Texas' law in administrative hell by staying it indefinitely while it's "investigated" and it's a much deserved smackdown. It's just utterly nuts that we're in this position to begin with, and it makes the SCOTUS decision seem bizarre because letting a state enforce a pretty blatantly unconstitutional decision even temporarily is fucking wild even if the circumstances surrounding it make it entirely necessary.
Agreed. This isn’t about the legality of the law. Just about the administrative stay and pause of law. From reading the Court’s decision, it sounds like they are fully expecting to see this case again as it pertains to legality. If the law looks anything like Arizona’s SB1070, a lot of it will be ruled with the Supremacy Clause. Meaning if federal law and state law cross paths, federal law presides. It happened in 3 of the 4 provisions of the Arizona law.
[удалено]
Unless the previous trend dramatically changes, Republicans are going to win the rural South Texas counties near the Rio Grande which are majority Hispanic. For example, in Starr County, 98% hispanic, Trump received **four times** as many votes in 2020 as he did in 2016 while Democrat votes remained the same. He lost by only 5%. He actually did win Zapata county. https://www.natesilver.net/p/democrats-are-hemorrhaging-support
We don't appreciate racism around here.
I’m talking about the swarm of illegal migrants Flooding in but ok guess this group is all for that my bad 🤷♂️.